text:
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 10

Monarchical titles (continued)
My suggested alternative is to use both upfront, but to distinguish them and avoid clutter, the royal name should be in bold, then a comma, then the personal name should be in bold italics.

For example:
 * Rainier III, Rainier Louis Henri Maxence Bertrand de Grimaldi (born May 31, 1923), is the hereditary Prince of Monaco.
 * Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born April 21, 1926) is the Queen and head of state of the United Kingdom (and 16 Commonwealth Realms).
 * Queen Victoria, Alexandrina Victoria Wettin of the Royal House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (May 24, 1819 - January 22, 1901) was Queen of the United Kingdom for a record sixty-three years, seven months, and two days (June 20, 1837 - January 22, 1901).
 * John Paul II, Karol Jozef Wojtyla (pronounced Voy-tee-wah) (born 18 May, 1920) was born in Wadowice, Poland.

I tried this proposal out in the Rainier III of Monaco article and it worked well and looked less alkward than the alternatives. (That article originally had his personal name up front, with his princely title buried further down the line). We also need I think to sort out a standardised opening paragraphs. The above cut and paste jobs show some of the variations we have. I would suggest the following form:

OPENING PARAGRAPH: {monarchical title} {royal name} {ordinal if more than one}, {personal name (surname if known)}, of the Royal House of {name}, (dates). . . information on their throne.

SECOND PARAGRAPH: 'x' was born. ..

I think putting in the Royal House details is useful given that many royals have different surnames from their Royal House/Royal Family name, eg, Victoria's surname was Wettin but her Royal House name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. I think (though I am by no means certain, that Russian Royals technically weren't Romanovs but of the Royal House of Romanov. If we don't know, we can leave out the surname altogether as the Royal House name is there. BTW Royal House is already defined on wiki so all we need to do is put in Royal House and people if they don't know what it is can go to the linked page.

Putting in their monarchical title up front also solves a problem that arises if they don't have an ordinal. Starting off an article with Victoria or Juan Carlos doesn't work as well as with Elizabeth II, Rainier III, etc. It reads alwardly and doesn't tell you their key defining characteristic up front, that they were/are a monarch, that fact often not being stated until the end of the sentence and not being immediately obvious in the absence of an ordinal.

In practice this would turn the QEII and JPII entries into:

 * Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor of the Royal House of Windsor (born April 21, 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and 16 Commonwealth Realms, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Any observations, folks?
 * John Paul II, Karol Jozef Wojtyla (pronounced Voy-tee-wah) (born 18 May, 1920) is pope of the Roman Catholic Church and head of state of Vatican City. He was elected to the papacy in October 1978 following the sudden death of Pope John Paul I on September 29, 1978.

 * I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other but would like to note the WikiStandard of placing the real birth name of a person first, then giving the date range of their life in parenthesis and finally give the name or names that they are most widely known as. See Billy the Kid for an example. The reasoning is that the name by which a person dies under is sometimes not the same as the name they were born under and the placement of the birth/death parenthesis gives the impression that whatever name comes before it was the name the person was born under. So giving the birth name first is more precise. --mav 01:23 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * That can work OK when dealing with ordinary people but with monarchs I think it is unworkable. For example, that would produce Margrethe Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg as the opening words of the page on Queen Margrethe II of Denmark. Nobody, not even her parents ever called her that. She was and is known either as Princess Margrethe or Queen Margrethe. Nobody ever used the name "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, they used Princess Elizabeth or Queen Elizabeth. People would begin scratching their heads with puzzlement if they found themselves being told an article was about Alexandrina Victoria Wettin', a name they never would have heard of, as she was only ever known as Princess Victoria or Queen Victoria. And nobody but a historian would know who Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto is, because the entire world knows him (if they know him at all) as Pope Pius X.

 * That is why we don't use personal names as the article names for royalty, using Margrethe II of Denmark rather than Margrethe Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg . In the case of people who had a 'proper name' and then got a nickname, like Billy the Kid, it is logical to put the proper name first. But royal names are basically something never used; they are put on a birth certificate and forgotten about. To put what was effectively a non-used name ahead of the real one would in those cases be wrong in my view. It would also be potentially seen as POV; one of the things republicans often do, for example, is to use personal names instead of royal names as their way of expressing their republicanism and giving the two fingers to monarchy. In Greece, even though international naming traditions suggest that a deposed monarch who has not abdicated is called by his reign name for his lifetime (or until he abdicates), but with the title dying with him, left wing republicans insist of referring to exiled King Constantine II as Constantine Glücksburg . Were we to put that name first in the article, we would be seen to be accepting that they are right and so be seen by Greek republicans and Greek monarchists as taking one of the argument. Instead the article follows the strict naming traditions regarding deposed monarchs, not getting tangled up in Greek political arguments.

 * The standard history approach to naming monarchs or popes is:

 * use highest regal title first;
 * for popes, papal title put first;
 * personal names if used at all (and most don't) treated as subsidary because they never were actually used outside the family circle if even there;
 * Because they lack an ordinal to enable people to tell consorts apart, consorts revert to maiden name or maiden title after their death or more usually after a period of time following their deaths when they have reverted from having a contemporary identificaton to being merely a historical figure.
 * What I am proposing is to follow this standard on royal naming just as we do in terms of article title, non use of styles in article titles, etc. Using unused generally unrecognisable names first would in my view be anything but precise. FearÉIREANN 03:27 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that this is a good way of building on articles that we already have in a consistent way. In the first couple of years we just wanted to get a decent number of stubs giving a broad shallow coverage, so the haphazard way we've worked (myself particularly) has been reasonable. Originally the article titles were purely for disambiguation (so that we could have separate articles on Alexander) and we didn't worry about their accuracy as the information was supposed to be handled in the article but nowadays we are taking a rather different line.  In any case, the easy work is pretty well done, and it's definitely time to give a deeper more consistent treatment to this area for those who are interested in it.

 * What you've suggested is good for the intro paragraph and I'd be quite happy with it as it stands but I feel that it has the flavour of a Wikiproject. I think that it just might be worthwhile extending it to a simple template, listing not just the names, titles and main significant feature but also the general form of the article, ie when they became significant and why, when they stopped and why (which is in the papacy example that you have above but not in the Royal example).  Note that I'm not suggesting that the template should contain the items that I've mentioned, just that some template would be good as it would give people a checklist of things to research, thus, with luck, improving the quality of all contributors' additions (as the other Wikiprojects, by and large, have done for their subject areas). -- Derek Ross 01:59 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Thought I'd pipe in. A couple of thoughts - I mostly agree with jtd, but I have a few quibbles. One of them has nothing to do with standards, but is just a peeve (and one that's been long growing on me every time I look at the Victoria page). She was a Wettin or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha only by marriage. She was a Guelph or Hanoverian by birth. None of the other reigning female monarchs of England/Great Britain/The UK are referred to as being members of their husband's royal house. Mary I is a Tudor, not a Habsburg; Mary II and Anne are Stuarts, not Orange-Nassau and Denmark/Oldenburg. And Queen Elizabeth II is neither a Mountbatten nor an Oldenburg/Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg/Greece&Denmark (Oh, and the Romanovs were not Romanovs in any sense. The official name of the house was the Imperial House of Russia.  The dynasty name, according to the Gotha, was Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.)

But, more seriously, a couple of thoughts: the idea of a surname for monarchs is somewhat silly in general. To say, for instance, that Ludwig II of Bavaria's surname was Wittelsbach doesn't really mean anything. The dynasty is called the Wittelsbach's because the earliest member of the dynasty we know about ruled a place called Wittelsbach. The same is true for most German dynasty names. Further, it runs into problems with recent members of German royal houses, who have taken their royal title names and made them into their surnames. Although the current head of the Royal House of Prussia is a member of the Hohenzollern dynasty (in the same sense that Ludwig II was a member of the Wittelsbach dynasty), his surname is actually "Prinz von Preussen". In general, I don't think the surname concept works very well for most royals, and should be abandoned. House name, on the other hand, is a useful distinction, and ought to be noted. A further suggestion: I think it would be helpful for both noble and royal figures whose name customarily changed throughout their life to give some indication of the styles by which they were known throughout their life, and the dates on which they were called each. (This would be if there were some sort of box, I think).

