This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary I of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Mary I of England is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
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 WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kingdom of Naples, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Kingdom of NaplesWikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of NaplesTemplate:WikiProject Kingdom of NaplesKingdom of Naples articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History 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
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@4meter4: I get your argument that there are other Mary I's, but we could also make the argument that there is no primary topic for Mary I and move the dab page instead. There are other Henry VII's, but the king of England is the most notable. Same thing for Mary I. The queen of England is the most notable out of the people listed on the dab page. Interstellarity (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that there was more Mary the first besides the one from England and am glad that the discussion was not moved, but as I have seen with the other users, as long as there was a mention of Mary I of England's father or otherwise, it should be fine. Y33T 0321 (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is concise and precise. Virtually all references to "Mary I" in literature point to the Tudor queen. Her Stuart cousin is sometimes but very rarely called Mary I (so rarely that we cannot even achieve consensus to put that name at least in the infobox heading) and the references to the other women as Mary I are entirely negligible. In other words, a textbook example of WP:PRIMARY. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's best we go back to the "Name # of country" format for monarch bios. Besides, she isn't the only monarch named Mary I. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many other Mary Is out there, best to be specific. If consistency is a concern, I'd be sooner in favor of moving other Tudors to "of XYZ" then of removing it from Mary I of England. SnowFire (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support because Mary I is the only queen regnant of that name with a regnal number. Mary Queen of Scots was the only Mary to reign over Scotland (prior to merger of crowns) so she isn't really recognized with a regnal number. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The above "oppose" !votes, which mainly rely on confusion with other Marys, make no sense given that Mary I already redirects here. So much as there's a numerical majority against this proposal, there is no policy-based reason for keeping this title as it is. We don't use disambiguated titles just for the sake of it. All in all, considering all this, the page should be moved as proposed, and the "Oppose" !votes given less weight given that they don't match policy. So what are the detailed policy reasons for preferring the shorter name?
This individual is the primary topic for "Mary I". Well one could debate that, but it seems to be the case considering the other entries on the dab page and the fact that it has already been considered primary since 2017, via the redirect at Mary I.
The WP:COMMONNAME of this individual is "Mary I" rather than "Mary I of England". The shorter name has a huge lead in ngrams, even allowing for the fact that hits for the latter also match the former and that there are other Mary Is.
Clearly the proposed name is more WP:CONCISE than the present one.
And also, there is WP:CONSISTENCY in the proposed move, considering the already-noted cases of Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, Charles III and even Edward VI, the last being a six-year boy-king who had considerably less impact and notoriety than his sister, for whom the name "Bloody Mary", which persists today, was coined. She is far from "barely recognizable", as mentioned above. We already do this, and there's no reason not to do it again. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: no disrespect, but I don't think it's really valid to compare the name "Mary I of England" to "Barack Obama". The latter is always called by that name in headlines and first mentions,[1][2] so that's effectively the WP:COMMONNAME for him, and it's obviously his actual name. But "Mary I of England" is not her name, it's not particularly how she's known on first mention (e.g. [3][4][5]). And if being precise were the only consideration then we wouldn't have the other examples mentioned such as Charles III. That's really the clincher here; we already shorten other monarchs, so there's no reason not to do the same with this one. — Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Amakuru, I believe the Obama comparison is apt, but the title parallel to "Mary I of England" would be "Barack Obama of the United States": both unnecessarily long, unknown in reliable sources, and still not even as precise as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the Obama example simply as an instance of an article being at a longer title despite the shorter one redirecting to it. From the discussion above, I get the impression that it's felt that the English monarch Mary I is perceived as more likely to be confused with other monarch with the name (esp. Mary I of Scotland) than Henry VIII with the other people listed at Henry VIII (disambiguation). – Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: I believe another week of discussion here will be beneficial to determining consensus, as while there are more opposers, this isn't a vote and supporters have also been giving good evidence-supported comments. After 7 days, we'll see where we end up. