Talk:Queen Victoria: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (→Article name: Too bad some people don't like the separate page/article name idea) |
||
| 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) | ||
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) | ::: 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) | |||
[[Category:Rename suggested]] | [[Category:Rename suggested]] | ||
Revision as of 19:46, 13 May 2008
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)