I have rambling further thoughts, but they seem to be getting more annoying as I go on, so I'll stop and wait. john 03:59 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Okay, my original thoughts were still too rambling and annoying, despite my deleting the most rambling and annoying parts. So: basically agree, this seems a good way to do it, except I think we should be very wary of surnames unless they were actually used to refer to the person (as, for instance, the Spanish monarch, who is actually called, so far as I know, Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon). One thing I do think, though, is that some thought should be put into titles of princesses who married princes of foreign houses (who never became reigning monarchs). Should they, like royal consorts, be referred to by their maiden name? This seems the simplest way to do it. thus, Lady Henrietta Anne Stuart and Countess Palatine Elisabeth Charlotte of Simmern (or Elisabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate) for the wives of Louis XIV's little brother, rather than "Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans" or "Elisabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Orleans"; or Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg for George III's mother, rather than "Augusta, Princess of Wales". Does this work? john 04:13 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Good points. Re surnames, I agree. I created the Royal House to try to get around the surnames nightmare. The trouble is (as a few of us found when we tried first to sort out the royal naming mess that wiki used to have) that if don't put in a surname, someone else will, and usually what they come up with is absolute cobblers. I have been unhappy with the surnames used for Russian royalty for a while so I am so glad someone knows the right one. Re Victoria, the problem is that her marriage changed the Royal House name in the way, for example Queen Mary I's marriage didn't, by the simple fact that she had no children and so the throne was inherited by her half-sister who was also a Tudor. So it seemed wrong to use her post-marital Royal House name and pre-marital surname and her pre-marital Royal House name would perhaps be wrong (or at least liable to be changed by someone who insists that of course it should be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha! And if you don't put in a surname, someone else will, calling her God knows what (probably Windsor or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!). Victoria herself accepted that her surname (well marital) surname was Wettin though to coin a phrase, she was 'not amused'!

As to changing styles, great idea. I think a text book would be ideal for that if we can do that. Re the rest - I'm too tired to think. Its 6.04am and I swore I would not spend all night on wiki, or at least not see another dawn. Not seeing it? It is grinning in the window at me, so, as we say in Irish Tá mé ag dul go dtí mo leaba (I am going to my bed.) Slán agus oiche mhaith. FearÉIREANN 05:04 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't disagree with your suggestions above, although it seems a bit of a Rolls-Royce solution. (Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.)  As usual, I say let's not be too hasty in changing things that work, even if they are not 100% satisfactory.  I didn't even know there was a convention (mentioned by mav above) of putting the birth name first in an article.  I don't think I've ever done that unless the birth name happened to be the best-known name.  But, broadly speaking, I'm happy to go along with your proposal for the time being.

 * I have to say, also, that I've been a bit concerned about the growing habit (maybe "habit" is the wrong word - "tendency" is perhaps more polite) to worry about including every possible title the person has ever had or used, including the names of all countries they've ever been monarch of, their "official" title even if it's one they've never used. You could argue that this is the function of an encyclopedia, but it doesn't half make for controversy without contributing very much to knowledge. Deb 17:24 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * What exactly are you referring to? Are you referring to somebody who puts the full titulary of King Juan Carlos (who is, sadly, the only monarch to retain a ridiculously long titulary, even if it isn't usually used)?  Or putting in a nobleman's subsidiary titles? (I sometimes do that, and sometimes don't.  I don't see what harm it does).  Or referring to the different styles by which a person was known throughout their life (Lord Robert Cecil to Viscount Cranborne to the Marquess of Salisbury)?  john 20:58 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * None of those things. In fact, I wasn't referring to "somebody", but to a general trend.  For example, the second paragraph of the article on Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, or the listing of Sophie Wessex's full official title ("Princess Edward, blah-di-blah").  It's not that I think it does any "harm" exactly, I just think there are more interesting things to note about those people.  Don't get me wrong, I care as much about correct titles as anyone (well, you know that from experience), but I don't want to get so hung up on it that everything else goes out the window. Deb 21:13 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, I wasn't offended, I just wasn't sure exactly what you were referring to. I think what you're saying is similar to my first example (Juan Carlos's official titulary, which is insanely long, and includes his status as Archduke of Austria and King of Jerusalem, among other places not in Spain).  I think that can sometimes be interesting, but sometimes not.  I agree that Princess Edward is kind of silly (she was born Sophie Rhys-Jones, and is now known as HRH The Countess of Wessex, calling herself "Sophie Wessex" in her professional life when she had one)  And I certainly agree that having actual information about the person is probably more worthwhile, so long as the title is fairly correct.  In general, I think it's much more important to know what the person was actually called than to worry about all the titles they held. john 21:25 29 May 2003 (UTC)

A further question I thought I'd bring up here, to see what the other title gurus think. The page for Empress Elisabeth, Franz Joseph's wife was formerly at "Elisabeth of Austria". I insisted, over the lukewarm opposition of the Sisi admirers, on moving it to "Elisabeth of Bavaria", since she was born "Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria" (and Elisabeth in Bavaria wouldn't make sense, while Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria would imply that she was never a reigning monarch's consort). Was this the right thing to do? john 21:25 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * A quick glance at my biog dic finds her under "Elizabeth of Bavaria", so I would say (not knowing a heck of a lot about it) that you were spot on. Deb 21:30 29 May 2003 (UTC)

RE use of real names: How about the format used at Benny Goodman which gives the most widely-used name, then the birth name, then the bith/death parens? --mav 09:20 31 May 2003 (UTC)

How about most widely used name, birth/death parens, then other names the person used, in chronological order if more than two? That accommodates people who have been known by more than two names (which is fairly common among British nobility, or European royalty) john 17:11 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. One quibble - Benny Goodman was a colloqual name, in effect a stage name, such as is Madonna, Bono, etc. However in royalty, each name is a real name, not a colloqual name, nor a stage name. So one cannot say Eliazabeth II, born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (if that it what it was - I'm too lazy to check!!!) because she still is EAM and QEII simultaneously. He was not born with one and moved to the other. Born suggests she moved from one to the other, which would be inaccurate in the case of royalty. That is why I suggested the form reign name, personal name, and that given a personal name may be quite long, rather than giving a potentially confusing opening line with people presuming they were all one together, they would be giving equality by bolding but separated and clearly shown to be separate by italicising the latter following a comma. Subsequent titles could be plain italicised. For example:

Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born [1926]) is the Queen of the. . . . . . She was born as Princess Elizabeth of York, daughter of the then second in line to the throne, Prince Albert, Duke of York and his wife Elizabeth. When he unexpectedly became king in 1936, following the abdication of his oldest brother, Edward VIII, Elizabeth became simply Princess Elizabeth and first in line to the throne as Heir Presumptive.

She became simply The Princess Elizabeth of course. Somewhere in the article styles should be noted, as well. Otherwise, this looks pretty solid. john 22:51 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Two points: Re styles. I could not agree with you more. I have been in favour of that from day 1. Re The Princess Elizabeth - If this was 'my'' encyclopædia, I would have it that way. But it isn't. I know from the almightly battle we faced to kill of the nonsensical Mr. Charles Windsor etc that there is a loud minority for whom titles of any sort seem stupid, nonsensical and POV. Wiki has got to strike a balance between (i) accuracy, (ii) usability, andf (iii) acceptability. That often means that we go for 80% accuracy rather than 100% accuracy; eg, we have Charles, Prince of Wales even though that technically is wrong, because the correct version, The Prince of Wales is not workable. Using The Princess Elizabeth might well be a step too far for those who already find our current reasonably accurate but 'monarchist' titles "too much" for their republican sensibilities. It would also require renaming and the changing of texts throughout wiki.

I would suggest dealing with this in the form of a footnote, with the generally used form in the text and the absolutely accurate version as a footnote. That would produce the following.

Example of Text
Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born [1926]) is the Queen of the. . . . . . She was born as Princess Elizabeth of York, daughter of the then second in line to the throne, Prince Albert, Duke of York and his wife Elizabeth. When he unexpectedly became king in 1936, following the abdication of his oldest brother, Edward VIII, Elizabeth became simply Princess Elizabeth1 and first in line to the throne as Heir Presumptive.