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits02:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an opposer, since User:EchidnaLives suggested that the support side has offered good "evidence." I don't believe the differing votes in this RM are explained by evidence, however, e.g. when all sides agree the COMMONNAME should predominate but disagree what the common name is. Rather, there is a disagreement on naming principles in general, which (IMO) is more subject to simple gauging of consensus. Even if it is conceded that Mary I-> Mary I of England is a good WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (which not all opposers do, to be clear, although I'm personally fine with the redirect), that doesn't solve the issue. As the "Obama" primary redirect example shows, concision isn't everything; sometimes a fuller title is more useful and precise. As far as I'm concerned, including "of country" is the default, and only when there's no contest at all in importance - like 100x times as important - does it make sense to remove it (e.g. Henry VIII (disambiguation), where all the competition is either very minor nobles, major nobles but who are known by different titles than Henry VIII, or else things named after the English king). Maria I is anglicized as Mary I in older literature, and while Mary Queen of Scots is not normally called "Mary I", she's so important that even if 5% of usages are of "Mary I of Scotland", it's worth differentiating. These two are way more prominent than the kind of no-name forgotten nobles like Henry VIII the Sparrow or inferior titles nobody uses like the Holy Roman Emperor also technically being a Henry VIII of a different claim. Basically, I don't think there's much of a dispute on evidence, just a naming style question of whether "$NAME $REGNAL_NUMBER" is appropriate if it is merely the most prominent usage (clearly true in this case), or if it is only appropriate if it is the dominating usage with no substantive alternatives (clearly not true in this case). SnowFire (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of this makes any sense. Either she's primary topic, and should be at Mary I (similar to Elizabeth I etc.) or she's not primary topic, in which case there should be a dab page. The current arrangement is not consistent with any of our naming conventions, including WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT, so one way or another the page or the dab page will be moved. WP:CONSENSUS is formed by looking through the lens of policy and guideline, not by taking a vote. Also, why is the Obama example still being used? It has been fully demonstrated above that Obama and Mary I are not equivalent cases when considering WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been argued to death, and it seems it some want to argue it all over again. The consensus achieved is at WP:SOVEREIGN, where for a great many variety of reasons, and after much discussion, the form "Monarch # of Kingdom" was agreed upon. That is the consensus. It has been the norm for over a decade. This was challenged a couple years ago when some people started trying to shorten monarch pages to give some sort of special prominence to some British monarchs. The entire matter was re-argued again last year, and the WP:SOVEREIGN norm of "Monarch # of Kingdom" reiterated as consensus. It is getting tiring to argue this over and over again.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, and closer to a consensus against the move in light of other royal figures named Mary which may be confusing to the casual international Wikipedia reader. BD2412T21:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or maybe mild oppose. I think some readers can can reasonably looking for Mary, Queen of Scots, and maybe (though less likely) Mary of Hungary.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Too ambiguous. I also wish that people would stop introducing frivolous move requests into monarchy related articles. There's no need to change the status quo right now. 92.40.212.153 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. The country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear. Removing it isn’t an improvement for our readers (which policy instructs is our priority) and doesn’t seem to serve any good purpose beyond just following the recent change to NCROY -- and given the contentiousness of all the RMs that's prompted, it almost certainly needs to be revised. ╠╣uw[talk]18:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum to my !vote, here's a bit more detail on some of the salient policies:
Our WP:CRITERIA policy instructs that we make user interests’ our priority, and that we ensure titles are recognizable to those who are familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the problem is that many regnal names — and especially common and repeated names like Mary — may not be sufficiently recognizable even to those who are familiar with royalty. I myself am one (familiar but no expert) and until these recent RMs I would not have been able to tell you that Charles X and Charles XI were kings of entirely different countries, of that Mary I must necessarily be Mary I of England
WP:COMMONNAME policy encourages us to look to other reputable encyclopedias for comparison. That Britannica considers it important to include with the title a clarifier that she is queen of England seems pertinent.
Primary topic policy does not dictate that the most concise unambiguous title is the one we must use. If it did, we'd have US, UK, Obama, 103rd Congress, Cezanne, Bothell, Rockies, Pacific, DTs, AI, etc., all of which redirect to less concise titles. Policy recognizes that other factors beyond conciseness and ambiguity are important for us to consider, and I would say they favor retaining the country.
