Talk:George III

Active discussions
George III is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 16, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 27, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
January 18, 2010Featured article reviewKept
August 24, 2016Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 25, 2013, October 25, 2017, and October 25, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

New and better version of Hanoverian Royal StandardEdit

Please have a look a this image/article:

 

Thank you.

George III son Governor of Barbados?Edit

I've been told that one of George III son's was sent to Barbados during his rein to governor that island. Does anyone know which of the Prince's this was? Roberta

Requested move 1 September 2020Edit

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: Moved. I note no disagreement with the Support’s COMMONNAME, CONCISE, and PRIMARYTOPIC claims and, in fact, no policy basis whatsoever among the opposition arguments. —В²C 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) В²C 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


George III of the United KingdomGeorge III – Since "George III" already redirects to this page, what about moving the article's name to simply "George III"? M. Armando (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

– Relevant discussion: Talk:George IV of the United Kingdom § Requested move 30 August 2020. ItsPugle 06:38, Thursday, September 3, 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as George III is already considered the primary topic based on the redirect here. There is no need for WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION here. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. Clear primary topic. JIP | Talk 22:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support without a doubt. Interstellarity (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minimalism gone silly, it helps nothing and will do some hurt. There are other topics at George III (disambiguation), and increasing the ambiguity increases the likelihood of mislinking, and the difficulty of detecting and fixing mislinks. No one looking for King George III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland will be in any way waylaid by the offered title continuance "of the United Kingdom", and it definitely helps to be sure that this, among the many George III ... titles, is the one wanted. And that's just the search / java title-complete issues, more importantly a good title is not so terse, considering that this is a reference work not a newspaper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. George III already links to this page, and in George III (disambiguation) this one is already shown up as the primary one. No need for disambiguation. Impru20talk 11:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. No reason given for change. My objections to this weird wave is already given out in Talk:George IV of the United Kingdom. These conversations should be combined. Walrasiad (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
*Support as per nominator explains it is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME for all George III articles. 180.242.45.27 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Strike sock !vote.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself from the other talk page, that's not a reason. You are removing information from the title that gives clarity and improves search. What exactly is the purpose/gain? Walrasiad (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a perfectly good reason. In fact, following our article naming policies is usually considered the best reason to move an article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
So basically no reason. If you expect someone to support a change, at least pretend to try to provide a rationale. Walrasiad (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel like you aren't even listening to what I'm saying. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am not sure you're actually saying anything. I see the drawbacks to the change, but no one has yet said what the gains are exactly. That's what I'm looking for when I ask for "reason". Walrasiad (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Requested move discussions are supposed to be centered around Wikipedia's article titling policies. The people in support of this move have cited multiple article naming policies that support this move. It is you who is not making any policy-based arguments against the move. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very aware of the policies. And more besides. But we evidently have a different interpretations of how they apply here. So I'm bothering to explain. It would be nice if you did too.
But if you want to play narrowly, let's play, since "George III of the United Kingdom" is used precisely as the example in WP:SOVEREIGN. Where the instructions are (I replicate here):
"*kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}"."
The exceptions for "common name" are all non-ordinals, or to quote:
"*If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania,"
And the ordinal exception relevant to here (a very recent policy change, which I disagree with, and is currently causing great damage across Wikipedia IMO, but anyway):
* If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Ivan V, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION."
which is clearly not the case here, as there are clearly plenty of other George III's: George III (disambiguation). And, to reiterate once more, "George III of the United Kingdom" is used precisely as an example in WP:SOVEREIGN.
Besides WP:SOVEREIGN I could also quote WP:PRECISION too. So if you don't want to bother with providing explanations in discussion, at least be aware of the relevant policies.
