This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
RM, George I of Great Britain → George I, Not moved, 3 February 2022, discussion
He was raised Lutheran & stayed Lutheran after becoming King, he continued to hold Lutheran beliefs and attended Lutheran services. He never converted to Anglicanism. His religion should be changed to 'Lutheran'. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources state the contrary. It's not my opinion that George I was a Lutheran, it's a verifiable fact. Though George was the head of the CoE, he never abandoned his Lutheran beliefs, he attended Lutheran mass, he had a Lutheran funeral. The same even goes for his son George II. I guess I don't see the problem with labeling him as a Lutheran when he literally was. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Consensus against moving. Following a discussion with extraordinary participation by typical RM standards, there is no consensus for a move at this time, and instead a clear consensus (more than two to one) in opposition to the proposed move. There is no reason to expect that relisting the discussion would overcome this trend. BD2412T04:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
– Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT. There should be no doubt that "George I" and "George II" are these two monarchs' most common name in English. A quick glance of the sources used in these articles proves that. And I think it is fairly self-evident that when an English speaker refers to "George I" or "George II" (or searches for that term on Wikipedia) that they are highly likely to be referring to these two monarchs, which makes them the primary topic. Additionally, all of the other British monarchs have been moved over the past decade or so to their more common and concise titles, including Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria in 2010; George VI, Edward VIII, George V, and Edward VII in 2011; and William IV, George IV, and George III in 2020. The only other British monarch that hasn't been moved is Anne, but she was Queen of England before the Acts of Union. And since she has no ordinal, she requires some form of disambiguation in her title, so she's an odd case. Therefore, to be consistent with all the other British monarchs, I think that it's time we move these last two articles to their common names. NOTE: Since we are already having the related discussions on all the other British monarch titles here and here, I think it makes sense for us to discuss these 2 at the same time while we are all thinking about this right now.Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as the "Monarch # of country" is more preferable. Also, "Great Britain" is the primary country here. Not "Ireland" or "Hanover". GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally support the move since they are clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but my preference would have been to hold a single discussion covering all the British monarchs. Now we have one here, another at Talk:Elizabeth II and a third one at Talk:Charles III and the results are not even in yet (though there appears to be no consensus for the other two at the moment). Keivan.fTalk20:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons I could go into. However Rreagan007 has contradicted himself by suggesting that it would have been better not to open the move request at Talk:Elizabeth II while the one at the Talk:Charles III is still open, but then he has gone and opened a third one. PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction was that it wasn't a good idea, but after I thought about it I decided that it makes sense to have all these related discussions simultaneously to just get them done while everyone is thinking about it. I'm allowed to change my mind. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I oppose as I do not believe that they are the primary topic. I actually accept the consensus that UK monarchs from George III onwards are the primary topic. However, there are some serious reasons for putting the cut-off point between George II and George III. Firstly, if you compare George III (disambiguation) and George II you will see that in the former case we just have a few obscure German princes and Georgian kings, but in the latter the list is a lot longer. Secondly, we also have George II of Greece, who e.g. ruled his country in WW2, not much less important than George II of Great Britain. Similar issues exist even more so with George I. See WP:BIAS. PatGallacher (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looking simply at page views it's not obvious there's a primary topic for George I; massviews shows that George I of Greece is also receiving a decent chunk of the daily views ([1]). George II may have a slightly better case from views ([2]) but not a great one; there's no harm in having a disambiguation page when there isn't an obvious primary topic. This exact same request was opened last year (by the same proposer) and I see no evidence that consensus is likely to have changed here. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)22:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4:1 and especially 8:1 is fairly overwhelming. Twenty percent may be a 'decent chunk' in some contexts, but not when it's being directly compared to 80%. ntnon (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - It was already improper for the RM at Elizabeth II's talk to be opened whilst the Charles III one is still open, but at third RM open is just complete insanity. Beside that, I am unconvinced that Georges I & II of Great Britain are the primary topics based on PT2 considering that Georges I & II of Greece exist.--estar8806 (talk) ★22:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per my rationale on the other two pages. Also, wasn't the nominator decrying having two RMs on British monarchs open simultaneously? Some would call that double standards. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close. If nothing else, we should await the outcome of the others before considering further moves. This is getting out of hand, and really none of them warrant a change of primary topic anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With these two, unlike Elizabeth II and Charles III, primary topic is uncertain and I think the current titles are appropriate. I hope this is the last of these RMs now. Wanderin' Wolf (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This is yet another move proposed for doctrinaire reasons rather than helping our readers find what they are looking for. Tim riley talk23:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I note that the two kings of Greece are fairly recent—much more so than the British kings—and so this is much less clear-cut than with Charles III. It might not be the best time for this debate, given how strong people's feelings are in the other move discussion, and how these article titles seem to have been relatively stable, relying on a later cut-off date. If people had been swapping titles and there were no relatively consistent policy to infer from existing titles, then the case would be stronger for opening up what is sure to be another can of worms. P Aculeius (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given that the rationale of my request and the request on Charles III's article were to move the titles of British monarchs to a longer and more precise alternative, supporting this proposal would be contradictory to the policy-based reasons I have established here. Also, George I and George II of Great Britain are far from the only monarchs with their names (e.g. George I and II of Greece, the former of whom oversaw territorial expansions in Greece and the latter of whom was a central figure in Greece's World War II.) - HurricaneAndrew (444)23:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It has been the sustained standard to do this with British Monarchs, and per consistency it would make sense to make both articles to retain that consistency. CIN I&II (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose It's bad enough that articles like Charles III claim precedence over any other Charles, we should avoid even further English-language bias at all costs. El Dubs (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is in favour of this so-called 'English language bias' in determining