Jump to content

Talk:Frederik IX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Soni (talk | contribs) at 02:01, 13 May 2024 (Closing requested move; moved using rmCloser). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Frederick or Frederik

Which is it? The article uses both Frederick and Frederik. Enosson 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Frederik. Everyone in Denmark knows that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.28.62 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Same here - take a look at the home page of The Danish Royal Court. I am surprised that we (Wikipedia) can't get something so basic right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.215.212.8 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...by the way - Wikipedia is inconsistent in the naming, since King Frederik IX' grandchild, Frederik X is named without the c here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.215.212.8 (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion just below this one. It would appear that English-language sources tend to refer to the old king as Frederick, whereas the crown prince is more commonly referred to as Frederik. I believe there is a trend in contemporary news coverage to favor the "native" spelling of names (at least if the language in question uses some variant of the Latin alphabet). This may also explain why the article about the current queen is named Margrethe II, whereas her medieval namesake is called Margaret I. Oh, and your proclamation of Frederik X is a tad premature. Favonian (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the 20th century names stopped being translated and people began to have legal names with legal spellings. This man's legal name was Frederik not Frederick, so I strongly oppose the article's name as it is now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

I suggest moving this page to Frederik IX of Denmark, since Frederik is the ubiquitous spelling variant used. Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark uses the same spelling. Sakkura 00:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose. Frederick is the English form of the name and this is English Wikipedia. Charles 01:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose. He is commonly known in English works as Frederick. Noel S McFerran 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles recently made some rather disruptive edits to the article. One thing is changing Frederik to Frederick (in effect reverting a change that is under discussion), another is changing Frederik to Fredrick. Please remember to discuss before reverting, and can we please at least settle on just one spelling variant to use in the article? I changed the article from using three different types to using one, but now we are back at three. Sakkura 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Disruptive how? Are you trying to discredit me? You cannot tell me to discuss before reverting when YOU did not discuss at all! I changed all of the forms to Frederick, the form used in the title and the form, as Mr McFerran states, most commonly used in English works. I misspelled Frederick wrong once. Do you think I meant to? Charles 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't find it at least a little disruptive to change the article from using one spelling form to using three (or two) different ones? Well excuse me, but I do, especially when it is a revert (if you had arrived here tidying up the article from multiple spellings to one, it would be another matter). The article is currently still using Frederik multiple times. When I first looked at the discussion page, all that was here was a remark that his name was Frederik; so I found changing from multiple spellings to one (Frederik) quite uncontroversial. Sakkura 11:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between disruptive and a mistake. I am awfully sorry that I didn't live up to your rigid expectations. The article uses one form of his name. Charles 11:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my opinion is that the quality of an article is lowered if it keeps switching between different spellings. That's why I labelled your initial edits as disruptive. I am happy that you have since made the article more consistent. I checked elsewhere (Encyclopædia Britannica etc.), and it appears Frederick is indeed the preferred form in English. Sakkura 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see the discussion at Talk:Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark - let's reach a consensus for ALL the articles, shall we? Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mr McFerran is right... He is commonly known in English works as Frederick'. Charles 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each individual is a person in his own right. One person called Frederik in Danish, may be called Frederick in English; another person may be called Frederik in both languages. Wikipedia summarizes published scholarship; it does not try to create consensus where there is none. Noel S McFerran 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point, and I hadn't thought of it that way. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason he is at times known as "Frederick" in english is because of a spelling error made by reporters, that worked under the assumption the German spelling is the only spelling, and so it proliferated through time, due to widespread ignorance. Spelling his name Frederick is just as wrong as spelling the name "Peter" as "Beder". People are given one or more names, and it is that persons sole perogative to choose the spelling of said name(s), if they have not made any alteration to the name they were given, all other spellings of it are misspellings, the only possible allowances are transliterations, i.e. from cyrillic to latin. These spelling errors should be corrected and the article(s) moved to their proper names. -- Vrenak (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain image for article:

Shows Crown Prince Frederick and party touring Hoover Dam in 1939 and is PD-US: [1]. I imagine that's him, over on the right. Also see [2] same licence. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting?