Footnote
1 Technically all royal princes and royal princesses use the word the before their princely name. Hence the above would be The Princess Elizabeth. However though strictly accurate that form is not generally used.

FearÉIREANN 03:20 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that while we not especially worry whether she's called "Princess Elizabeth" or "the Princess Elizabeth" in the texts of articles, a section of the article which details her various styles through the years should give the correct style.

Thus:

 * Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor (born [1926]) is the Queen of the . . . . . . She was born as HRH Princess Elizabeth of York, daughter of the then second in line to the throne, Prince Albert, Duke of York and his wife Elizabeth. When he unexpectedly became king in 1936, following the abdication of his oldest brother, Edward VIII, Elizabeth became simply HRH The Princess Elizabeth1 and first in line to the throne as Heir Presumptive.

Then, for the rest of the article, anything about her before her accession can be

"Princess Elizabeth" (I suppose her time as HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh should also be mentioned), without worrying too much that that's not completely accurate. john 03:48 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I just started a page to detail the various royal and noble styles. Currently, I only have those for royal and princely families, and for the nobility of Britain and Germany. If anyone wants to help out by adding other countries, that'd be great. (I also fear that I haven't done the best job of explaining what a style is. Perhaps I should work on that.) john 04:13 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea. Anyone see the Classical Brit Awards?  They introduced the Duchess of Kent as "Katherine Kent".  Who wants to ring Buckingham Palace? Deb 07:04 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I put in the following on the naming conventions (names and titles) page, Other Royals, point number 6:

 * For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form {royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate}, full name (+ surname if known) with the former in bold (3 's) and the latter in bold italics (5 's). In practice, this means for example an article on Britain's Queen Elizabeth should begin Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor - with the royal title and name in bold and the personal name in bold italics. Using this format makes sure all the naming information is instantly visible with the distinction highlighted through italics. Other information on royal titles should be listed where appropriate in chronological order.

Does everyone agree with this wording? FearÉIREANN 18:24 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yep - sounds good to me - 'course i was the one who added the surnames for Nicholas II and his daughters - there is plenty of evidence of them using Romanov (or Romanova for the females) as their surname after the Revolution - many of Olga Nikolaevna's letters from Tobolsk end with "Olga R." for example.

 * Although finding John edited it out of the articles makes me more than a little upset!

PMelvilleAustin 04:43 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have 1. merged in History standards, which had a lot of duplication (and was even, in some respects, outdated by later conventions emerged here). At the same time, I have 2. reordered things a bit (monarchs, other royals, clerical names, other non-royal names seemed more logical to me) and 3. tried to clean up the formatting of this page, most notably, added boldface keywords to many rules for easier lookup, and replaced the "nowiki" formatting with italics for better readability.

I did not intend to make any semantic changes; if I have, it's a mistake. Hope everybody likes the changes, the page was on the brink of turning into a major mess. :-) djmutex 15:45 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Only two minor glitches. Re the use the most common form of name - as it was put in it would be an invitation to chaos. There are some people who fought tooth and nail to avoid using the naming conventions by referring to that rule. (The Charles Windsor rubbish was a classic example.) If that line appeared as you wrote it, they would quote it as justification for renaming everyone without titles and that would return everything to chaos. So I have amended it to say in effect only if none of the rules below apply do you in the issue of royal names and titles go by most common form of name.

Secondly, the line on saints was wrong. Removing the word 'saint' is unworkable most of the time, because most saints are utterly unrecognisable without it. You can't write Saint Patrick as anything but Saint Patrick. Ditto with Saint George, etc etc. Hence Saint is widely used. It was simply that the naming conventions had not been amended to incorporate what was discovered over time to be the only workable and practical solution. So I amended the line to say in effect don't use saint unless the person is unrecognisable without it. If they are, use it.

I've just remembered that there is also an agreement to use St. rather than Saint for buildings named that way. (I've already had a frustating row with someone who keeps changing the agreed names of cathedrals by spelling out Saint.) I've better put in a line spelling that out, to avoid conclusion. FearÉIREANN 18:42 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Patriarchs
Patriarch conventions

Given the paragraphs under Clerical Names, no reference was made to the patriarchs of constantinople, let alone other patriarchs in Near East and Eastern Europe. For consistency and clarity, I proposed 2 systems:

1)all patriarchs shall be named Patriarch (title) (ordinal) of (name of the place) even if that person has a more common nomenclature. John Chrysostom would become Patriarch John I of Constantinople

2) similar to 1), but drop the Patriarch from the title, i.e. John Chrysostom would become John I of Constantinople

kt2

 * Yeah 'clerical names' is an evolving concept here. Popes and cardinals were sorted through seeing the problems that arise if other alternatives were used.

I think (1) is the logical one to use. (2) would be wrong and ill-advised. The reasons are:

 * 1) religions often use naming conventions very similar to royal naming conventions. We have to be careful to use a form that avoids confusing users as to what they are looking at. name {ordinal} of location should for clarity be restricted to royalty and to those ancient figures generally known in that form. Using a religious title would avoid causing confusion to users.
 * 2) Given that we use pope for the head of the Roman Catholic Church, I think we show a similar tendency to use the equally appropriate title for Orthodox leaders. So I think Patriarch should be used.

As to John Chrysostom, I would argue that we should use redirects. Given that google users are far more likely to use that form of name rather than Patriarch John I of Constantinople, and that the JC form is universally recognisable throughout christendom whereas his patriarch's title would be recognisable to simply one branch of christianity, we should put the main text as John Chrysostom and a redirect at Patriarch John I of Constantinople to it. That way he would show up in the list of patriarchs but would be found in the name most people would know him as.

FearÉIREANN 20:01 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Largely agree with jtd, I think. "John I of Constantinople" might introduce confusion with Emperor John I Tzimisces, for instance. And "John Chrysostom" is so universally recognized that it should be the main article, and the other the redirect. john 20:12 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to work out a standard format for referring to patriarchs. I think it is strongly advisable that as with monarchs and popes, we recognise that patriarchs do not exist as a separate existence but together, each patriarch affected by their predecessors' actions or inactions. Patriarchs were all in the process of being moved by some users to the form Patriarch {name} {ordinal} of {location}, with common name as the redirect page and patriarch title as main page. Another user has now gone and changed them all backwards, making patriarch the redirect and common name the main one.

That in my view is utterly wrong. The patriarchs of Constantinople should be kept as a block rather than named separately. That runs against everything we have achieved in sorting out the royal naming, the papal naming, the use of titles, etc. The basic rule that has been followed has been highest form of title, keeping those with similar titles in an easy to follow chain. Hence Mary Queen of Scots is at Mary I of Scotland (to keep her in the chain of Scottish monarchs) but redirects are used to get the commonly known but unique reference cleanly and understandably into the list. It would be absurd for use to put Mary I at Mary Queen of Scots without causing confusion to readers who mightn't understand why she is called that while James VI is not King of Scots, etc. Using common name is fine when someone has a simple name. But monarchs, popes, cardinals patriarchs do not have a simple name. They have a personal name and an office name. Some are known by the former. Many by the latter. It is better for the user if the office name is kept as the main page. That way, if as in the case of Mary, Queen of Scots, a Patriarch of Constantinople, a pope they know the personal name they will be directed to the person as part of the chain, and so link Mary with other Scottish monarchs, link a father of the Church with the post of Patriarch of Constantinople, link a de Medici with the papacy. FearÉIREANN 08:10 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I generally agree with Jt except for commonly known personal names of patriarchs. Another user stated that it would be better to keep the common name as the main page, as in the case of John Chrysostom, while other names including the office name (Patriarch John I of Constantinople) relegated to redirects. Other users have been following this rule and suddenly everything has changed to making the office name the main page. Ever-changing standard is difficult to be followed. Secondly simplicity of a clerical personal name often depends on the perspective of the readers. A religious studies expert would easily tell that John Chrysostom is the same as Patriarch John I of Constantinople whereas a novice would not tell. IMO if we are setting standards for main page title of patriarch articles, all titles should be sticking to one single standard, i.e. Patriarch John I of Constantinople, instead of having Patriarch Gennadius I of Constantinople for one patriarch and Gregory Nazianzus for another. kt2 01:05 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reason why is was changed was the same reason as Mary, Queen of Scots and Charles Windsor were abandoned. They threw up more problems than they solved. One user, fed up of the tangled mess that made people look like individuals when they were part of a chain of office-holders, after discussing it with people began trying out the format of patriarch name as main page, personal name as redirect. (They aren't going to be too happy when they come back that all the work they did, having got full agreement from everyone asked, has now been undone again!.) What they did matches the highest office principle generally followed with popes and monarchs and keeps everything together, allowing someone in the main title to see someone as part of a chain of history of an office, not an isolated individual. I think the principle of keeping office holders together in a recognisable group, all with an identical naming format, is the logical solution, otherwise they get lost and simply look like individuals when their office had a major impact on who they were. So I would argue strongly for the chain naming that we apply to religious and secular holders of continuous offices where the holder changes their name to a reign name on selection/election/inheritance/appointment.

