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
GA
This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tavia619. Peer reviewers: Tavia619.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mary I (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Portrait of Phillip and Mary
Phillip's very large head looks like it was added to a per-existing smaller body. Seki1949 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Mary I of England → Mary I – The primary topic for Mary I is clearly the Queen of England. While I can understand if it refers tot the Queen of Scotland, but she is most commonly known as Mary, Queen of Scots. Interstellarity (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are plenty of other Mary Is at Mary I (disambiguation). The current title provides the most clarity.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
CommentMary I currently redirects here, so if Interstellarity is worried that potential readers are getting lost in trying to find the article, not a worry. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 15:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weakly) as unnecessary and per 4meter4. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 15:59, 28 November 2022 (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]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:CONCISE. Clearly the primary topic, as "Mary I" already redirects here, so further disambiguation in the title is unnecessary and against our article titling policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't follow at all. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with GoodDDay. We should rename the articles which do not mention the name of a country. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Goodday, monarch should be of the format 'Name # of country'—blindlynx 15:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mary I is barely recognizable compared to Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I. Srnec (talk) 21:11, 29 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]
How can she be confused with the mother of Jesus if the mother of Jesus was never queen regnant? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the article is not called Mary, Queen of Heaven, and neither is it called Mary I of Heaven because there was no "Mary II of Heaven". There is no confusion because it is not WP:COMMONNAME. Also, and forgive me if I'm wrong, it still doesn't make her queen regnant. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't Mary I of Heaven though, so where is the confusion? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 23:04, 7 December 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]
Oppose per Goodday and other comments already made above. Walrasiad (talk) 01:12, 7 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]
The policy rationale behind most of the opposers above is WP:PRECISION. This parallels situations like Barack Obama: that article isn't at Obama even though the short title redirects to it. – Uanfala (talk) 15:19, 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]
Why would we compare Barack Obama to Mary I when much, much closer comparisons can be drawn from other English monarchs, e.g. Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, Edward VI, etc. which all use the "[NAME] [ORDINAL]" format? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:34, 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 - edits 02:20, 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]
Thank you for your comment. While I do partially disagree, I will consider it when closing future RMs. echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:57, 15 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.
I see no reason to make an exception here against the consensus of WP:SOVEREIGN. Walrasiad (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Either she is the primary topic and "Mary I" should be the name of the article, or she isn't and "Mary I" shouldn't redirect to it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN we should follow "Monarch # of Kingdom". Vpab15 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tavia619. Peer reviewers: Tavia619.