Wilson[1] links him to Boy Scouting, was there a connection?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John S. Wilson (1959), Scouting Round the World. First edition, Blandford Press. p. 29, 135

Marriage

Please respect the outcome of the RFC and stop edit warring. See Template:marriage where end dates for marriages was the consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing that template isn't used here. Secondly, you have misread consensus at the template.
Infobox content is determined at each individual article per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use of infoboxes and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles. The infobox should not contain a duplication within itself. It is unnecessary to duplicate the same material twice in the infobox. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no local consensus to override the RFC, just you not accepting the outcome of an RFC that you opposed, and edit warring over the outcome. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing this article. An RFC at some other page unrelated to this one has little to no bearing here. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Frederick IX of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Christian I of Denmark which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

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 evidence from Amakuru and Gust Justice's positions indicate "Frederik" is the WP:COMMONNAME (non-admin closure) Dantus21 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick IX of Denmark → Frederik IX of Denmark - I know it was discussed above a couple of years ago, but I really find arguments for using the spelling with c (German spelling), as opposed to his actual name without c (Danish spelling) basically absent.

A little web search indicates that Britannica and some other sources do use the German spelling, but the German Wikipedia uses the Danish spelling, and many sources in English do the same - including news outlets writing about the abdication of his daughter, Margrethe II, announced on New Year's eve 2023. In the absence of a concensus in English language sources for the German spelling, I see no reason to propagate any other spelling than the correct "native" one.

Going back to his predecessor, Gorm the Old (reigned approx. 936-958), English wikipedia uses the English name, rather than the Danish Gorm den Gamle. Obviously, that makes sense. The same may be true for e.g, Frederik I (r. 1523-33), spelled with c in English wikipedia, and there may be no clear line for when to switch away from the German spelling, which seems to have some traditional basis in English sources, to the Danish one. Going far back, spellings were variable. I would think we might spell Frederik VIII (r. 1906-12) in Danish, but spell Frederik VII (r. 1848-63) according to English tradition - but clearly, it is also (or primarily) a question of which spellings are generally found in modern sources in English. One source (but clearly not authoritative in this respect) is the English language webpage of the Danish Royal Court, www.kongehuset.dk/en. They use Danish names for all regents since Christian I (r. 1448-81), including Frederik I (where spellings may be said to differ), but English ones prior to that - where most kings had bynames that are naturally translated into English (except for Valdemar Atterdag (r. 1340-75), where it seems his byname is traditionally not translated). Nø (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Ngrams demonstrate that "Frederik IX of Denmark" was far more common than "Frederick IX of Denmark" in the mid-20th century up until around 1980. The two have been relatively close since then, though Frederik IX appears to be slightly more common as of the most recent data. If this article is moved to use that spelling, the title should simply be Frederik IX per WP:MISPLACED. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In general, the spelling of names had become a legal matter in Europe by around the year 1900. For people who were living after that, it's only a good idea to list them by their legal names (spellings), not to use exonyms. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. That's just simply not his WP:COMMONNAME. It is customary for historians, and therefore Wikipedia, to use the English version of their name once they have died. I have seen documentaries where Margrethe II is speaking English and pronounces her father's name as 'Frederick', not 'Frederik'. If this move passes, then it is setting an unneeded precedent. Do all pages need to be moved to their native name even if that makes them unrecognisable? No. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – "Frederick" and "Frederik" are pronounced the exact same in English. QMII, when referring to her father in English, says "Frederik". And as there is no difference between her pronunciation of Frederik (IX) and (Crown Prince) Frederik, if this move does not pass, do you suggest the page on the coming Frederik X should be moved to "Frederick X"? Cotillards (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question - can you cite sources from the present millenium to document his COMMONNAME is with c? Nø (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - During his lifetime, his name was spelled "Frederick", in English. Just like the previous seven Danish monarchs, also named "Frederick". GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In English we've moved away from translating foreign monarchs' names even if descriptors such as "the Great" remain in English and this is also true of historical monarchs. We refer to Ivan the Terrible, not John the Terrible and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, not Emperor William and it's Louis XIV, not Lewis. The only exception that's maintained is papal names which are generally translated into local languages rather than using the Latin. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The Danish form seems to be slightly more common in English sources. Some quick Googling finds NYT obit in 1972. Per estar8806, Ngrams shows it's had sustained usage. Most coverage of Margrethe's abdication is using Frederik IX. While we of course can't predict future usage, with its history and current use it's probably likely to outpace the anglicization. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why wasn't this RM expanded, to include all the Danish monarchs named "Frederick"? GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because back then there were no legal spellings of names so the use of an English exonym was is justified. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All it's going to do is create more inconsistency. You should've opened an RM for all the previous monarchs named Frederick. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like you don't even read what others write or at least don't bother taking any of it in (such as the consistency I've clearly decribed), so I think I will stop commenting on your entries. Such a waste of time! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As should be clear from my original posting of this change, I intend to suggest the same for Frederik VIII if the change for Frederik XI goes through, but I will oppose (weakly) going further back. As others have commented, name spellings were generally quite variable in the past. Nø (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will support that, for the reason I've given in this case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nowhere near comparable to Louis XIV or Ivan the Terrible, which are overwhelmingly referred to as in English-language sources. This is nowhere in that league. While I normally give 20th C. names a little more leeway, the difference is nowhere not enough to drop English spelling (particularly if that "slight lead" is being driven by specialized or academic sources, which, as rule, tend to default to nativist spellings). Our readers are not specialists, but general readers. And Frederick still clearly dominates in works of general reference (e.g. Britannica), which is the Wikipedia standard. Walrasiad (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -Are Frederick and Frederik so different that English-speakers looking for Frederick X of Denmark will think Frederik X of Denmark is the wrong person? If not, why not defer to the preferred "native" spelling? We aren't talking about changing John XXIII to Johannes XXIII here. 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 19:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. And here's another prediction. The moment you change Frederick to Frederik, there will be a RM two minutes later to move it to eliminate "of Denmark" because Frederik is now a different spelling from other monarchs called Frederick. At which point, English-speaking readers will no longer know or recognize what this article is about. Walrasiad (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. You are actually making an argument for keeping "of Demark", not for using Frederick instead of Frederik. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But a practical prediction. I've seen the consequences of native re-spellings here, so it is worthwhile keeping in mind. I see zero gain in this change, just loss, and even greater potential loss afterwards. Walrasiad (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds persuasive, it's a minor change in spelling and many of the recent sources are from Danish media as well. Killuminator (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - English has by and large moved away from translating foreign names, and as the majority of sources apparently spell it in the native manner, then it should be spelled as such here as well.
Doctor Shevek (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: there is a difference between royalty who lived before 1900 and after that year. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other than Frederik being what is officially used by the Royal Family, it also seems to be what it predominant among English sources. See for instance NYT, BBC, CNN, The Guardian. Gust Justice (talk) 07:18, 11 January 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.