Walrasiad (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for actually making a policy-based argument. As far as WP:SOVEREIGN is concerned, it does say that monarch titles "normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". But then goes on to say that if the country is not necessary because there are no other monarchs of the exact same name then not to use the country, as doing so would go against Wikipedia's general article naming policies. Unfortunately, WP:SOVEREIGN does not explicitly address what specifically to do when there is a monarch that is the primary topic, as is the case here. In that case, we should fall back on our general article naming policies (as WP:SOVEREIGN suggests) such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE when one monarch is the primary for that name, as WP:SOVEREIGN is not meant to go counter to our general policies, but merely meant to compliment them. And I think it has already been stated why "George III" is the most common English name for this monarch, and it should be self-evident why "George III" is a more concise title than "George III of the United Kingdom". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It says it clearly "no other monarch". And I'm not sure what you're hand-waving about. WP: SOVEREIGN is precisely intended for articles like this, so much so that "George III of the United Kingdom" is used as an explicit example.
If you have a different interpretation of how policy applies, well that is why I was asking for your reasons. But apparently you did not deign to give them. So now I'm giving you another chance and waiting to hear them.
And, oh, I don't want to hear "Britain matters more" again as you said in the other talk page.(read: WP:BIAS, WP: GLOBAL) Walrasiad (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:BIAS/WP: GLOBAL is merely an essay, not official Wikipedia policies or guidelines, so I have no intention of reading it, as it is irrelevant to this discussion. And I stand by my previous statement that the English Wikipedia is for people who can read the English language, and therefore British monarchs are going to be "more important" (i.e. the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) than Georgian monarchs, as Britain has many more English speakers and readers than does Georgia. And I laid out above very clearly that WP:SOVEREIGN does not specifically address this situation where one monarch is the primary topic, so we must rely on our general article naming policies at WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to reach a proper conclusion here. Perhaps you should go read what I have already written, because having me retype it again seems like a waste of my time. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
(ran into edit conflicts)
Asking you to be mindful of bias is not irrelevant - particularly since you have evinced it yourself.
It is irrelevant for a move discussion, because move discussions are about our article naming policies. Being mindful of bias is important to keep in mind when dealing with article content, but not titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
As for the rest, you've really said nothing. Things are laid out pretty clearly in WP:SOVEREIGN, and it is the norm pretty much across all pages dealing with monarchs. Not sure why you're trying to reinvent the wheel.
If you could expand with reasons, that is, explain what is gained by forcing an exception to the norm, I'd like to hear them and take them into consideration. For now, I see only drawbacks, and don't really see any gain. Maybe there are some I'm not seeing. But since you continue to refuse to give a rationale, I am afraid the only conclusion I can come to is that you really haven't given this any thought at all. Walrasiad (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This is not an exception to the norm. The norm on Wikipedia is that articles are titled at their most common name in English, unless some type of disambiguation (preferably natural disambiguation) is required. If there is only one article of a particular name, then no disambiguation is used, because it is unnecessary. And if there is a primary topic, then the primary topic does not use disambiguation, but all other articles of the same name do. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, you're trying to reinvent the wheel. WP:SOVEREIGN has already sorted that out for you (indeed quite recently, and what you're proposing was not accepted - as you very well know, since you participated in that discussion). Walrasiad (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Walrasiad, for an user who self-identifies as "no longer very active on Wikipedia" you seem much engaged. Quite a stamina for debate. Why don't we go ahead and add "of the United Kingdom" to Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II so people won't get too much confused or even offended by our bias? M. Armando (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Because I'm an educator, and I don't like seeing damage being done. Walrasiad (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
And I suppose then we are being educated by you. Thank you, our very own Socrates. M. Armando (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an educational function, so when you're proposing to remove clarity and usefulness to students and the general public, and make things obscure, more difficult and even spread misinformation (e.g. insinuating there is only one "George III") or bias (e.g. "Britain matters more"), it is detrimental to to the educational mission of an encyclopedia. If your change furthers that educational purpose, I'd be all for it. But I really don't see it, and you're not even bothering to explain how it helps. Yes, I take education seriously. Do you? Walrasiad (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I can just as easily argue that having the article titled "George III of the United Kingdom" causes damage because it can mislead readers into thinking that that is the monarch's actual title when it is, in fact, not. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
That is an argument. But the point of article titles is usefulness, not formalism, so you can actually find what you're looking for. It does not pretend to be his official title - none of them do. If they did, all Swedish monarch articles would be titled "X of Swedes, Geats and Vandals" rather than "of Sweden". ;) Maybe it's not ideal, but it's functional, accessible, understandable - certainly a heck of a lot more functional and less misleading than merely "George III". Walrasiad (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONCISE and WP: PRIMARYTOPIC and literally just common sense. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The consise name is an invitation for confusion and wrong internal links. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
