This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. British Royalty B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / British / European Start‑class 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force

The title of this page really needs to be changed. 'Prince Harry of Wales' is entirely erroneous. 'Prince Harry' is his nickname, 'Prince Henry of Wales' is his correct title, 'Prince Harry of Wales' is a very awkward invention of none-too-bright journos. I suggest changing it to Prince Henry of Wales with a Prince Harry redirect.135.196.104.154 (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to death. Check through the archives to see those discussions. (I personally would favour a move to Prince Harry, but hey ho.) DBD 22:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe it should be Prince Harry, as that is clearly by far the most WP:COMMONNAME. Whilst i prefer Prince Harry of Wales to Prince Herny of Wales, its clearly not entirely accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there are articles at locations like Queen Victoria, maybe it would be worth trying a Rm just to see if there is any consensus to move it to Prince Harry? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should WE care if the whole so-called British royal family don't? I think many of them were as surprised to see the name-tag at the Olympics closing ceremony as many of us. Up to you though. Never hurts to try something you think is necessary. BadaBoom (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it suggested that Harry was named after one of Charles's favourite lecturers at Cambridge, the theology don H A (Harry) Williams. Is there any truth in this?

Meltingpot (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that. He's a "royal", he should've been named after one. There were more than enough kings he could be named after. BadaBoom (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry of Wales → Prince Harry – This article should be moved to Prince Harry per COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of sources simply refer to him as Prince Harry, with only a small number using the incorrect "Prince Harry of Wales". It is not just British media that say "Prince Harry", American, Australian, Canadian and other international media can clearly be sourced calling him Prince Harry. It's undeniable that it is his commonname. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate the difference.. A google news search finds about 70 results for "Prince Harry of Wales" compared to over 72,000 for "Prince Harry". (and i would bet many of those 70 have used it because of wikipedia using this made up title). BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – I don't really find the article title Prince Harry of Wales defensible, particularly now we have William the Conqueror, Queen Victoria, George VI et al. Prince Harry is referred to as such almost without fail – I could count on two hands the number of times I have seen Prince Harry/Henry of Wales in everyday life. Additionally, the fact that Prince Harry already redirects here indicates that we already consider him clearly the primary topic. DBD 15:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The official website of The British Monarchy and The official website of The Prince of Wales refer to him as Prince Harry, not as Prince Harry of Wales or Prince Henry of Wales.--Daniel (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Prince Henry of Wales" would make sense if we were trying to be formal, but Prince Harry is appropriate under COMMONNAME. The current name looks like an odd compromise. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support For all the reasons mentioned aboveRegards, theTigerKing 
• Support, per this ngram. The BBC's site has 5,120 hits for "Prince Harry" site:www.bbc.co.uk, 7 for "Prince Harry of Wales" site:www.bbc.co.uk. Kauffner (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per WP:COMMONNAME.  daintalk   18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per WP:COMMONNAME, he is almost always referred to as Prince Harry. Zarcadia (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per WP: COMMONNAME. He's referred to as "Prince Harry". Electric Catfish 19:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the current name might be appropriate if there was another Prince named Harry of similar notability, but there isn't. As such, per WP:COMMONNAME I support an article move. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, WP:COMMONNAME. Rothorpe (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unencyclopedic. I suppose this was inevitable when Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom became "Elizabeth II". I'll support it when we move his mum's article to "Princess Di" which, I now realize, must inevitably happen... FactStraight (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your argument would carry more weight if this article were at Prince Henry of Wales (i.e. his actual name - and indeed I think that's where it should be). As it stands this is a weird combination of his nickname and title... --Errant ^(chat!) 08:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harry is not his nick name. It is his given name. (Check the archives, where I carefully explain the difference.) DBD 11:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, his given name is Henry. (Harry is a common nickname for Henry; see Henry (given name)) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I'd prefer "Prince Henry of Wales", with "Prince Harry" redirecting there (it's his official name and title). But if we're going to go by common name, "Prince Harry" makes more sense than the current title, "Prince Harry of Wales". (Does anyone call him that? If you're going to go with the full-blown "...of Wales" title, you say "Henry".) -- Narsil (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If we do this, why not Princess Eugenie or Princess Beatrice? That's how they're usually known, too. This seems like it opens up a slippery slope that I dn't like. john k (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are atleast at their correct titles.. unlike Prince Harry of Wales which should be Henry. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Although this is probably not worth making a huge fuss about, and I recognise that this title is an awkward hybrid, I feel that potentially this is the thin end of a thick wedge, as the majority of current princes and princesses in the British royal family are the primary but not sole meaning of their name. Do we move all of them? Does poor Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex get left on his own, the only one with a disambiguator? PatGallacher (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on if Prince Edward is known around the world just as Prince Edward and that he is the most known Edward, im not sure that is the case, he is nowhere near as known internationally as Prince Harry or Prince Charles. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Encyclopedias should maintain some sort of formality. Reigen (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It's also peculiar that we eschew any formality by calling him Harry currently and not Henry. Hot Stop 23:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If we go with common name Prince Harry might be appropriate, if we go with "official" title, then Prince Henry of Wales might be appropriate, but temporary. Even the article about the Duke of Cambridge is somewhat a misnomer also.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 00:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? What might we move his brother to then? PatGallacher (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either Prince William or The Duke of Cambridge. Same argument as here, common name vs "official" title, with The Duke of Cambridge being the most commonly used "title", over either Earl of Strathearn or Baron Carrickfergus. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge is a hybrid of his "birth" name, and one current title.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 10:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have dozens of articles at titles like "Prince A, Duke of B" e.g. Prince William, Duke of Cumberland, the justification for this formula is that it stands a reasonable chance of being unambiguous, it would be a major exercise to move all of them. PatGallacher (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you would not move them all. You would merely move Prince William, Duke of Cambridge to Prince William, which already redirects to his article anyway because it is indisputably the most notable today. the additional titles to assist with ambiguity problems are only needed for all the other articles, not the primary topic which should be at the primary spot, especially when its served as a redirect for about 8 years with no controversy anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy says we should go with Commmoname. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia says we should go with "Common Sense", and consensus.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 10:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case common sense is to go with the common name, and not a made up one. Hot Stop 14:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The relevant guideline here seems to be WP:NCROY rather than WP:COMMONNAME. Should there be some sort of conflict between a general rule and a special rule, the special rule should be given priority, since it is created specifically to provide an exception to the general rule. An excerpt from WP:NCROY - "Even though it is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English, there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles; and a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles." Reigen (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry already redirects here and there is clearly no rival so there is not any ambiguity issues with this. The outdated and unhelpful naming conventions should not stop this move taking place, considering this current article title violates those naming conventions, as well as the tiny matter of it being a completely made up name with very few sources backing itup. Prince Harry is more easy to use, precise and concise. There is no consistency possible in all cases of members of the royal family, as there are different situations. Prince Harry is known around the world as Prince Harry, not Henry which forms part of his official title. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly some would rather people be incorrectly misled by wikipedia with silly made up names such as "Prince Harry of Wales" rather than go for what is the commonname and more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Oppose votes seem to be concerned about the possibility of this simple "Prince Harry" convention spreading to other articles, which seems unlikely to happen. For this, I find no more reason to oppose (for this instance). Reigen (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose If we do this then we have to remove Princess Beatrice of York to Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie of York to Princess Eugenie. We shouldn't remove the titles of the articles because they are commonly known as another name. Should we remove Diana, Princess of Wales to Princess Diana, because she is commonly known as this wrong name? Also Harry's official title is Prince Harry of Wales and his official title must be the name of this article, like the others. Keivan.f^Talk 17:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to change the others if this is changed? and no.. his official title is Prince Henry of Wales. Prince Harry of Wales is something made up by wikipedia to confuse and mislead people. The fact you have just said that proves why this title needs to be changed.. because it confuses people. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lets try to keep some level of academic credibility as per WP:NCROY WP:COMMONNAME is one of those policies that get cited because people are not aware we have policies for specific things. WP:COMMONNAME is one of the polices that makes us look like children because we cant get the proper title/names of things right. Moxy (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

where is the academic credibility in this madeup term "Prince Harry of Wales"? Could some of you actually check the article title instead of just coming here and voting no? Unbelievable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind everyone: his official title is Prince Henry of Wales, not Prince Harry of Wales (the article's current title). Rothorpe (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omg did not notice the "Henry" vs "Harry"... see how WP:COMMONNAME has already made a mockery of this. WOW us using the made up title over the official name because that is what the press and Google says - but if that is what his own site uses O well what can we do. Moxy (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is a farcical proposal. The best-known Prince Harry of all time was King Henry V of England. That doesn't mean it's a good article title. Deb (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The article title is already a common name, (real name is Henry). Also, his brother's and father's articles are not "Prince William" or "Prince Charles", so there is no precedent being set there. "Prince Harry" would almost be like a disambiguation page, since as mentioned above, there have been a few in history. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose because it completely contradicts the article titles for Charles, Prince of Wales, Diana, Princess of Wales and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. They should all match. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]