Subsequent comments on the requested move

I wonder how long it will be, before the next RM is opened - to have "of Denmark" dropped from the title. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, dropping "of Denmark" was discussed and decided against quite recently, here: Talk:Christian I of Denmark#Requested move 26 November 2023 (covering all the Frederiks and Christians of Denmark).
I have now, as I said above I would, suggested moving Frederick VIII of Denmark to Frederik VIII of Denmark, here: Talk:Frederick VIII of Denmark#Move request. And, as I also said, I will go no further than that! Nø (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new RM has opened @Nø:, to drop "of Denmark". GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, I do think it is a bit inconsistent across Wikipedia when you drop the "of Denmark" (or of whichever country the person is the monarch of). It seems to be the standard for any contemporary monarchs (e.g. Carl XVI Gustaf, Charles III, Felipe VI, etc.), but not historical ones. It might be helpful, if it's possible, to formulate a standard of when the title itself is enough. Gust Justice (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See below - I was quite accurate. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that one article rename makes some people think of another, but there really is no connection between the two. Nø (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2024

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. This RM is part of a broader dispute regarding WP:NCROY, which has already been brought to arbcom and will probably end up at a larger noticeboard as a whole. That said, it has been almost 4 months since this one started, so closing this.

The higher level consensus as it stands is clearly in favour of the renaming. Multiple editors expressed exhaustion over the constant RMs, but this does not change the previous RFC results. While a previous RM did discuss this page as well, it is not clear if every single move was rejected or a subset of them.

An argument made was "Other RMs have recently closed against moving, so the general guideline should not apply", but this is not the venue to argue it; local consensus cannot ordinarily override a higher consensus. Other than NCROY, editors cited WP:CRITERIA, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COGNOMEN, WP:PRECISE, WP:COMMONNAME during the discussion.

Reading the arguments, many opposes either do not explain their stances, or discuss personal preferences. There is disagreement due to potential confusion between "Frederik IX" versus "Frederick IX". Overall, the vehement oppose is less based on our policy and guidelines than the supports, so I see no strong reason to override the guideline.

As the larger scale question is headed to another venue anyway, any discussion about potentially revisiting the current NCROY guideline should happen there. Should there be a broader change, I recommend handling multiple affected articles there instead of restarting another RM on this page.