George III already redirects here, so how could that be an "invitation for wrong internal links"? Impru20talk 12:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I miss those days, when the monarch bio articles were so neat, in their Name # of country form :( GoodDay (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
You mean like a month ago? It worked well for over a decade. Not sure how this happened, but it is causing a lot of damage across Wikipedia - and predictably so. Just reducing recognizability for no good reason. Walrasiad (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A month ago? Try a decade ago. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was moved to Elizabeth II way back in 2010. Stop acting like moving monarch titles to their actual common name rather than a made up Wikipedia format is somehow something new and unprecedented. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Not comparable. She's a current well-known celebrity, pretty constantly in the news, TV and gossip magazines, and is treated as a BLP. The others do not have anywhere near that degree of recognizability. The changes began happening a month ago. You know that, so stop being disingenuous. Walrasiad (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh really? The changes began happening a month ago? What about George VI (moved in 2014), Edward VIII (moved in 2011), George V (moved in 2014), Edward VII (moved in 2014), and Queen Victoria (moved in 2010)? The consensus for this shift in article naming has been happening for a very long time. I'm not the one being disingenuous here. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Outside of Queen Victoria (which has its own rationale), the rest are relatively inconsequential 20th Century celebrity royals, probably moved by royal gossip-loving fans, moves not worth educators and historians fighting over. There's nothing more exhausting on Wikipedia than trying to preserve articles from being walled off and ruined by mobs of feverish fans and/or ridiculous nationalists. I've learned to pick my fights long ago. There's a reason I stay away from 20th Century articles. There's a reason I am semi-retired.
Outside these tribal preserves (which no sensible person would dare to wade into), the norm was very clear, has been so for over a decade, and was explicitly spelled out in WP:SOVEREIGN until last month.
That said, again you're being deceptive, since you are perfectly aware of the recent changes, how they began with Elizabeth a couple of months ago, and the resulting nationalist sweeps in French, Spanish, etc. articles, and, of course, the change in WP:SOVEREIGN as you participated in that RfC yourself. You know very well what the norm was. Please stop feigning ignorance. Walrasiad (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
First you accuse me of being disingenuous and now you are accusing me of being deceptive, when I am being neither. You should really read over Wikipedia:Assume good faith. And you know, because I have made you aware of it, that WP:SOVEREIGN is silent when it comes to what to do when one monarch is considered the primary topic for a name shared by multiple monarchs. And there was indeed a RfC on whether or not to add a global provision saying that the primary monarch should not have the country disambiguator added. And that provision failed as no consensus, which means there was neither consensus to add it nor consensus against adding it. Which means we default to the situation we have here where each article must be looked at and discussed on a case by case basis, which is exactly what we are doing here. But if this whole process is too irksome for you, then perhaps you should think about going back into retirement. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. Given you know the result of the RfC, and know that was precisely one of the items discussed (item No.3), and you know it wasn't approved, it defaults to the prior norm, not the one that wasn't approved! That's some sheer illogicity or Orwellian doublethink you are going through ("there was no consensus to change, ergo that means there is no consensus not to change..." ?!?!). If there is no consensus to change, things remain as they are. The result is written in WP:SOVEREIGN as clear as day - no other monarch. You are trying to force by barrage what you couldn't obtain by RfC.
If you're interested in discussing on a case-by-case basis, I'm happy to indulge. Indeed, I have been begging you, pleading you, to discuss rationales and reasons, on this page as well as the other one, so we can take them into consideration. Instead, you have consistently refused to provide reasons, defaulting to a stubborn formalism. Well, now that the formalism works against you, now you want to talk?
Fine, you know what, let's talk. Let's lay all this nonsense aside. I'll "assume good faith". Lay out your arguments. You know mine already. Explain to me exactly what is gained by this change? How does it improve this encyclopedia? How does it make it better and easier for the audience which Wikpedia serves? Walrasiad (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
