Talk:Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jenks24 in topic Requested move

Requested move edit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply



Prince William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (father)Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh – Per Cambridge Alumni Database, National Portrait Gallery, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Royal Warrant: other sources use the middle name as a disambiguator, we should follow the same practice. DrKiernan (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Support, nominator's reasoning makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose – my reasoning behind the move was that the father was not called "Prince William Henry" but "Prince William" and the son not "Prince William Frederick" but "Prince William." That's why I thought we could try a paranthetical dab; for accuracy. DBD 10:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • He was called William Henry, in life as well as after his death, but he was called it less often during his lifetime. Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation a natural disambiguation (such as a less common but still valid personal name) is preferred over a parenthetical disambiguator. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Disambiguating, the usual way that sources disambiguate should be used: the two Prince Williams are usually disambiguated by either 1st and 2nd dukedoms or by second personal names. In addition, parenthetical disambiguators should be something from which the person derives notability, but William Henry is not notable as a father. His notability actually derives from being a grandson, brother and uncle of kings. DrKiernan (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, then how about 1st and 2nd D of G&E? DBD 13:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.