The absolute nightmare would be a repeat of what happened with Japanese emperors, where they were renamed almost on a weekly basis to Japanese format, english format, international reign name format, Japanese era name, reign name again, era name again, etc etc. (Having stopped what he was doing and adopted an international standard because his format proved unworkable, Taku's changes have now been changed again by another Japanese user back to the format that proved unusable the first, second and third time tried.) So we need to make one final clear decision on patriarchs and it makes sense to apply the same rules as in similar offices, rather than a dis-organised naming system relying simply on personal name. FearÉIREANN 01:48 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I have always preached a unified chain format of patriarchs, i.e. Patriarch {name} {ordinal} of {location} or Patriarch John I of Constantinople instead of John Chrysostom, as seen from my previous post here a while ago. However another user came up with a "brillant" (and frustrating IMO) idea that JC (the common name) should be the main page and telling other people "should be" following that way. Other users employed such a convention, and suddenly the same user, who sugguested the "common name as title" convention, reverted to the idea of the chain format. If that user intended to put forward "the chain format" convention, why would that user state that wikipedian should put the main article as JC at the first place. On the other hand, the activity of "Another user has now gone and changed them all backwards, making patriarch the redirect and common name the main one." took place after such "common name as title" statement was drawn. IMO the user who made all those "backward" changes was simply following the ""common name as title" convention stated here a while ago and unfortunately took the blame of somebody's mistake. Anyhow, I ALWAYS and STRONGLY argue for the article title in the chain format, which is Patriarch {name} {ordinal} of {location} . kt2 02:35 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * -) NP. We were at cross-purposes. When I get some time (if I get some time :- I'll leave a message on some people's talk pages and we'll see if we can kill of this ludicrous common name nonsense one and for all here and get agreement on a rock solid naming convention on patriarchs. Maybe you can pass the word around to the people who tend to debate things on this page. They might want to return for the latest chapter in royal and clerical naming debate. lol FearÉIREANN 03:20 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If I get some time ( :| ), I'll help spread the word around. By the way, I didn't get your share of fun (lol?) on this issue. kt2 04:21 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wait, what's wrong with John Chrysostom? Seems to me that if he's better known for his writings as "John Chrysostom" than for his patriarchin' as "John I of Constantinople" (which he surely is), he should be listed as the former. And even people who know about his patriarchin' would usually call him John Chrysostom. In the list page, he can be referred to by both names, as in his own page, but I can't imagine that anybody anywhere is going to try to look up "Patriarch John I of Constantinople." To be quite honest, I tend to think that all articles ought to be known by the name by which someone is best known. Particularly if it's a unique and correct name. Would we really rather have "Charles II of Western Francia" rather than "Charles the Bald"? Because that would seem to be the ultimate logic of the position being advocated here. I mean, "Charles Windsor" is obviously silly - he's never been known as Charles Windsor to anybody. Is "Mary Queen of Scots" comparable? During her life, she would have been called either that or "Mary Stuart/Stewart", I suspect. I doubt she was ever called "Mary I of Scotland". Nor is she very frequently called "Mary I of Scotland" at present. Not that I necessarily object to the current placement, but I'm not fully comfortable with the idea that standardization ought to trump recognizability. john 04:39 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

JT - you have got to be kidding! Nobody and I mean nobody calls John Chrysostom John I of Constantinople (not to mention Patriarch John I of Constantinople). Do a Google search and the only case of that very odd usage is this talk page! And this convention is only supposed to apply to modern states anyway. I can tolerate Napoleon I of France because that title is actually used (very seldom though) but  Patriarch John I of Constantinople is a monstrosity that is used nowhere. --mav

Actually yes they do. (And your comment that you "can tolerate Napoleon I of France because that title is actually used (very seldom though)" shows that you don't work in the history sphere. It is widely used!!! :-) ) The point is quite simple. Anyone holding a post like patriarch, pope, monarch or whatever is directly impacted upon in their behaviour and view of life. As historians regularly say (and I have heard it over and over and over at conferences) the biggest problem historians face is that people see historic figures in isolation from their time period, contemporary elite, power structure and vision of life. That is understandable in that much of that information has been lost. Or we only remember bits of the chain; we know who Mary Queen of Scots was but who remembers who was before her? Who can name the monarch before Henry IV of France, the pope before Pope Pius IX? Yet Gregory XVI's policies directly shaped Pius IX's reign, just as Pius shaped Leo XIII, etc etc. And not just because the two men lived overlapping lives but because they held the same office, worked through the same power-structure, etc.

We may well know him as John Chrysostom or John of Antioch (his actual name!) but those two words and two names did not shape what he did one iota. But the fact that he was a bishop shaped who he was and what he could and could not do immeasurably. The fact that he was bishop in and of Constantinople is crucial. It links him to the emperors, indicates much about his relationship between the popes in Rome and other patriarchs, and places him at the centre of the powerplay that dominated relationships between west and east. If you do understand how central his patriarchial post was, and his link to Constantinople you cannot understand who he was, what he did, what he believed, etc. And if you do not understand the post you will not understand that he was part of a chain, how Nestorius impacted on him, how he created quite litrerally a chain reaction which impacted on a patriarch 7 or 8 people further down the chain. You cannot do that if you treat each bit of the chain of patriarchs as a separate entity in its title. No-one is talking about dropping the page mentioning John Chrystosom but it beggars belief that it could seriously be suggested that someone whose impact was directly shaped by holding a particular office as one of a chain of people to hold that office, shouldn't be renamed as such, but should be at a "name" that isn't even his own name! It makes perfect sense to redirect the what is in effect his common nickname to his formal church name, where he fits into a list of other people who held the post in question.

As to this idea that formal naming only applies to modern states; there are three reasons for that:

1. Most older states had unclear boundaries and identities that changed so often they were not compatible with a modern power structure and its nomenclature;

2. Most ancient monarchies did not use ordinals for their monarchs;

3. Ancient monarchies are long gone and confined to history.

None of these apply here. The post of Bishop/Patriarch of Constantinople has a clear definition and a clear list of holders. It lacks the ambiguity which is the principal reason for adopting a different system for nomenclature for pre-modern, mediæval and pre-mediæval political entities. Bishops and patriarchs used clear unambiguous ordinals. And the Patriarchy exists today as it did a millennium ago and for many centuries before that. At what point in the past do you intend telling the millions of followers of Orthodox christianity that they stop being patriarch on wiki and revert to personal name? Do you expect them to be happy that you treat their patriarchs in a manner less respectful of their title than you do popes, Archbishops of Canterbury, etc by removing their religious title? There aren't people from Western Francia here to worry or take offence at how we call their king, any more than there are people from Án Mhidhe to worry about how we call an Árd Rí. But the Orthodox Church of Patriarch John still exists today, still has millions of adherents and still has a Patriarch. I'd love to hear how exactly you propose Mav to cut off the 'patriarch' title after a set point. Does that mean the coptics can't call the coptic popes pope after that date too, to be fair? And what about Roman Catholic popes? 'Sorry, guys, you lose your titles before AD 500.' Or is it just patriarchs? Should we revert the Irish-conceived Paschal II to Rainerius of Bieda? (Or even Rianerius of Dublin, as he was supposedly conceived here.) And in the interest of religious equality, if the article on the Bishop of Constantinople can't be referred to by title but by name, does that mean that the Bishops of Rome during his reign, Pope Anastasius I and Pope Innocent I, should have their papal pages turned into redirects and their main pages moved to their personal names? :-)

