Talk:Princess Sophie of Sweden

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 page per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sophie of Sweden → Princess Sophie of Sweden — WP:NC(NT) specifies, for females, the current form of this article's name (Sophie of Sweden) for the following: empresses-regnant, queens-regnant, empresses-consort, queens-consort and princesses around or before the 17th century. Sophie was "only" a grand duchess and in practise, and cited as in accordance with WP:NC(NT), articles for consorts below the rank of queen are moved to the form Title Givenname of Place. —Charles 05:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support As nominator. Charles 05:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose this move, for the same reasons I opposed the move of Augusta of Saxe-Gotha to "Princess" of that ilk. But I don't suppose my objections will carry much weight. Deb 12:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That was a different case; reading between the lines, I think Deb means her argument that {Name} of {Place} is not a form reserved for royalty. If so, she's quite right; there is no Wikipedia convention that an article called Name of Place implies the subject is royal; Hildegard of Bingen is one example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Please let her say what she means. For royalty, the form Name of Place is prescribed for kings, emperors, queens and empresses. Charles 19:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • But it is explicitly not proscribed for others; the link above quotes the convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • In practise regarding royalty it is proscribed. Charles 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
          • That is what we are testing, then. I disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Then start a discussion at WT:NC(NT) where it matters. Charles 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Feel free to explain it there; there is already a notice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I see no reason why this is a good idea, but am not opposed. This is less of a question of what the convention says, than what it should say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Give me a good reason, and I may switch back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I shouldn't have to give anyone a "good reason" so that they "may switch back" when constant application of the naming conventions as they stand dictates that this article should be titled Princess Sophie of Sweden. You can keep your vote as "Oppose" until you come to that conclusion on your own. Charles 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Prove it. The section you've quoted doesn't say that; what I quoted denies it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Deb and per Charles's comment of 2007-11-07 19:50 UTC. Proscribed indeed! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose She was still the consort of an independant state. Like Joséphine-Charlotte of Belgium, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg we treat them as royalty as well. Dimadick 17:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I truly wonder what people are thinking. The naming conventions say Name of Place for queens and empresses. It doesn't say it for grand duchesses. The existence of another article of similar naming is not reason to keep this article where it is. Charles 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• Sophie of Sweden → Princess Sophie of Sweden — WP:NC(NT) prescribes the current form of the article title for empresses- and queens-consort, for empresses- and queens-regnant and for mediaeval princesses where the title of "Princess" is anachronistic. Grand duchesses consort and lower ranks (duchess, princess, countess) use the premarital title in front of the name. —Charles 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please discuss explicitly; I don't see this rule in WP:NC(NT). You may persuade me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • One, when moving articles away from X of Y, it is cited as the form belonging to queens, empresses, kings and emperors. Two, the naming conventions explicitly state that what I said just before regarding use of the X of Y format (kings, emperors, queens and empresses). Three, grand duchesses do not fall under those conditions. Sophie falls under "Other Royals, 4" since the wording and application of all other articles under WP:NC(NT) thus far precludes the use of the X of Y format for anyone other than queens, empresses, kings and emperors. Charles 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Your point would be made just by citing "other royals, 4"; but I don't see it as so obviously consensus that this goes without saying; among other complications, Baden was an independent state when she was married and when her husband succeeded. We may need to refine the guideline. Good luck with it; but let's have a discussion. (I'm not sure which way I'll !vote.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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.