By your absurd interpretation of CRITERIA, title preferences would be in this ascending order:
Mary I
Mary I of England
Mary I of England (1516-1558)
Mary I (1516-1558), Queen of England (1553-1558), Queen consort of Spain
Mary I (1516-1558), Queen of England (1553-1558), Queen consort of Spain (1556-1558)
etc.
I mean, by your interpretation, 2 is preferable to 1. By the same reasoning, 3 is preferable to 2, 4 preferable to 3, etc. There’s no end to this. For. Every. Article. On. Wikipedia. That’s why it’s absurd. —В²C☎23:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Huwmanbeing. I had a group of reasons but clean forgot to come here. Huwmanbeing lays out the most important: We exist to serve our readers and making/keeping things clear and easy for them is important. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello18:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move of this article to Mary I per nom and because Opposers have no policy basis. None. Zip. Nada. Huwmanbeing’s claim that “of England” is necessary to make the subject “sufficiently clear” ignores ALL relevant guidelines. Primary topic here is undisputed; Mary I has been a PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article for years. Nobody has even attempted to argue we don’t have PT here. Recognizability is from the perspective of someone familiar with the topic. Anyone familiar with this Mary I will recognize an article titled Mary I is about this Mary I. Interpreting CRITERIA guidance to prioritize reader interests to mean unnecessary disambiguation like ”of England” should be included in our titles would mean a radical change to policy and changing almost all of our titles to meet some limitless unspecified standard. After all, any title can be “improved” by adding more clarity to the title so the subject is recognizable to more readers. That’s an impractical and frankly fantastic interpretation of that guidance. As such it doesn’t count as policy basis at all. Which leaves opposition with no policy basis whatsoever. —В²C☎22:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By your crass and rather obnoxious reply, you demonstrate precisely why i ~ and i suspect a very good number of other editors ~ tend to stay away from discussions (not arguments) like this. The very first section of TITLE says that [t}he title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. I find it hard to argue that "Mary I of England" is not clear enough for just about every non-expert, whereas, as Huwmanbeing pointed out simply the name and number may well not be. I recognise Mary I, or Edward III, but British history is a delight of mine; i wouldn't have a clue about the Charles X and Charles XI he mentioned without clarification, and there are bound to be people in the same position for Mary I. To repeat and clarify: We exist to serve our readers, and easy titles which keep things clear are good for them and therefore for us. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the reasons that have been discussed ad-nauseum. Wikipedia is for readers and readers will find the existing title far more clear. Same reasons as the Maria I move, too - "Mary" is an exceptionally, exceptionally common name, even strictly among the nobility. The proposed title is ambiguous. There isn't some shortage of characters, we can spend some. SnowFire (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosbif73: That is false. It was a dab page from 2001 until 2017, when it was changed without discussion by the same user who proposed the recent change to NCROY. Here is the page in June 2017. Similar story at Mary II. Srnec (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have gotten this page confused with another of the royalty RMs. Nevertheless, and regardless of who made the change, that still makes over six years that it hasn't been disputed as primary redirect, so my argument stands only marginally diminished. Indeed, as pointed out in the nominating statement, two RMs on the dab page in 2020 and 2022 found consensus that the English queen is the clear primary topic. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's rather simple because neither Mary of Guise nor Mary of Teck would ever be referred to as "Mary I" because they weren't queens regnant. As for Mary, Queen of Scots, she's just hardly ever referred to as Mary I of Scotland, see ngrams[6]. Supporting that, redirects to Mary, Queen of Scots including some form of "Mary I" get less than 1000 views combined [7]. The fact of the matter is that Mary I, refers to the English queen almost exclusively. To that point, very few readers go from Mary I of England to the disambiguation page Mary I (disambiguation), to the point where it doesn't even register in WikiNav [8]. estar8806 (talk) ★18:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a number of historic figures with a similar name are floating around the same topic, some clarification helps. The article has worked up till now with its current title, as it has for Henry I of England. I have no further insights to offer. Indefatigable2 talk18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
The redirect Philip and Mary of England has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 17 § Philip and Mary of England until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)