There was/is no prior universal norm for monarchs that are the primary. See all the examples above that go contrary to what you keep claiming is the universal standard that clearly is not. The RfC was about trying to set a universal standard. It failed to do so, so we are back to case-by-case basis. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You have been given many rationals and reasons above. You are the one choosing to dismiss them as unpersuasive, as I dismiss yours an unpersuasive. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You want me to explain to you the rationals for why on Wikipedia we title articles their common name, and why we give primary topics top billing without a disambiguator, and why we make titles more concise as opposed to more verbose? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you the rationals for why Wikipedia article naming policies are what they are. Just go read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Now, why don't you explain to me why you don't think "George III" is the most common English name for this monarch and why this article is not the primary topic for "George III". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You want me to explain to you the rationals for why on Wikipedia we title articles their common name, and why we give primary topics top billing without a disambiguator, and why we make titles more concise as opposed to more verbose? I'm not going to waste my time doing that. Just go read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Now, why don't you explain to me why you don't think "George III" is the most common English name for this monarch and why this article is not the primary topic for "George III". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
[@Rreagan007: I've taken the liberty of putting your various comments together at the end. I'd prefer you not break up my reply and insert your comments in the middle of my reply, since it makes it confusing and hard for others to follow who is writing what. Just add your comments together afterwards.]
Of course it isn't. First off, there is no indication in the term "George III" that this refers to a monarch at all. It could a sequel of a children's movie, a rapper with a funny spelling, George Foreman's third kid, etc.
In readings for general audiences (not specialist works, general works, which is Wikipedia's reference point), introductions to George III always add some additional indicator he was a monarch, and usually a specifically British one, e.g. "King George III" or "George III, King of the United Kingdom", "British king George III", or something along those lines. Nobody, except perhaps specialists talking to other specialists, introduces the name "George III" cold. They always mention "King", "British" or both when introducing his name. No competent editor would let you get away with that in a general publication, and should you try dropping that name in a classroom or public lecture you will be certain to draw blank stares. So you are removing a very important plank of Wikipedia criteria for article titles: recognizability.
You assume (wrongly) that everyone (British, Indonesian or otherwise) knows who or what "George III" refers to. They don't. I assure you. You have to have some indicator at least of king. Even something as straightforward and brief, say, the Hamilton musical playbill, bothers to write "King George III", not "George III" in the character list. So, no, your primary assertion about common name is wrong.
Now Wikipedia article titles don't allow the monicker "King" in article titles, so that necessary qualifier for recognition cannot be added here. Which leaves us with "of the United Kingdom", as the only way to retain some recognizability in the title. Perfect? No, it really should be "George III, King of the United Kingdom" (like Britannica uses). But since we're advised not to go all the way there, it leaves us with "George III of the United Kingdom" as the best way to make the article recognizable and useful for our audience. Walrasiad (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I see. So what you're saying is that you think every Wikipedia article title should have some kind of descriptor. Therefore, the George Washington article should be moved to "George Washington, President of the United States" because some readers might be confused about whether an article simply titled "George Washington" was about the president or an aircraft carrier. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
George Washington is known as George Washington. King George III is known as King George III. Says so on the Hamilton playbill. He's not George III - Ayeayeaye is not his last name. Walrasiad (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Now that's just plain nonsense. Roman numerals are not read as such only if the subject is titled king nor are they otherwise read as letters. George III is called just that by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and by several biographical works cited in this article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Given there is no indication they are monarchs in the article title, how are they to be read? There is no more reason for a searcher to assume "George III" refers to a British monarch than it is to assume "Rocky III" refers to a King of Sicily and "Malcolm X" to a King of Scotland.
Now you may have royals on the brain and know that, but most people don't. If they know him at all, they'll know him as "King George III", which is the common name, not "George III". There is nothing indicating "George III" should not be read as "George Three" or "George Ayeayeaye".
You may know the digit III is not a surname, it's a half-title. It means the "third king of Britain of that name". Notice what I said there? "King", and "of Britain", which is how people commonly refer to him. But there is no indication or even insinuation he is a monarch in the article title. The reason we use the norm Name # of country is precisely to imply a monarch without having to explicitly use the term "King" in the article title. It was a compromise to avoid the longer "George III, King of the United Kingdom" (like Britannica does, and we do with non-ordinals like "John, King of England").
This proposal is removing useful information, making the article title less recognizable, and consequently less accessible. What is the gain, exactly? Walrasiad (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