It makes no sense historically, no sense religiously, no sense organisationally and no sense encyclopædically to put someone in under a name that is potentially offensive to people in the various orthodox churches (by treating him differently to other equivalent religions), and that offers no context and no information other than a name that is not even a name, when a simple redirect can put readers onto a page whose very title gives them the key facts - the what, where questions, that he was patriarch of Constantinople. Putting that in contextualises him as someone who cannot be understood in isolation and did not operate in isolation but existed, was shaped and operated via a specific religious title, one of the most important in Christendom. That can only be achieved by using the Patriarchial title on the main page that everyone gets to, not as a redirect that would largely be used by Orthodox readers who already know his links to the title of Patriarch and to Constantinople, because it is their church. wikipeace. FearÉIREANN 07:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * "Actually yes they do." Oh? Who? They are not on the Internet or any encyclopedia I've searched. It makes no sense to use a term that nobody else does (no matter how "logical"). Wikipedia is not a place to propose such changes in nomenclature. --mav 07:37 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with mav here. The purpose of an article title is to be a convenient reference to the person whom the article is about.  It is not to, in itself, relay information.  Certainly, the fact that John Chrysostom was Patriarch of Constantinople is an important.  It should be highlighted in the article about him.  And he should be mentioned, listed, and linked to in articles about the patriarchate.  But, to quote Emerson, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and I think this is a clear instance of a foolish consistency.  The man is known in the English-speaking world as John Chrysostom.    Note that on google, a search for "Patriarch John" +Chrysostom finds almost all of the references being to other patriarchs named John who happen to have some connection to Chrysostom.  Again, I think my main thought here is that there seems to be some dispute over what the purpose of article titles is.  Is that purpose to be a convenient label, or is the article title itself to serve a didactic purpose?  That I can recall, I do not believe it is supposed to be the latter, but perhaps someone can correct me.  As for the possibility that "John Chrysostom" might offend Orthodox Christians, well, perhaps we ought to let any Orthodox believers out there provide their own opinion about it, rather than trying to argue about whether or not they would be offended. john 21:59 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

kt2 asked for my input on the titlage of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents: Having said that, I see a couple of further issues with the titles & names of the various patriarchs: Having typed all of that, what I'm more concerned with is consistency across the various lists: I see no point in making changes to, say, the list of Jacobite Patriarchs of Antioch, only to find afterwards I need to change them all again to conform with how the list of Patriarchs of Constantinople is now being organized. Beyond a few indivduals where I feel common sense dictates one style, I have no vested interest in any one approach; I just want to be convinced that the consensus will work. -- llywrch 01:40, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Even though it appears to have been thoroughly hashed out (& perhaps settled before i came to the scene), my first choice for any entry is the most commonly known name -- well, the most commonly known english form of the name. I base this on my approach to naming, which is to simply disambiguate. After all, the names John Chrysostom, Nestorius and Ignatius of Antioch are unique; it only lengthens the namespace if we insist on names like Patriarch Ignatius I of Antioch.
 * When there is a possibility of ambiguity, fall back on kt2's susggestion of Patriarch (title) (ordinal) of (name of the place), dropping the (ordinal) unless necessary.
 * The language form of the name: Frankly, I prefer the Latin forms over the Greek, over the Syriac/Coptic/local language format, when it is clear one can make a preference. By this, for a 3rd century personage I'd rather see Justus over Ioustos, but from the 6th century on, I think the local language is more appropriate than either Greek or Latin.
 * The same person with different titulature: there are several examples of the same person being translated to different offices -- usually from the Patriarchate of Antioch or Alexandria to Constantinople. For this reason, I suggest that it makes more sense to refer to the person by his most familiar name.
 * The actual title: I don't know who made this change to the List of Patriarchs of Constantinople, but it does make sense to talk of first bishops, then archbishops, then (with the Council of Chalcedon Patriarchs. The only reason I haven't made similar changes to the lists for Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria is simple laziness.
 * It seems to me that the issue of "convenience" is a non-issue, so long as a redirect exists from the "most commonly used" name to the actual entry. One potential problem with the "most commonly used" standard is that it is (or can be) quite subjective, and will perhaps be different for different groups. As far as I'm concerned, if I wanted to find info on John Chrystosom, I'd simply look for Chrystosom. I'm not even sure I'd remember the John part. So we can have a redirect (or a disambig) at Chrysostom, and I get exactly what I want. I would not expect the actual page entry to be only Chrysostom. I expect a more formal title. But I find what I want -- that's what I care about.

 * The main reason for having a standard here is to avoid having this same discussion endlessly. You pick a standard that is clear, unambiguous, and not subjective. Then you use redirects to your heart's content to make things "convenient". This is not foolish consistency, but practical consistency.
 * -Anthropos 05:25, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Monarchical Titles (Again)
It is probably not the first time it has come up, but I disagree with rule 2 for the Monarchical Titles. In some countries, it is convention to give an ordinal to all monarchs, even when there has only been one holder of that name. Examples include Belgium and Spain. I would propose to include ordinals when writing about monarchs of those countries. Erwin 16:45, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is not the international usage and as an international sourcebook we follow internationally recognised names, not ones exclusive to a country. Internationally King Baudouin was never referred to as King Baudouin I, King Juan Carlos is never referred to as Juan Carlos I, Paul of Greece is never referred to as Paul I, Queen Victoria is never referred to as Victoria I. Wiki is simply following the standard international naming system and that is the overwhelmingly agreed policy. FearÉIREANN 19:23, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think there is an "international" usage at all, just a British one. And a British usage should, IMHO, only be applied to British monarchs, and a Dutch to Dutch monarchs, etc... I think one should respect the national tradition, whatever language one speaks. Example, even though Baudouin would be called "the first" in Belgian history books, but Queen Victoria would never be called "Victoria I" - not even in Belgian school books. Incidentally, when the Belgian government still had a full English version, he was called Baudouin "the first" even in English. Erwin 19:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1. There is a standard english language methodology that covers everything from the use or non-use of ordinals to the use of maiden name/title when referring to deceased consorts to the listing of honours. It is not a British standard but a worldwide english usage standard.

2. Different variations for usage was tried and proved unworkable. If you leave an ordinal in Juan Carlos, users then think that is the universal method and apply an ordinal to Queen Victoria, King Paul, etc. If you take some ordinals out, then users who don't know why then take ordinals out of Baudouin, Juan Carlos, etc. When that 'do each country differently' approach was tried it proved disastrous, turning pages all over into edit wars. The policy of simply not using ordinals except as disambigulation references where than more than one monarch had the same name, was adopted based on how monarchs are described by historians and has proved to be the only effective way to avoid endless edit wars erupting over ordinals. That is why it is now the convention followed universally by everyone on wiki for all western monarchies. Eastern monarchies operate under different naming traditions and have their own agreed conventions. FearÉIREANN 21:14, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1. What determines that this is the standard english language methodology? Sure, it is perhaps more common to refer to the king of Spain and Juan Carlos than as Juan Carlos I - Google gives 2 180 hits for 'Juan Carlos of Spain' and 1 330 for "Juan Carlos I of Spain". But Google also gives 49 700 hits for "Diana Princess of Wales" and 217 000 (4xas much) for "Princess Diana". So common usage isn't necessarily a reference.

2. "If you leave an ordinal in Juan Carlos, users then think that is the universal method and apply an ordinal to Queen Victoria, King Paul, etc." What's the difference with the current situation - users think that it is the universal method and don't apply ordinals to King Baudouin I and King Juan Carlos I? Isn't it more simple - and more correct in respect to the national traditions - to give the readers a list of countries for which they should apply ordinals to monarchs (Belgium, Spain, France, Italy,...) and a list of countries for which they shouldn't (Britain, Netherlands, Luxembourg,...)?