Closing in favour of Move. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederik IX of Denmark → Frederik IX – He's the only monarch with this exact name, so we should move per WP:PRECISE, and the move will make the article title consistent with his daughter and now his grandson, whose name is spelled without the C. Векочел (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A mistake on my part in saying Frederik IX was the only monarch with this name. He is the only king with this exact name. Векочел (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The title would not specify he is a king, which makes him indistinguishable from any other Frederick IX, and thus ambiguous. Does not meet the criteria of NCROY or and is against WP:PRECISE. Walrasiad (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there are other Elizabeth II's besides the British queen, yet her article has been titled "Elizabeth II" for over a decade without any major problems. Векочел (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not comparable. Frederick IX of Denmark is not a household name in popular culture like Elizabeth II. She was in "Naked Gun". Was he in "Naked Gun"? Walrasiad (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: That article has now been moved to Charles X of France. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frederick IX and Frederik IX are functionally identical enough that disambiguation would normally be needed. So so really, this hinges on not precision or concision, but on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The two other subjects of Frederick IX are minor Hohenzollerns. So, despite the clear ambiguity, I'm leaning Weak Support as the Danish king is likely the primary topic of Frederick IX. If there were another king here, it would definitely cut the other way and the disambugator would be needed.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even though I personally disagree, Wikipedia policies and guidelines have clearly moved away from including unnecessary territorial disambiguators. Frederik IX (spelled without the "c") is unambiguous. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See my 'accurate' prediction, after the previous RM. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In English, all Fredericks are with a 'c', and in Danish, all "Fredericks" are without a 'c'. Are English-speaking Wikipedia readers expected to know the subtle spelling differences between English and Danish spellings? It is introducing ambiguity and creating an unnecessary hurdle for Wikipedia readers. Not helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An English-speaking reader looking for a Danish Frederik will find him with either spelling – thanks to redirects and/or dab pages. As things stand, a reader who goes to the unambiguous Frederik IX will find the king via a redirect today, or directly if this RM is successful, whereas one who goes to Frederick IX will find him via a dab page. Likewise for the current king. No problem there. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or he can find him instantly without jumping through unnecessary hurdles. Introducing an obstacle course is not an improvement, but a detriment to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SMALLDETAILS for the policy regarding natural disambiguation. Dab pages, redirects from alternative spellings, and the like, are not an "obstacle course" but a means of guiding users from the search box to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small details is not talking about different languages. English-speaking Wikipedia users do not know Danish, and should not be expected to recognize Danish spellings. It just looks like a typo. Walrasiad (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Titles should be recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent to the extent possible (per WP:AT). Frederik IX is all of those. Even if it "looks like a typo" to a reader who might not be aware that "foreign" names are not always spelt the same way as English names, that doesn't matter in the slightest because there are redirects and/or disambiguation pages in place to help such readers who search for the article subject using other possible variations of the name. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're missing the point. "of Denmark" is natural and recognizable to an English-speaking global audience. What you're proposing is unnatural and obscure, causes confusion and creates obstacles to readers. The proposal is a detriment to Wikipedia, not an improvement. Walrasiad (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one observation: Frederik/Frederick (or any other of the 70 variants found in Frederick (given name)) is not - from a modern perspective - a word that is spelled differently in different languages; it is a name that is spelled differently for different individuals (though of course correlated with the language used where they are named). Nø (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose - I don't like the tendency to drop these "of [country]" in general, except in exceptionally well known cases. Anyway, I think all relevant spellings, without "of [country]", either should lead to a disambiguation page, or should make it very easy to find the right Fred via hatnotes and/or redirects. Other than that (and other than using native spellings in article titles for most names after year 1900), I think we should follow policy and the patterns found in other similar pages, whatever that may be. However, I'm inclined to think the rather subtle spelling differences between the different Freds are not enough to justify titles without "of [country]". Also, this was discussed very recently here Talk:Christian I of Denmark#Requested move 26 November 2023, and the conclusion was not to move. Nø (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECOGNISABILITY says that titles should be such that people who are familiar with the subject can recognize that the article is about that subject. Are you familiar with Frederik IX but do not recognize him under the name Frederik IX? Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And so the dogpile begins. I could have put money on it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to underline what WP:RECOGNISABILITY says since you brought it up. It is not about being very well known. Surtsicna (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
zzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzz ... not what I said (at all, actually). Suppose that doesn't matter though. Are you trying to argue that "of Denmark" makes him less recognisable? If so, how so? (4 marks) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. I am familiar with Frederick IX of Denmark. I am not familiar with every other dynasty in Europe. Why should I assume "Frederick IX" refers to the Danish monarch and not, say, a King of Poland or Duke of Upper Bavaria? They might also have "Frederick IX"s. Just because I am familiar with the Danish royal line DOESN'T mean I am ALSO familiar with the royal lines of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Prussia, Poland, etc. Even if I was an expert on Danish history, I would have NO IDEA who this article refers to, without knowing absolutely EVERY dynasty in EVERY country and duchy and county in ALL of Europe AND memorizing the numbers of who was where. "Of Denmark" makes him WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Walrasiad (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that hypothetical situation (and on the further assumption that this requested move has succeeded), to find the Danish Fred that you're familiar with you would start typing "Frederick IX" into the search box. Lo and behold, the first article in the list is entitled "Frederik IX" (without the C, but it shows up anyway because of the redirect) and is displayed (on both desktop and mobile interfaces) with the short description "King of Denmark from 1947 to 1972". Yep, you recognise that this is the article you are looking for, click on it, read the lead which further confirms that this is indeed the right Danish monarch, and read the hatnote that informs you of the existence of other, less well known Frederick IXs. And even if you had typed the full title you might have been expecting ("Frederick IX of Denmark") into the search box without noticing that the intended article had been displayed as soon as you typed "IX", you would still have found the right article thanks to the redirect.
All this is by design, using the combination of concise policy-compliant article titles, redirects from alternative titles, and short descriptions, to ensure that articles are findable and recognisable. Where's the problem? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles are supposed to stand alone, and be recognizable on their own. That you yourself admit that you need to rely on computer assistance additionally informing you that he is "of Denmark" only proves the point that the shortened title fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Walrasiad (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I say that the assistance was needed – just that the mechanism is there to accompany the process of finding an article. If we added descriptors on unambiguous article titles just to "improve recognisability", we'd end up with article titles such as Humza Yousaf, First Minister of Scotland or Barack Obama, former president of the United States. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really comparing apples to apples, is it? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walrasiad, why should you assume "Frederick IX" refers to the Danish monarch and not, say, a King of Poland or Duke of Upper Bavaria? Because if there were other kings with the same name then it would be disambiguated. In fact, precisely because there are no other such kings is why we should not disambiguate this name. If we do, it misleadingly implies there are other such kings. That’s why it’s important that we are consistent about disambiguating only when necessary. The current title is unnecessarily disambiguated and the proposed title is RECOGNIZABLE (to anyone familiar with the topic). — В²C ☎ 18:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the topic, I am not familiar with all other countries. "IX" by itself means nothing without "Denmark" attached, indicating he is the ninth king of Denmark of that name. So by itself it is incomplete and confusing. Numbers are not memorable. It is necessary - and helpful - for recognizability to indicate which country, kingdom, duchy, county, etc. you're talking about. Which is why we title it the 110th United States Congress and not simply 110th Congress even though no other country on earth has had a 110th congress. We don't drop "United States", and we shouldn't drop "of Denmark". It is erecting needless obstacles for readers, which is detrimental rather than helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed or ignored my point. If the title is undisambiguated that implies there are no other kings with that name. If the title is disambiguated that implies there are kings with that name. In this case there are no other kings with that name, so we don’t disambiguate. Regarding nth United States Congress titles, that’s not disambiguation, that’s just COMMONNAME. — В²C ☎ 19:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The common name is simply "103rd Congress". Wikipedia is the only one which uses "nth United States Congress". Which I support, because it is helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s the case then that’s unnecessary disambiguation and there is no policy basis for it; I call OTHERSTUFF. At some point it deserves closer scrutiny and probably correction. Being “helpful to readers” is not an explicit guideline. It’s implied in meeting CRITERIA, including PRECISE: “unambiguously define…, but no more precise than that”. —-В²C ☎ 19:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "helpful to readers" is the reason Wikipedia exists. I don't what reason there would be for it otherwise. And guidelines are designed (or supposed to be designed) to be helpful. And if it is not helpful, then WP:IAR is policy.