A name that is never used in reference works (George III of the United Kingdom) is not more recognizable than the name that is commonly, if not predominantly, used in reference works (George III). Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You've been citing British-oriented works or works of narrow interest. To general Anglo-American audiences, "King George III" is the common name, e.g. Spartacus, NPG, RCT, PBS, etc. And to global audiences, outside Anglo-American bubble, there is even less recognition unless specifically noted to be British monarch. Please be mindful of who the audience for Wikipedia is. Not everyone is British and not everyone is into royal kitsch. You are removing information that provides some (if not perfect) recognizability, and substituting it with something that helps none at all. Walrasiad (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not British and I am not into royal kitsch. The man is commonly known as George III, and WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. The present title is hardly used outside Wikipedia and the move proposed here would thus be an improvement. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hm. Your edit history seems to suggest you have a rather unusual interest in royals, aristocrats, princes & princesses. Whatever you want to call it, your awareness of royals is certainly far, far superior from a general audience. I urge you to keep that in mind. The man is commonly known as "King George III", not "George III". If you don't want to include "King", then you need another indicator that he is a monarch and not a TV show. That's what "Name # of country" norm was devised for. You claim "improvement", but I don't see how it improves. Walrasiad (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's the Google Ngrams of "George III" vs. "King George III".[1] It's clear that "George III" is more common than "King George III". And as I have pointed out to you before, per WP:CONCISE, we title articles with "sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area", not to someone unfamiliar with the general subject area. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
That's rather silly double-counting. The "George III" results include all "King George III", as well as any "George III, King of Britain", etc. And of course, all instances in a text after King George III is already introduced in title or at beginning.
As to "familiarity", that's ambiguous. I write and teach economic history. I cover a lot of this period, often quite in detail. Is that part of the general subject area? Yet trust me when I tell you most students would not recognize a monarch by cold name alone.
If we go down a couple rungs, to, say, Marcia Johnson, the 10th grader from Illinois who just watched Hamilton, is she unfamiliar? She will likely merely remember him as "King George" and that he was British, and if you press her for the number, she will probably not remember, and maybe not even know there was more than one. Now, Marcia may not be the best-read person in Illinois, but she is pretty representative of the audience for Wikipedia - a global audience with diverse educational and geographical backgrounds. She won't click "George III" when it comes up in a search, because it doesn't indicate he is either king or British. She'll likely assume its the third season of some obscure Australian TV show and keep looking. She's got a class presentation tomorrow, why are you making life complicated for her?
Again, there's no gain to this change. You are merely removing information that is helpful to a lot of people and making it less recognizable. You still haven't explained what the gain is.
And please don't slip back into pointless formalism. We know this change violates WP: SOVEREIGN stipulation of no other monarch. You asked for an exception. So I would like to hear something more substantive about the positives of this change. Surely you have some positives in mind, don't you? Walrasiad (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The "double counting" is easily corrected for just by subtracting the hits for "King George III" from "George III", so if results for "George III" are more than double that of "King George III" then you know that "George III" is more common than "King George III". And this change absolutely does not violate WP:SOVEREIGN, as it does not specifically address what to do when one monarch is considered to be the primary for a given monarchical name. And the gain is that the article title will be moved to the WP:COMMONNAME, so it's the exact same gain as any other Wikipedia article being located at its common name. I'm not going to waste my time trying to justify to you what is gained from Wikipedia's article naming policy of titling articles at their common name. It's explained at WP:COMMONNAME, so you can just go read the policy justifications there for yourself. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
(caught in edit conflict)
No it's not. You're still double counting all iterations identifying him as monarch, e.g. "George III, King of United Kingdom", "British monarch George III", etc. And moreover you are also spuriously counting legal citations (all British parliamentary acts & laws are cited as "Regnal Year Monarch Chapter" - you know that, right?).
Yes, it does violate WP:SOVEREIGN, it specifically addresses the matter, and it explicitly requires no other country. And of course this violates it, as we have King George III of Georgia, etc. Now, you may say Georgia is just some piddling country no one cares about, or imperialistically assert only Britain matters, but I don't think it advisable to enter into a nationalist pissing contests on Wikipedia. They are very acrimonious. These are the kind of things the WP:SOVEREIGN guideline exist to to prevent.
Any big country is going to naturally outweigh any small country in references. That doesn't mean it trumps. Otherwise Wikipedia will be simply the Encyclopedia from the view of United States, Britons, and some other Big Countries. If we were going by your blind criteria, the US state of Georgia would be the primary article for "Georgia", and the sovereign country in the Caucasus can go jump in the lake. I know you said you don't give a damn about "essays", but I will still urge to remind again,WP:BIAS and WP:GLOBAL. This is, after all, a global encyclopedia we are building.
You asked for an exception to WP:SOVEREIGN. I indulged it. I invited you to lay out the positives to weigh against the negatives.