3. Then why should we only apply the "standard English language methodology" for the use of ordinals? For example, the "standard English language methodology" is that a woman named X who marries a prince named Y is called Princess Y and not Princess X - for example Marie-Christine Freiin von Reibnitz, who married Prince Michael of Kent is known as Princess Michael of Kent and not as Princess Marie-Christine of Kent. But this rule conflict with the traditions in other monarchies, such as Denmark or the Netherlands. For example, Laurentien Brinkhorst who married Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands is known as Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands and not as Princess Constantijn of the Netherlands. Should we write articles about "Princess Constantijn of the Netherlands" because this is the "standard English language methodology", even though she is known as "Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands" according to her national traditions? If not, why not? What's the difference between applying the "standard English language methodology" for ordinals and applying "standard English language methodology" for the names of married women?

4. "That is why it is now the convention followed universally by everyone on wiki for all western monarchies. Eastern monarchies operate under different naming traditions and have their own agreed conventions." So, basically, you apply different rules for Eastern monarchies because they operate under different traditions, but you don't apply different rules for some western monarchies despite the fact that they operate under different traditions? Have a nice day, BTW Erwin 08:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is a simplistic and unworkable analysis. 100% accuracy is 100% impossible in wiki, as everyone who has spent months trying to sort out royal naming on wiki has found to their cost. Before a gang of us came along, wiki had the Prince of Wales in as Charles Windsor, the Princess Royal in as Anne Windsor, the former King of Greece in as Constantine Gluckberg, etc etc. . There are still new users who try to reuse such rubbish. The task we faced was to try to create conventions that could be followed generally. Attempts at 100% accuracy in all cases produced edit wars all over the place. In an effort to sort out the chaos, experts (including Royal palaces in Britain, the Netherlands and Spain) were contacted by me and by some others. When it came to ordinals, the only workable format was found was not to use ordinals when only one monarch had had that name. That solution was discussed with experts who found it logical and acceptable, including royal press offices who were approached.

That is why is it now the convention used everywhere for western monarchs. From your comments it seems to don't understand the complexity of working on an encyclopædia where you have americans who think it is POV to use anything other that Charles Windsor, and Europeans who want to use the full style, title and honours in a title. After some experience of wiki you'll realise just how difficulty keeping everyone happy is. The naming coventions are the only workable compromise and were thrown up after months of effort, and involved edit wars with the Charles Windor, Baudouin Saxe-Coberg nuts whose simplistic, niave and almost invariably wrong namings drove those of us trying to get things as accurate as possible to the bring of leaving wiki. That is why the no ordinal usage for single monarchs is now the rule everyone has to follow. FearÉIREANN 13:37, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I personally think I do understand the complexity of working on an encyclopædia, and I do not mean to disdain the merits of your courageous struggle against Charles Windsor nuts (no sarcasm intended). Neither do I wish to challenge the necessity of conventions - I simply do not see why only this conventions would be workable. It is after all as arbitrary as any other convention (one could even argue that it is less workable than the convention to assign an ordinal to every monarch, because, suppose that some weird epidemic hits the British RF and some distant relative named Victoria becomes monarch, you would need to change every single page which refers to Queen Victoria). But my point was that the convention, as it now is, can lead to misinterpretations. Suppose I wanted to know if Belgian monarchs are always referred to with an ordinal or not, and I did not know of the existance of the wiki naming conventions, I might look up 'Baudouin' on Wikipedia, I would see that he wasn't assigned an ordinal, and I would - wrongfully - conclude that Belgium applied the British tradition of not assigning ordinals to monarchs who are the only of their name. Or, suppose I did know about the Wikipedia naming conventions, I would not look it up because I would know that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Both cases must sound horrible to anyone who cares about Wikipedia and who describes himself as someone who wants to get things as accurate as possible. That is why a "depends on what the national tradition is" convention would, IMHO, be an improvement for Wikipedia. But it is too hot here that to get into an endless and tiresome discussion about this. Therefore, I propose a compromise: we keep the convention as it now is (despite the fact that I continue to disagree with it), but I will make an article explaining the national traditions. This article (which would be called 'Use of ordinals by monarchs', or something similar) would begin with explaining that it is purely for the purpose of information and that, when writing an article, one should always respect the Wiki naming conventions. I think this would please us both - it would please me because it would make wikipedia more reliable, and it would please you because it might stop some of those annoying brats like me from challenging your conventions for the n'th time. I will start writing it as soon as I know that you agree with this compromise.Erwin 16:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent idea. Sorry if I sounded gruff; It has been a constant battle to stop the 'Charles Windsor' nuts on the one hand, and the Her Royal and Imperial Highness, Princess Alba Victoria, Duchess of Alba, Countess of Leeds, Princess of Denmark and Greece, (this is a mytical person, BTW, or at least I hope it is!!!) people on the other. I have a lot more sympathy for the latter, very little for the Windsor nuts! One of the major problems we have had is those striving for absolute accuracy is that they often doing realise the knock-on effects of their decision. One very genuine user renamed all the Japanese emperors in literal Japanese style, producing vast numbers of pages that were unintelligible to english speakers, breaking hundreds of links and causing chaos that took a month to fix and endless edit wars. (He finally realised the mess and undid it, only to find another Japanese user came on and did the exact same again!). When Baudouin became Baudouin I, someone then changed Victoria to Victoria I. When she was put back as Victoria, someone then changed Baudouin I back to Baudouin. And so the saga went on. So it was checked with Laeken and Buckingham Palace and Baudouin could be written without the ordinals (indeed that is regular practice except in their native countries) where Victoria, though proclaimed as Victoria I, is never ever written that way. That is why it is bit of a delicate topic. FearÉIREANN 18:03, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just created Use of ordinals by monarchs. No, I believe there is no such person as Her Royal and Imperial Highness, Princess Alba Victoria, Duchess of Alba, Countess of Leeds, Princess of Denmark and Greece, - it's even worse, there's a person who the most generous genealogists call Her Excellency, Maria del Rosario Cayetana Fitzjames-Stuart y de Silva, Duchess of Alba de Tormes, Berwick, Montoro, Lirio, Jerica, Arjona, Hijar, Aliaga and Huescar, Duchess and Countess of Olivares, Marchioness of San Vincente del Barco, La Carpio, Coria, Eliche, La Mota, San Leonado, Sarria, Villanueva del Rio, Tarazona, Villanueva de Fresna, Barcarotta, La Algaba, Osera, Moya and Almenera, Countess of Lemos, Lérin, Siruela, Monterrey, Osorno, Miranda del Castanar, Palma del Pio, Aranda, Salvatierra, Andrade, Ayula, Villalba, San Esteban de Gormaz, Fuentiduena, Cassarubios del Monte, Galve, Santa Cruz de la Serria and Ribadeo, Viscountess of Calzadal, Grandee of Spain and a couple of other titles. I can imagine that such an entry wouldn't be very convenient for most wikipedians.

I've been looking around for an answer to this, but the closest I can find is:

 * Roman Emperors don't need the "of the Roman Empire" nor would Pericles be "of Athens" ? their names already indicate where they're from. The first line of the article can say when (and which empire) they ruled. Otherwise, we get stuck with Roman Emperor, Western R. E., Eastern R. E., Byzantine E., and (under the Carolingians) Roman Emperor (again).

That's fine for the Roman Emperors, but the Byzantine Emperors are kind of messily named. Some of them have "of the Byzantine Empire" or "of Byzantium" (the latter being especially odd), some of them have "Emperor XXX" (or Empress), and some of them have their family names as well. In this case, would the most common English name be the most common name used by Byzantinists? Most of these emperors don't come in normal English conversation :) Personally, I would refer to a lot of them by their nicknames or their family names, so "Alexius I Comnenus" rather than just Alexius I, or "Constantine Monomachus" (or Con. IX Monomachus) rather than just Constantine IX.

So, I'm not exactly sure what should be done about the naming of their articles, but something definitely needs to be done, as there is very little in the way of a standard for them at the moment. Any suggestions? Adam Bishop 20:39, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Naming conventions
I'm not sure if if the Naming conventions (names and titles) page is checked often (apparently it isn't), so I thought I'd post this here as well...I've been looking around for an answer to this, but the closest I can find is:

 * 1) Roman Emperors don't need the "of the Roman Empire" nor would Pericles be "of Athens" ? their names already indicate where they're from. The first line of the article can say when (and which empire) they ruled. Otherwise, we get stuck with Roman Emperor, Western R. E., Eastern R. E., Byzantine E., and (under the Carolingians) Roman Emperor (again).

