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: moved. The supporters generally argued that the proposed title would be more concise, commonly used, and the primary topic. The opposers generally said that the proposed title was not the common name and primary topic, or was ambiguous. Overall, it appears that the supporters generally had stronger arguments than the opposers, saying that the proposed title was unambiguous and was the primary topic, because the term Wilhelm II already redirected to the German Emperor. Since there was no uniform grounds in the opposes saying why the German emperor was not the primary topic, and evidence suggesting that the proposed title was not completely ambiguous, I see a consensus that the page should be moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wilhelm II, German Emperor → Wilhelm II

There is not any other person titled "Wilhelm II" except for this German emperor. Thus the comma is unnecessary. "William II" is arguable but "Wilhelm II" clearly refers to this German emperor/Prussian king and no other royal. Toptanazikov (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I know there'll be editors who argue WP:NCROY and a move to Wilhelm II of Germany but I personally believe that a move to Wilhelm II is best because it makes the title more concise, as well as being the primary topic. Aydoh8 (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose - Pending the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of that RfC is irrelevant to this discussion, as it is only asking if there should be an explicit guideline for what we are already doing with royal article titles in practice. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not completely irrelevant. If some form of language supporting the current practice (which is in direct violation of the guideline) should be added, then that would render opposition based on NCROY nil. Conversely, if it's not added, it would make the support votes in contradiction to NCROY. It's very much relevant here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of NCROY. But if NCROY does go against our current practice, then NCROY has failed to properly reflect consensus as it is supposed to and must be changed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion. And I appreciate your disagreement with my "interpretation" as I think the way it's currently written is ambiguously. I also agree that the current form does not reflect consensus as it stands, though I may disagree about exactly what that consensus may be.

As it stands now, I don't see how NCROY supports this. NCROY could change somewhat dramatically based on the pending RfC (hence my procedural opposition). However should there be exceptions, this would be an acceptable one to me. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. He wasn't even the only King Wilhelm II in Germany in his own time. See de:Wilhelm II. (Württemberg). Srnec (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that article is titled William II of Württemberg, not Wilhelm II right now. Secondly, Wilhelm II is clearly the primary topic as it redirects here and the Wilhelm II (disambiguation) literally contains all William IIs, no Wilhelm IIs. Toptanazikov (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The kaiser can be the primary topic for "Wilhelm II" for all I care. But the bare title "Wilhelm II" is not clear and looks silly to me. It isn't as if Wilhelm/William was an uncommon name for rulers. Nor is it as if the kaiser was only ever called Wilhelm. He called himself William in English. Moreover, I'm not convinced that "Wilhelm II" is the common name. I think it's "the Kaiser". See here. If you think "The Kaiser" would be a bad title, then you can understand why I think "Wilhelm II" is a bad title. Srnec (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not the primary topic for this name. Dimadick (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm II already redirects here, so it is already considered the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth is then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having "German Emperor" in the title and not "King of Prussia" is also unfair. Wilhelm II was German Emperor and King of Prussia at the same time and held both titles. "Wilhelm II, German Emperor and King of Prussia" would be way too long. Toptanazikov (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We generally chose the most notable title/state for article titles of monarchs. Charles I of England, not Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland, for example. More similar would be Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, not Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, King of Germany, King of Italy, Archduke of Austria, etc.. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly the primary topic, already redirects here. Richiepip (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Overwhelmingly primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Srnec. While it's true that Wilhelm II redirects here, the conciseness criterion doesn't require always using the shortest understandable form of a title, for many examples I'm sure are trivial to find (we're not moving Lyndon B. Johnson to LBJ). Use the fuller title instead, per NCROY etc. SnowFire (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Rreagan007. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion. So far we have 4 hard opposes to 5 hard supports, with one comment that might be interpreted as a support. Arguments are centering on a concise title vs. WP:NCROY which itself appears disputed. ASUKITE 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as primary topic per @Rreagan007 Killuminator (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - "Wilhelm II" is ambiguous. "Wilhelm II, German Emperor" is not. Therefore oppose per, WP:PRECISE, WP:TITLEDAB, WP:NATURAL, WP:CONCISE, and, with his predecessors following the same style, WP:CONSISTENT. WP:NCRAN needs also to be considered, which opposes plain "Wilhelm II". These baseless move proposals need to end, and soon. Also opposing per estar8806, Srnec and GoodDay's argument on the Henry VIII of England RM. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the comments above by Smec (et al). ╠╣uw [talk] 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the comments above by Tim O'Doherty, Huwmanbeing and others noted. Would support putting "German Emperor in parentheses rather than comma German Emperor. Donner60 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just ghastly. Killuminator (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Per WP:AT concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. Wilhelm II already redirects here. There is therefore no reasonable argument that Wilhelm II is somehow unclear, ambiguousr, requires disambiguation and is not the primary topic. WP:TITLEDAB only requires disambiguation where there is an actual conflict in title but disambiguation is not require for the primary topic, when one is identified. While WP:NCROY might suggest the present title, it is subordinate to WP:AT. WP:NCROY specifically acknowledges WP:COMMONNAME exceptions, of which, this would be one. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above Parham wiki (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As far as I can see, most of the oppose votes above are based purely on a wider opposition to the whole concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's not up for debate here. Nobody is saying he's the only person by that name, but I just cannot see who else comes anywhere close to Kaiser Wilhelm II as primary topic for the name. When anyone refers to Wilhelm II without further context they are clearly referring to the Kaiser. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody has a problem with PRIMARYTOPIC, it's COMMONNAME and CONCISE, or rather certain popular interpretations of them, that are the problem. As the guideline makes clear, we routinely ignore both when it comes to personal names. The articles are not at Oprah and Obama. Wilhelm I redirects to William I, German Emperor. Should we move that article? Srnec (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but your comments above very definitely suggested to me that you did have a problem with it (e.g. He wasn't even the only King Wilhelm II in Germany in his own time. See de:Wilhelm II. (Württemberg); surely nobody could argue that the existence of the King of Württemberg by the same name ruled the Kaiser out as primary topic unless they disagreed with the whole concept of primary topic). No, because Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama are very commonly seen. But who says "Wilhelm II, German Emperor"? They say "Wilhelm II", "Kaiser Wilhelm" or "the Kaiser". Probably it should be moved, yes. I'd certainly support it. Using Anglicised versions of names for German monarchs is very old-fashioned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My second comment is clearer: The kaiser can be the primary topic for "Wilhelm II" for all I care. In other words, I do not believe that establishing that the kaiser is the primary topic for "Wilhelm II" resolves the issue any more than esablishing that Ms Winfrey is the primary topic for "Oprah" tells us how to title her article. There are other considerations, like consistency and recognizability. The general principle you are appealing to leads to titles like Valdemar II, Pedro VI, Alfonso VI, Christian V, Louis VII, Ferdinand VI, Olaf III and George XI, which I do not think are obvious improvements. They are just common names with numerals and the numerals are meaningless apart from the country. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment he abdicated, so it should use his post-abdication name Wilhelm Hohenzollern / Wilhelm Hohenzollern (former Kaiser) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because it's not his WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cinderella157 and others above, primary topic. DankJae 16:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to support. A much as I disagree with this change [1] to WP:NCROY, it was an implementation of community consensus. And while my personal opinion is against this move, that is now how !votes are (or should be) made. Our policies and guidelines as they stand now are in support of this proposal, and thus I must be too. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]