Negatives are clear to me: your change is promoting an error (not commonname), removing recognizibility to general audiences, making access and usability more difficult, promoting misinformation (insinuating only one George III), promoting bias (Britain matters more than Georgia) and overall reducing the educational value of Wikipedia. That's the negatives I see and have outlined.
The positives... well, you have none, or at least feel like you don't have to provide any. So I should conclude there are no positives? Or that you are not taking this very seriously? Or have not really thought it through?
I don't see enough reason provided for an exception to WP:SOVEREIGN. I have assumed good faith, I have asked, you've refused. I don't know more to say. Walrasiad (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If you think that "King George III" is a more common name than "George III", then you should be advocating that we move the article to King George III. But I'm sure even you would have to acknowledge that "George III of the United Kingdom" is NOT the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
No it is not. But it is better than the proposed change. We decided long ago not to clutter article titles with "King" (with some exceptions, e.g. Queen Victoria). But we still needed a way to retain recognizability as a monarch and avoid nationalist pissing contests, and that's why the "of country" norm was adopted. It may not tick all the nice boxes, but it has been perfectly workable for decades and the best solution under the circumstances. Walrasiad (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
So instead of cluttering the article title with "King" you prefer to clutter the article title with "of the United Kingdom". Honestly, I'd prefer to have the title be "King George III", if that was truly the most common name, because at least that is a title that is actually used, whereas "George III of the United Kingdom" is not a name that is used at all, but is rather a Wikipedia constructed natural disambiguation. Disambiguation in article titles is fine when necessary, but it just isn't necessary in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Months ago (if not longer) when this trend away from Name # of country began gathering steam, I proposed using Name # (country) for those monarch bios with the same name & regnal # as other countries. This proposal was made to 'try' & keep the monarch bios as close to neatness/sameness as possible, but was rejected. If adopted? we would've had George II (Great Britain) & George II (Greece) for examples. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Going from natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation is worse, in my opinion. Where disambiguation is needed, the natural disambiguation is perfectly fine. Where disambiguation isn't needed, whether because there is primary topic or because there is only one monarch of that name, then just don't use any disambiguation. This is the norm across Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
It’s the norm, but it’s stupid. It hurts recognizability. It throws consistency to the wind. It frequently fails PRECISE. It misread CONCISE, concise is about information density, discarding information for shortness is called “brevity”. It begs for linking errors, and makes them harder to detect. What is the advantage? My working theory is the people obsessed with titling are typically obsessed with algorithms to the exclusion of the reader. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
It does not hurt recognizability to move an article from a title never used to a title commonly used. Surtsicna (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course it does. Short of being too long to comprehend in a glance, the naming of the Kingdom definitely helps. Hiding the kingdom name will cause some (including me) to suspect that this is some other topic, like a recently released song or movie. George III is such a superfamous person, for the long reign, the peak of the empire, that a huge proportion of references to him are already in-context. Books are titled with brevity because authors and publisher know that in libraries and bookshops the book is going to be placed in the section for English monarchy. Also, for superfamous topics, it is a marketing device to be ambiguous and familiar to hook the browser. These things are at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. And again, where's the benefit? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The benefit is the exact same as not titling the George Washington article "George Washington (president)" or "George Washington, president of the United States", or not using overly specific and unnecessarily disambiguated titling on literally thousands of other articles across Wikipedia. Now, if you don't think that's a good enough benefit, then you should be trying to change our article naming policies at WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Good luck with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I most certainly do try to change PRIMARYTOPIC, but I encounter lethargy and inertia in circular arguments ("this is what is done" on one side, and "this is what the guideline says" on the other, swap glibly between the two) and slippery slope arguments like yours. Parenthetical is discouraged, so "George Washington (president)" doesn't work. "George Washington, president of the United States" exceed the one line title space (~42 characters) and so is immediately suspect on that count for being wordy, and I would agree. You've not actually stated a benefit of stripping "of the United Kingdom", but have given a rhetorical evasion. WP:COMMONNAME is well worded ad understood. It doesn't say "most" COMMONNAME, and does have something alluding to reliable sources. WP:CONCISE is also good, but some people misread it as brevity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
If you don't like some of the article naming policies, that's fine. And I can see your point of view in why you don't think some of them (such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) are beneficial. But as long as the policies are what they are, I think they should be applied evenly. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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.


