Talk:Queen Victoria: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Brian P. Long |
John Leach (talk | contribs) (→Title: new section) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
==Article name== | ==Article name== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::As far as I can tell, the most precise way of naming royalty would be to name them by lineage. Victoria, would then live at 'Victoria (House of Hanover)'. This manages to avoid anachronism for earlier kings (whose realms almost never correspond neatly to modern nation-states), and sidesteps the issue of people (like Victoria) who have a whole mouthful of royal titles (so Victoria is not only the Queen of the United Kingdom, but also the Empress of India, and so on). The issue is that this would be in conflict with the way most uneducated people think of Victoria (as Queen of the United Kingdom) but it would be precise. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 18:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | ::As far as I can tell, the most precise way of naming royalty would be to name them by lineage. Victoria, would then live at 'Victoria (House of Hanover)'. This manages to avoid anachronism for earlier kings (whose realms almost never correspond neatly to modern nation-states), and sidesteps the issue of people (like Victoria) who have a whole mouthful of royal titles (so Victoria is not only the Queen of the United Kingdom, but also the Empress of India, and so on). The issue is that this would be in conflict with the way most uneducated people think of Victoria (as Queen of the United Kingdom) but it would be precise. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 18:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
::: Hmmm; that disambiguation (lineage) was just about the only one that was discussed, over at [[CZ Talk:Naming Conventions]]! [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 20:46, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
[[ | :: I would suggest "Queen Victoria" and make an exception, if necessary, to any rule we have or might come up with. This is how this particular queen is best known, and in fact giving her any other name will be confusing to most people. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:30, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
::: Hmm, that's a good point. Sigh, too bad some people don't like my 'split the page-idenifier and article-name' concept (see the forums thread [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1654.html here]), as that would have solved this problem rather nicely. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 20:46, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
:::Queen Victoria works. Note that the issue is not ambiguity--there are no other prominent people named simply Victoria. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 03:23, 14 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
:::::Yikes after all this discussion some newbie jumped in and picked is own name for the article. Let's move it to Queen Victoria. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:06, 31 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
::::::My view is that unnumbered monarchs should have the royal title in the article title: Victoria (Queen) or Queen Victoria. I think Victoria or Victoria of the United Kingdom looks silly, though you can do that for more remote historical figures. For future reference note also that the heir apparent to the Swedish throne is also called Victoria. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I have moved it to [[Queen Victoria]] at least for now, following my request to have the redirect there deleted. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Trivia? == | |||
Probably doesn't belong in the article, but here it is anyway. The death was announced this morning of a 117-year-old Jamaican lady who was believed to be not only the oldest person in the world but also the last surviving subject of QV. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 09:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Title == | |||
I found the above discussion interesting. I know it was a while back but, for what it's worth, I completely agree with Larry. She has always been called Queen Victoria and that should be the title. I haven't looked but I'll bet WP has concocted some ludicrous label that no one would ever say or write. [[User:John Leach|John]] ([[User talk:John Leach|talk]]) 08:35, 28 July 2023 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:35, 28 July 2023
Article name
This really won't do as a name for the article, I'm afraid...it's simply too ambiguous. --Larry Sanger 17:15, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- I agree - but what do we call it? J. Noel Chiappa 17:41, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- As far as I can tell, the most precise way of naming royalty would be to name them by lineage. Victoria, would then live at 'Victoria (House of Hanover)'. This manages to avoid anachronism for earlier kings (whose realms almost never correspond neatly to modern nation-states), and sidesteps the issue of people (like Victoria) who have a whole mouthful of royal titles (so Victoria is not only the Queen of the United Kingdom, but also the Empress of India, and so on). The issue is that this would be in conflict with the way most uneducated people think of Victoria (as Queen of the United Kingdom) but it would be precise. Brian P. Long 18:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- Hmmm; that disambiguation (lineage) was just about the only one that was discussed, over at CZ Talk:Naming Conventions! J. Noel Chiappa 20:46, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- I would suggest "Queen Victoria" and make an exception, if necessary, to any rule we have or might come up with. This is how this particular queen is best known, and in fact giving her any other name will be confusing to most people. --Larry Sanger 18:30, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- Hmm, that's a good point. Sigh, too bad some people don't like my 'split the page-idenifier and article-name' concept (see the forums thread here), as that would have solved this problem rather nicely. J. Noel Chiappa 20:46, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- Queen Victoria works. Note that the issue is not ambiguity--there are no other prominent people named simply Victoria. Richard Jensen 03:23, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
- Yikes after all this discussion some newbie jumped in and picked is own name for the article. Let's move it to Queen Victoria. Richard Jensen 14:06, 31 May 2008 (CDT)
- My view is that unnumbered monarchs should have the royal title in the article title: Victoria (Queen) or Queen Victoria. I think Victoria or Victoria of the United Kingdom looks silly, though you can do that for more remote historical figures. For future reference note also that the heir apparent to the Swedish throne is also called Victoria. Peter Jackson 16:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have moved it to Queen Victoria at least for now, following my request to have the redirect there deleted. John Stephenson 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- My view is that unnumbered monarchs should have the royal title in the article title: Victoria (Queen) or Queen Victoria. I think Victoria or Victoria of the United Kingdom looks silly, though you can do that for more remote historical figures. For future reference note also that the heir apparent to the Swedish throne is also called Victoria. Peter Jackson 16:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Trivia?
Probably doesn't belong in the article, but here it is anyway. The death was announced this morning of a 117-year-old Jamaican lady who was believed to be not only the oldest person in the world but also the last surviving subject of QV. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Title
I found the above discussion interesting. I know it was a while back but, for what it's worth, I completely agree with Larry. She has always been called Queen Victoria and that should be the title. I haven't looked but I'll bet WP has concocted some ludicrous label that no one would ever say or write. John (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2023 (CDT)