article titles per WP:ARTICLETITLES: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. and When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources. Jèrriais janne (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate thing. This is giving priority to the monarchs English-speakers know of simply through virtue of them being from an English-speaking nation. Take the recent "Charles III" issue. English speakers would indeed call him Charles III, but English speakers would call the other Charles III's that as well. The bias, is giving that preference to the British Charles III. The same should be applied to George I, just because he is British, doesn't mean he'd get priority. El Dubs (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It's important not to conflate WP:AT with WP:D; the former deals primarily with ideal titles when primary topic is assured, and the latter is when there are multiple claimants (oh, haha, pretenders) to a title. ObviouslyGeorge II is a better title overall... except for the part where there are other significant George IIs to be disambiguated from. RedSlash15:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness, I’m stupid and completely misread this proposal, assuming it was similar to those of Charles III and Elizabeth II. Changing my vote to support based on PRIMARYTOPIC - my apologies to @Rreagan007! The Kip (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like i said in the previous request, i cannot support this discrimination between british monarchs and the rest of the monarchs of the world. In this case, we have already a precise and appropriate title and we should not change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRichic (talk • contribs) 06:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Because it has served for a long time, and is still in the territory of Great Britain, not the UK. with that my opinion still uses that name and don't change it. Baqotun0023 (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, at this point, I think the best solution is a sort of task force that takes care of considering all the British sovereigns and deciding with what criteria to name them, whether to give more weight to the particular evolution of both the United Kingdom, the empire and then of the Commonwealth, or to avoiding treating them as an exception and using their most recognizable realm as disambiguating. (or maybe their birth-death dates?). We currently have three discussions going on but there may be more, which still come out quite regularly: George VI and previous kings are covered as the main topic even if during their reigns the Commonwealth realms were not independent as during Elizabeth II and Charles III, while Charles I and Charles II is referred to as Charles I of England and Charles II of England although they were separately kings of England Scotland and Ireland, versus James I and VI to reflect his two reigns... Sira Aspera (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This is not about Wikipedia making some imperious judgement about the relative importance of British monarchs vs. those of other nations, but about the most common usage in English language sources. That's how we operate and then the decision is straightforward because our personal opinions are left out of it. Bermicourt (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The majority of articles about monarchs at the time (in the 17th and 18th centuries) use the "of" form, so I don't see why these two should be changed. They are nowhere near the only George I and George II in history, there have been quite many. As I said before, this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for the United Kingdom, so I don't see why British monarchs should be the default. JIP | Talk09:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support While there are other monarchs named "George I" and "George II", these seem to be the primary topics for these names, and thus the most likely search terms. It doesn't need the elaboration of "of Great Britain". --Jayron3212:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support move of George II only per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based pageviews. While George I of Great Britain gets the majority of views for persons named George I, George I of Greece also gets roughly 30% or the views that the British monarch receives, so that is a significant enough chunk to leave the status quo alone. However, the second most primary George II, (of Greece) receives less than 12% of the pageviews as George II of GB, which makes a much stronger case that there is a primary topic on that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Anchor (talk • contribs) 12:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think the status quo for these articles is fine. The primary topic is unclear to me, especially on long-term significance compared with George I of Greece and George II of Greece. Editors who consistently want "of Great Britain" included or omitted will both be dissatisfied, but I agree with PatGallacher (21:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)) – George I and II and are in a significantly different situation from George III. The same criteria, applied reasonably by the community across a range of articles, reasonably lead to articles not all having the format. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. WikiNav data clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of readers visiting George I (nearly 90% of total outward pageviews) are looking for the British monarch and not one of the other monarchs. [3] WikiNav also clearly demonstrates that nearly 100% of visits to George II are going onto George II of Great Britain (the small minority who are not are going on to George III. [4] The relative pageview graphs at [5] (dates curtailed to not pick up on exceptional traffic due to the Queen's death and King's coronation) clearly demonstrate the completely discrepancy between the primary topics and their disambiguation pages. Jèrriais janne (talk)
Strong Oppose. By the same reasons that the wrongly titled Charles III, when there's more than 1 monarch with the same name, in the same or different countries, the readers must absolutely have the right and freedom to actually find which one they're looking for easily, and that's a disambiguation page. MaeseLeon (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current Charles III is not just the monarch of the United Kingdom. He's king in 15 equal and independent countries. Adding the name of one of those countries and ignoring the others is an actual form of bias. Also, readers are not dumb. When they type in Charles III a ton of names pops up. They can choose which ones they want to visit and still over 95% visit the current king's page. Keivan.fTalk13:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NCROY and the ambiguity involved. George I shows tons of other monarchs. Including the realm is the "default" per NCROY and there needs to be a very strong COMMONNAME argument against, which is a standard not met here. SnowFire (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, as the proposal supports an English bias and the idea that George I or II are the primary topic implies a very limited world-view.--RR (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spurious comparison, since with all bar two of the monarchs you list above (Charles X and Cleopatra) they are the only monarch of this name. PatGallacher (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Primary sought-out topic for each King. Thus, it makes sense to have the main person on the main page with a 'See also' subheading for secondary person and disambiguation. It's not a language bias because this is the English-language encyclopedia; browsers of the English language version overwhelming want these individuals. ntnon (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not the primary topic, not consistent with the logic of the general guidance for monarchs, and not in the encyclopedic register, which naturally includes country in title/subtitle [6]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
None of my additions [7] contradict Hatton, all of them clarify undisputed facts such as distribution and succession in the Welf territories. Deletion is unfounded. Equord (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg)