That's fine for the Roman Emperors, but the Byzantine Emperors are kind of messily named. Some of them have "of the Byzantine Empire" or "of Byzantium" (the latter being especially odd), some of them have "Emperor XXX" (or Empress), and some of them have their family names as well. In this case, would the most common English name be the most common name used by Byzantinists? Most of these emperors don't come in normal English conversation :) Personally, I would refer to a lot of them by their nicknames or their family names, so "Alexius I Comnenus" rather than just Alexius I, or "Constantine Monomachus" (or Con. IX Monomachus) rather than just Constantine IX.

So, I'm not exactly sure what should be done about the naming of their articles, but something definitely needs to be done, as there is very little in the way of a standard for them at the moment. Any suggestions? Adam Bishop 22:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Heh, Byzantine naming for Byzantines seems entirely appropriate! It has been worked over by various people in the past - talk pages and history might tell you some of the players.  They're halfway between European royalty, for which "of X" is the accepted standard, and Romans, which don't do it, but lots of the names are have high ambiguity, so review all of them before starting to tinker and then finding out the status quo was that way for a reason. :-) Stan 00:06, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * A lot of them wouldn't be ambiguous with any other world leader, of course...unless someone writes about the emperors of Trebizond, but I fixed those links so they will say "X of Trebizond." So I suppose "Alexius I", etc, is fine according to naming conventions, it just feels like they should all have "X, Byzantine Emperor" or something, if some of them do. Adam Bishop 14:59, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/monarchical titles is in need of input, I believe. --Jiang 06:29, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Suggested categorisation of titles
At the beginning of articles

Category One - Sir, Lord, etc. - These are essential in the first paragraph. The exception is where the individual concerned chooses not to use the title, where they can be mentioned elsewhere. Category one titles should be in bold along with the rest of the name, e.g. Sir Richard Branson. Peerage titles other than the highest held should not be in bold.

Category Two - The Rev., The Right Hon., etc. - These are not essential, but recommended if they are for life, and if included should not be in bold, e.g. The Reverend Ian Paisley

Category Three - His Royal Highness, His Grace, etc. - Should only be used, if desired, for living persons. Should be spelled out (not e.g. HRH except in lists), and not in bold, e.g. His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales

Andrew Yong 13:18, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Why should royal highness only be used for living persons? It is useful for dead persons as well, isn't it? john 05:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps, but I was starting from the basis that while "Elizabeth II, Queen of ..." is preferable to "Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of...", people will naturally call the reigning monarch "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II": on the other hand no-one would ever call a historical figure such as Henry VIII "His Highness King Henry VIII". I guess the same applies to some extent to all titles and styles: Baroness Thatcher will be referred as such while she lives, but after that Mrs Thatcher will surely replace it as the most common usage.

 * Also I felt that some titles in the category such as His Grace, His Lordship, etc. are only really used in speech, e.g. the addition of "His Grace" to "The Most Reverend and Right Hon. Dr Cosmo Gordon Lang" would be totally contrary to usage. Perhaps it is not entirely correct to lump The Hon., The Rev. etc. together on the one side and His Majesty, His Grace, etc. on the other, but at the end of the day it is an editorial decision - there is really no right or wrong way as far as this topic is concerned - I am just trying to suggest why the use of some titles/styles is more or less essential/acceptable than others and to bring about some consistency: if "The Right Reverend" is used, so should "the Right Honourable", but "The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson" stands well enough without "Her Excellency" or postnominals. Andrew Yong 21:04, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm...maybe not for Thatcher. Historically, at least, peers are generally known by their peerage title, at least formally, after their deaths.  But, who knows, at this point?  I would agree that "His Grace" is silly to add.  And something for Henry VIII, when the styles were not very clear, in any event, would also be silly.  But HRH The Duke of Connaught, for instance?  HRH Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll?  As opposed to her daughter, HH Princess Alexandra of Fife?  I think the royal styles have general applicability. john 21:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I concede the royals point where it is informative. But in the absence of HRH etc. I much prefer "John, Duke of X" to "His Grace John, Duke of X" or even "The Most Noble John, Duke of X" as it conveys no additional information. Andrew Yong 17:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, "his grace" conveys nothing of interest. I'd also say that there's no need for "right honourable" for barons, viscounts, and earls, and no need for "most honourable" for marquesses, since that information is already conveyed by the title. But I think all royal styles are worth having, with the possible exception of majesty for Kings and queens. john 18:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Who is a monarch?
A grand duke is a kind of monarch, right? Existing articles for grand dukes and duchesses seem split on article titling. Presumably princes like Rainier III of Monaco are agreed to get the monarchical treatment, what about dukes and smaller nobility that are/were absolute rulers of their domains? Stan 18:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Any sovereign ruler should count as a monarch. In general a Duke like, say, the duke of Brunswick, was considered higher (and had a higher style) than a sovereign prince like those of Monaco or Liechtenstein.  As far as Grand Dukes, most are monarchs (the Grand duke of Luxembourg, the Grand duke of Hesse and the Rhine, and so forth).  Members of the Russian Imperial house, though, obviously are not. john 19:44, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Rt. Hon.
Articles on Canadian prime ministers and governors (e.g. Paul Martin, Jr.) start with "The Right Honorable so-and-so is the this-and-that of Canada". I think that sounds weird - like starting an article for every monarch with "His/Her majesty so-and-so was the king of this-and-that". Any thoughts? Zocky 05:36, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you're the guy who removed the address from Adrienne Clarkson. Is there a reason why you did not remove the address from Queen Elizabeth II? --Menchi (Talk)ü|â 05:40, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * So, should Charlemagne start with "His majesty, Charlemagne was..."?
 * How about starting Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor with "His majesty Francis the First, by the grace of God Emperor of Austria; King of Jerusalem, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, and Lodomiria; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Würzburg, Franconia, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola ; Grand Duke of Cracow; Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Sandomir, Masovia, Lublin, Upper and Lower Silesia, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, and Friule; Prince of Berchtesgaden and Mergentheim; Princely Count of Habsburg, Gorizia, and Gradisca and of the Tyrol; and Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria was..."?
 * How about "His imperial majesty, Napoleon I Bokassa"?
 * "Her majesty", "Right Honourable" etc. are not even titles, they are forms of address, and are not part of the person's name. Zocky 05:52, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * For reasons of NPOV (and also standard encyclopedic naming), "The Right Honorable" doesn't belong in the article as a form of address. It does belong in Prime Minister of Canada as a bit of information about the position and the forms of address generally applied in different situations, etc.  Daniel Quinlan 05:55, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a bunch of edits. Incidentally, I also edited the few British Monarch articles that had a similar honorific only used in formal address (that are not titles). Daniel Quinlan 08:15, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * I posted a few paragraphs on this page under "Suggested categorisation of titles" (above) in November in the hope of avoiding the "all or nothing" absolutism that has characterised most discussions about the inclusion of titles. I would be grateful if anyone who disagrees with my categorisation could enter into a discussion about why they disagree with it.

 * As far as the style "The Right Honourable" is concerned, I suggested that it falls in the same category as styles such as "The Reverend", which while not part of the name or title of the person and thus not essential, should be included if it is for life, mainly because it carries important information about the person, and because its omission would seem to be intended to make some point. E.g., "The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was..." indicates straightaway that the subject of the article was a Christian minister. After that the subject can simply be referred to as "King" or "Dr King". Leaving it out "The Reverend" in the first instance would to me seem contentious, and even insulting.

 * Incidentally the use or non-use of the style "The Rt Hon" has nothing to do with NPOV. The entitlement of any person to the style is a matter of fact which can be instantly ascertained by consulting the relevant Canadian Order in Council. Andrew Yong 17:47, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)


text:
42nd Street (film)

42nd Street is a 1933 American pre-Code musical film directed by Lloyd Bacon, with songs by Harry Warren (music) and Al Dubin (lyrics). The film's numbers were staged and choreographed by Busby Berkeley. It stars an ensemble cast of Warner Baxter, Bebe Daniels, George Brent, Ruby Keeler, Dick Powell and Ginger Rogers.

