Talk:Queen Victoria

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)