Poor move decisionEdit

A poor decision, a bad decision in violation of WP:SOVEREIGN, and ruinous to Wikipedia. If the closer notes "no disagreement" about COMMONNAME, evidently he didn't read well enough. Walrasiad (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Ruinous to Wikipedia"? Seriously? That's a little hyperbolic don't you think? And like it or not, Wikipedia article-naming policy was on the side of this move, and the move request had 2/3 support. And even though it's not a straight vote count, 2/3 support is generally going to be deemed consensus for a move request, especially when policy is on the side of the supports. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Walrasiad: Seek a move review if you think there were serious, consensus-changing oversights; don't just go on here to complain about the fact that the result wasn't in your favour. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
These naming policies must've changed over the last few years. Wonder what the next trend will be. Perhaps have some monarch article titles coloured in purple? GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

How did this move ever get passed? Have the adults left the room? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: It all began with the WP:COMMONAME crowd, which changed articles like William I of England to William the Conqueror. Now, it's the WP:PRECISION crowd, who are pushing for changes to articles like Louis XIV of France to Louis XIV. The result? we've gotten monarch article titles which are out of sync with each other. If this were a hard cover encyclopedia, an editor-in-chief would be peeved. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Good grief. When common sense goes out the window then we need something more basic like a hierarchy of rules (i.e "in the event of a conflict between rule A and rule B, then Rule A shall have primacy"). Wiki is looking less and less like an encyclopedia for adults and more like a make-encyclopedias-great-again home. A MEGA pain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
If you don't like Wikipedia's current article-naming policies, you are free to propose changes to them. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not the policies, it's knowing how to apply them. Evidently some editors get lost in the weeds are unable to see beyond their narrow reading of one rule, to the detriment of other rules, and hit it like a hammer everywhere, oblivious to common sense and regardless of consequences. One of the most hilarious I saw was in a recent RM, where scholarship proved that a person's name was actually a mistake carried over in publications for several decades, yet some editor still insisted that was "COMMONNAME" regardless of it being factually inaccurate, and therefore we must perpetuate that mistake too. Policies exist to improve an encyclopedia, not to ruin it. That's why we have WP:IGNORE. Walrasiad (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:IGNORE still requires consensus. In this particular case, the consensus of the RM discussion was to apply the generally accepted article naming policies to this article's title. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No it wasn't. You're confusing your stubborn insistence with consensus. There is a policy WP:SOVEREIGN which was thrown aside. I assumed good faith to discuss improvement of the article, which you did not. Not only was that criteria not agreed to, but what you identified as COMMMONNAME was if anything regarded by others - and even you, at one point! - as an error on your part. The closer certainly did not seem to take anything to consideration. Walrasiad (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure exactly what you're talking about here, and I don't think it's really beneficial to keep going around in circles with you. You made your case in the RM discussion and I made mine. More people agreed with me than with you. That's how it goes sometimes. But I definitely think you're overreacting. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
This has wider repercussions across the board. Besides your being mistaken on COMMONAME (as you basically admitted), you refusal to even defend how the change improved the article was a pretty strong indicator you didn't give this much thought. And the closer didn't seem to give it any thought at all, or even read it. You both seem to be on a mono-maniacal mission to cutting article titles on very narrow and thoughtless criteria, with little or no understanding or care, which is quite ruinous to Wikipedia. Walrasiad (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"yet some editor still insisted that was "COMMONNAME" regardless of it being factually inaccurate" Commonname typically means that we use a widely known name/term that does not match the official name or title. Editors have been complaining for years that such names are inaccurate, with no actual change in the policy. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to a simple straightforward case in a recent different RM - where someone's name was actually "James Doe" and not "John Doe" (as mistakenly reported in many sources). Our proverbial antagonist insisted on sticking with the mistaken "John Doe" because his obsession with COMMONNAME criteria trumps factual accuracy. And you think it is not damaging to Wikipedia? Walrasiad (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

What an appealing vista.Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

SlaveryEdit

Proposed edit to the last sentence of the section “Africa and the slave trade” - currently reads: ‘...1.6 million slaves were transported out of Africa to British colonial possessions.’ Better would be ‘...1.6 million Africans were transported to a British colonial possessions to be sold into slavery.’ Since they were not slaves at the time of their capture and removal from Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:85d0:7830:3010:efe1:5bf1:dc5a (talkcontribs)

Not done. That would be incorrect. They were enslaved in Africa. DrKay (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sons listed before daughters by conventionEdit