Adapted from the 1932 novel of the same name by Bradford Ropes, the film's screenplay was written by Rian James and James Seymour, with uncredited contributions by Whitney Bolton. The story revolves around the cast and crew rehearsing for a Broadway show at the height of the Great Depression.

42nd Street was one of the most successful motion pictures of 1933, earning almost $1.5 million at the box office. At the 6th Academy Awards, the film was nominated for Best Picture.

In 1998, 42nd Street was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

In 2006, the film was ranked #13 on the American Film Institute's list of the greatest musicals of all time.

A Broadway stage adaptation debuted in 1980, winning two Tony Awards, including Best Musical.

Plot

In 1932 during the depths of the Great Depression noted Broadway producers Jones and Barry are staging Pretty Lady, a musical starring Dorothy Brock. She is involved with wealthy Abner Dillon, the show's financial backer, but she is secretly seeing her old vaudeville partner Pat Denning, who is out of work.

Julian Marsh is hired to direct, although his doctor warns that he risks his life if he continues in his high-pressure profession. Despite a long string of successes, he is impoverished following the 1929 Stock Market Crash, so he must make his last show a hit in order to earn enough money to retire.

Cast selection and rehearsals begin amidst fierce competition. Newcomer Peggy Sawyer is ignored until two experienced chorines, Lorraine Fleming and Ann Lowell, take her under their wing. Lorraine is assured a job because of her relationship with dance director Andy Lee, and she assures that Ann and Peggy are chosen. Peggy is tricked into bursting into the dressing room of the show's juvenile lead, Billy Lawler, who takes an immediate liking to her.

When Marsh learns about Dorothy's relationship with Pat, he sends some thugs led by his gangster friend Slim Murphy to intimidate Pat. Dorothy and Pat agree not to see each other for a while. Pat takes a stock job in Philadelphia.

Rehearsals continue for five weeks, to Marsh's complete dissatisfaction, until the night before the show's surprise opening in Philadelphia, when Dorothy breaks her ankle. By the next morning, Abner has quarreled with her and wants Marsh to replace her with his new girlfriend, Annie. Annie confesses that she cannot carry the show but convinces the director that the inexperienced Peggy can. Julian is desperate and rehearses Peggy mercilessly until an hour before the premiere.

Billy finally musters the nerve to tell Peggy that he loves her. They embrace and kiss, just as Dorothy appears and walks through the door. She wishes Peggy luck and reveals that she and Pat are finally getting married. The show is staged to rousing applause. As the theater audience leaves, Julian stands in the shadows outside the stage door, hearing comments that Peggy is the star and that he does not deserve the credit for the show's success.

Cast

 * Warner Baxter as Julian Marsh
 * Bebe Daniels as Dorothy Brock
 * George Brent as Pat Denning
 * Ruby Keeler as Peggy Sawyer
 * Guy Kibbee as Abner Dillon
 * Una Merkel as Lorraine Fleming
 * Ginger Rogers as Ann Lowell (also known as "Anytime Annie")
 * Ned Sparks as Barry
 * Dick Powell as Billy Lawler
 * Allen Jenkins as MacElroy, the stage manager
 * Edward J. Nugent as Terry Neil, a chorus boy
 * Robert McWade as Jones
 * George E. Stone as Andy Lee, dance director

Uncredited:
 * Clarence Nordstrom as leading man in "Shuffle Off to Buffalo"
 * Henry B. Walthall as the actor
 * Al Dubin as songwriter
 * Harry Warren as songwriter
 * Toby Wing as blonde in "Young and Healthy"
 * Charles Lane as playwright
 * Dave O'Brien as chorus boy
 * Rolfe Sedan as man on stage
 * Jack LaRue as thug
 * Tom Kennedy as thug
 * Harry Akst as Jerry, rehearsal pianist and conductor
 * Louise Beavers as Pansy, Dorothy Brock's maid
 * Adele Lacy as a chorus girl

 * Source: except where noted

Production

The film was Ruby Keeler's first, and the first time that Busby Berkeley, Harry Warren Al and Dubin had worked for Warner Bros. Mervyn LeRoy, the original director, became ill and Lloyd Bacon was hired to replace him. LeRoy was dating Ginger Rogers at the time and had suggested that she take the role of Ann.

Actors who were considered for lead roles include Warren William and Richard Barthelmess for the role of Julian Marsh, eventually played by Warner Baxter; Kay Francis and Ruth Chatterton instead of Bebe Daniels for the role of Dorothy Brock; Loretta Young as Peggy Sawyer instead of Ruby Keeler; Joan Blondell instead of Ginger Rogers for Anytime Annie; Glenda Farrell for the role of Lorraine, played by Una Merkel; and Frank McHugh instead of George E. Stone as Andy.

The film began production on October 5, 1932. The shooting schedule ran for 28 days at the Warner Bros. studio in Burbank, California. The total production cost is estimated to have been between $340,000 and $439,000.

Musical numbers

The film's music was written by Harry Warren with lyrics by Al Dubin. The numbers were choreographed and directed by Busby Berkeley.

 * "You're Getting to Be a Habit with Me" – sung by Bebe Daniels
 * "It Must Be June" – sung by Bebe Daniels, Dick Powell and the chorus
 * "Shuffle Off to Buffalo" – sung and danced by Ruby Keeler and Clarence Nordstrom, with Ginger Rogers, Una Merkel and the chorus
 * "Young and Healthy" – sung by Dick Powell to Toby Wing and the chorus
 * "42nd Street" – sung and danced by Ruby Keeler, and sung by Dick Powell

The "Love Theme", written by Harry Warren, is played under scenes between Ruby Keeler and Dick Powell, and Bebe Daniels and George Brent. It has no title or lyrics and is unpublished.

The music playing during dance rehearsals and the opening of the show is an instrumental piano piece that Warren wrote titled "Pretty Lady", the name of the show that is produced in the film.

Release
The film premiered in New York on March 9, 1933 at the Strand Theatre and entered general release two days later, becoming one of the most profitable films of the year, earning an estimated gross of $2,300,000. According to Warner Bros. records, the film earned $1,438,000 domestically and $843,000 abroad.

Reception
In a contemporary review for The New York Times, critic Mordaunt Hall called 42nd Street "the liveliest and one of the most tuneful screen musical comedies that has come out of Hollywood" and wrote: "Although it has its serious moments, it is for the most part a merry affair ... It is a film which reveals the forward strides made in this particular medium since the first screen musical features came to Broadway. Although it has its boisterous moments, '42nd Street' is invariably entertaining."

The New York World-Telegram described the film as "[a] sprightly entertainment, combining, as it did, a plausible enough story of back-stage life, some excellent musical numbers and dance routines and a cast of players that are considerably above the average found in screen musicals."

Variety wrote: "Every element is professional and convincing. It'll socko the screen musical fans with the same degree that Metro's pioneering screen musicals did."

John Mosher of The New Yorker called it "a bright movie" with "as pretty a little fantasy of Broadway as you may hope to see" and praised Baxter's performance as "one of the best he has given us", although he described the plot as "the most conventional one to be found in such doings."

Stage adaptation
In 1980, the film was adapted into a stage musical by Harry Warren and Al Dubin. It featured additional songs by Warren and lyrics by Dubin and Johnny Mercer and a book by Michael Stewart and Mark Bramble. The original Broadway production directed and choreographed by Gower Champion (whose death on opening night was announced at the curtain call by producer David Merrick) won the Tony Award for Best Musical. Since then, it has been produced regionally and professionally around the world. The score included all musical numbers from the film except "It Must Be June."

Awards and honors
42nd Street received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture and Best Sound and was named one of the ten best films of 1933 by Film Daily.

American Film Institute recognition
 * 2004 – AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs:
 * "42nd Street", # 97
 * 2005 – AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes:
 * "Sawyer, you're going out a youngster, but you've got to come back a star!", # 87
 * 2006 – AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals – # 13

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 42nd Street (film)