Of course, if you have an explanation of how the change would be helpful or an improvement, I'm all ears. But so far I only see downsides. Walrasiad (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course being helpful is why WP exists. But, again, it’s not an explicit guideline. In particular, no guideline says or even suggests anything like “more helpful titles are always preferred to less helpful ones”. Otherwise, there would almost always be a “more helpful” and therefore preferable title. So ”being helpful to readers” is never a good argument for supporting a particular title. There’s a practical limit to how helpful titles should be, and that’s what CRITERIA determines, especially PRECISE. Besides, due to redirects from the “more helpful” titles, moving to a more concise and arguably “less helpful” title isn’t really less helpful. I mean, when this article is moved as proposed, in what scenario might a user be less helped? —В²C ☎ 06:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Being helpful to readers" is the only reason I am here. And, I hope, it is the only reason you are here too.
So I would like, for once, for you to actually couch your argument or answer in terms of the benefit to readers, not editors. Because it seems to me they're being overlooked in the mix and not being taken into consideration at all. Walrasiad (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Here's the thing about titles. They are not very helpful to readers, no matter what they say. When I'm in reader mode, I rarely even look at the title. As I noted somewhere else recently, look at FLORA articles. Their titles are the scientific names which are basically gobbledygook to most non-specialist readers. For the rare reader who is interested in knowing that the scientific name for the California poppy is Eschscholzia californica, that would be helpful, but for most readers it is not. Yet they have no problem finding this article and learning from it. That title is no more helpful to them than it would be if it was California poppy or if it was E33Trq&ghkl591*. At best, titles are a slight bonus in some circumstances. In particular, I think they're most useful for informing the reader what the most common name is for the subject, possibly disambiguated. And, if titles are reliably disambiguated only when necessary, then they convey whether the topic is the primary (or unique) use of that title (if it's not disambiguated), which can be helpful. But, again, that's at most a bonus. WP would be almost as useful to readers if titles were random unique meaningless strings. So to benefit the readers as much as possible with our titles, we should be constraining titles to be the COMMONNAME of the topic whenever possible, and disambiguate only if necessary. To use one of your favorite examples, we consider Albert Einstein to be the most COMMONNAME, not Einstein. It's debatable, I know, but the argument favoring the full name has prevailed, for better or for worse. So ultimately for NCROY articles like this one, the question is whether the most common name is Frederik IX or Frederick IX of Denmark. This too is ultimately a matter of opinion, but consensus at NCROY has decided that the more concise one is the most COMMONNAME (or it's a wash and CONCISION is the tie-breaker). I'm just here to see that the consensus decision is followed. --В²C ☎ 06:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are not called Frederik. This spelling appears to be unique to the Danish king. Векочел (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop mischaracterizing opposition as mere JDLI. It is clearly not. That you disagree with others' weighting of criteria or interpretation of policy is perfectly fine, but continually and falsely asserting that others views are detached from policy when they're not is becoming disruptive. Please desist. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Comment - This discussion essentially reproduces most of the issues of the Charles XI discussion so I too will repeat my relist comment from there: " I was leaning hard toward closing this as no consensus, however I see discussion is still ongoing , so I think a final opportunity for uninvolved commentators to come in to the discussion is in order. It really feels, though, to me like a simple matter of personal preference that has gotten way out of control - there are dozens of RM discussion open on the RM closure backlog just like this one, most of them also WP:TL;DR." FOARP (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica includes the clarifier "King of Denmark" with the title. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's similar to a short description not a title. The name in bold at the top is just "Frederik IX". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers don't see short descriptions in articles, so that's not similar. (Per WP:SHORTDESC, "short descriptions do not appear by default when viewing an article in desktop view", and the great majority of our readers read on desktop.[6]) ╠╣uw [talk] 19:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the Danish name and date of birth and death the article starts with "was King of Denmark from 1947 to 1972" so the short description isn't really needed even if Britannica puts them at the top. You would be able to see you were on the "of Denmark" one by reading the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that’s fine, but a good lead does not exempt us from seeking the best title. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and other completed RMs which did not, such as Edward/Richard or Christian/Frederick. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
…noting those multi-moves failed because they were WP:TRAINWRECKs. В²C ☎ 15:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not per the closer's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because in a TRAINWRECK nobody bothers to ask the closer to take a closer look. However, in two initial “no consensus” cases where that request was made—Ferdinand VI and Isabella II—the close flipped from “no consensus” to “consensus to move” once a closer look was taken. —В²C ☎ 00:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Various other RMs have now resulted in retaining or adding the country despite appeals to NCROY: Mary I of England, George X of Kartli, Maria I of Portugal, Charles X of France, etc., plus an MR endorsement of Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain. Growing evidence suggests there's just not a strong consensus for the recent change to NCROY in practice, and that the guideline should be reconsidered before going any farther. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:36, 18 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederik_IX&oldid=1223579067"