In Debrett's Peerage, Burke's Landed Gentry, and most genealogical sources males are always listed first - because in the era of primogeniture, still in effect for UK peerage titles, the male lineage was of principal importance as far as the title is concerned. Following long-standing convention when dealing with peerage topics/ historical royal family. That may be different for the royal family of today, now the rules have changed. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly not a genealogical publication, however. As far as an online encyclopedia is concerned, listing sons before daughters is just sexism. Listing children in order of birth is more informative, their sex being evident from their titles. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"More informative" of what? When trying to trace descent of titles on wikipedia it can be very time-wasting not having all sons listed together. OK for modern celebrities etc, but not logical in era of male primogeniture when female issue was generally excluded from inheritance. Listing of issue is a genealogical process, so should follow standard convention, I suggest. Can be confusing where daughters have a "unisex" name, i.e. "Christian" was a common name for girls in England in 17th c., now altered to "Christiana". If no title, no way of knowing if boy or girl. Also, "Shirley" can be a boy's name, after Shirley family presumably, but now more common as a girl's name.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Per Template:Infobox royalty, children are listed "in order of birth". This is the standard and consistent style on wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
On what basis was the wikipedia template order determined? I'm questioning that.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
We list children in order of their birth. It's got nothing to do with sexism, at all. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Listing them the other way would have to do with sexism, however. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Sexism is a modern concept which cannot be retrospectively imposed on history. We should list children in order of birth regardless of sex in the case of say a Hollywood celebrity. But for a historic monarch or the holder of a peerage title, hereditable via male primogeniture, surely the children should be listed in order of succession? Thus male gender is the important factor, date of birth has secondary relevance. It's a polically incorrect fact that female issue in those days were very much secondary players, so why list a whole load of daughters before the son and heir? This is not an issue concerning sexism. It can be time-wasting when trying to follow descent of a title through a list of sons and daughters mixed together.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
We don't use the infobox's offspring section for the line of succession to the throne, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Archaic. Do virtually all sources do this? If not, don’t. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

On what basis was the wikipedia template order determined? I'm questioning that.Lobsterthermidor

We decide things on Wikipedia by consensus. See Wikipedia:Consensus. If it is felt that an established format, such as listing the order of birth of royalty, should be changed, we can be bold and unilaterally change it, or - preferably if such a change might be contentious - we start a discussion. If we are bold, and then someone reverts our edit or questions it, then a discussion should take place to establish the merits of the bold change (as is happening here). What we should not do when using the bold approach is force our opinions on others without an appropriate discussion. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Be aware, Lobsterthermidor, that repeatedly ignoring advice (or warnings) about editing inappropriately will likely lead to sanctions. You have a formal warning for edit warring logged against you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive408#User:Lobsterthermidor reported by User:DrKay (Result: Warned) - that warning was specifically for reverting on Charles II of England, so technically this revert wasn't a violation of that edit; however, it is expected that when someone is given advice or a warning on one article that they will take on board what they are being told and modify their behaviour on all other articles. In case you are not yet clear on this matter, on Wikipedia we mainly use reverting for vandalism or disruptive/inappropriate edits. We do not revert to force our way of thinking on others. See WP:STATUSQUO. I hope this is the last time you inappropriately revert. SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@SilkTork:, thanks for that advice, I wasn't fully aware of that, I thought one could revert up to three times, with explanations given in the edit summary. The warning you referred to related only to that article as far as I can see, and at the start of the section I was called a "highly established editor(s), clean record(s), no 3RR vios". That's after 9 years of editing on wikipedia. I'm proud of that record, but always keen to improve if I get something wrong.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support continuing to list children in order of their birth. Showing succession order in an infobox separate from issue order could be considered, though I would not be in favour as showing succession order of a title on an individual's infobox would not be appropriate as the succession, though related, is a separate issue as it relates to the title not the person, and is complex and changeable according to various births and deaths. What is appropriate, and what we do, is to show Predecessor and Successor of any titles that an individual holds. SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support retaining chronological order. I fear that the proposer, for all of their good intentions, misunderstands what Wikipedia is, at least as it pertains to this case. Burke's Peerage and the other books the proposer cites are all genealogy books. In fact, they are more specific than that: they are peerage books, devoted to tracing the descent of specific titles or land holdings. The decision to order men before women in those books was a stylistic choice -- arguably a sensible one given their purpose, though obviously one which reflected an inherently sexist system.
Wikipedia, however, is not a peerage book (or a genealogy book) so there is no need for us to adopt the stylistic choices of one. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia and this article is a biography. Readers who arrive at this page will do so with many intentions. Some will not be interested in finding a list of all of the children of King George III, but some of those who are so interested will probably want to know what chronological order those children were born in, because that is of interest to people reading a history of a person's life. It makes more sense to list children by order of birth not only because it is sexist not to, but because this article is not about the children or the title: it is about George III and his life, and it is told, as is conventional, in a chronological order. To resolve any doubt, succession to his titles is indicated through the use of succession boxes; it will no doubt be mentioned in the body of the article and the infobox and be evident in the list of children regardless of order and it can always be mentioned in case it is not clear. In short, listing children by gender serves one narrow purpose and audience; Wikipedia has a plurality of readers and intentions and pushing one over the rest does not fit into our aim to be a general-purpose encyclopedia. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC).
I withdraw my query, it seems to have little support. Thanks to all for your input, I will in future list offspring by birth order.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to "George III" page.