Aja viide. Aja lugu.

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 / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility B‑class

	Biography portal 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 Peerage and Baronetage.
	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 / Post-Cold War B‑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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Template:Vital article

Mother's name

Why is his mother's name given as Lady Diana Spencer, her maiden name, in the infobox? It needs to be replaced with Diana, Princess of Wales. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the standard in genealogy. Elizabeth II's mother is named Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in the infobox, George VI's mother is named Mary of Teck, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though it makes him appear illegitimate. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we can all be glad to know that legitimacy is not conveyed by forms of address or reference. Acjelen (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a genealogical standard of any relevance in this Wikipedia article, which is meant to be for the edification of ordinary people many of whom have no interest in or knowledge of arcane genealogical practices? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is informative to know in a person's infobox something of their mother, such as her name at birth and native family. In the case of Prince Harry, readers can learn that she is the daughter of an earl with the last name of Spencer. Also, genealogist have been presenting information about living and dead people for decades and centuries and have developed a very useful style. We are smart to adopt it. Acjelen (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't do this for other people with notable parents, we only do it for British royalty. Why are we taking our marching orders from Debretts etc for these people, but only these people? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the mother's maiden name is used in the infobox on (several) POTUS article pages.Drdpw (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why do we only do it in infoboxes, not in article text? From Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle:

Prince Henry of Wales, better known as Prince Harry, is the second son of Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales.

But in his infobox his mother appears to be someone else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that it is usually done for all royalty and members of the British aristocracy. So it's not necessarily isolated to just British royalty. Doxedevenexia (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: @JackofOz: @Doxedevenexia: @Acjelen: Just to throw a spanner in the works she was not a lady until 1975 when her father inherited the title Earl Spencer. Up until then she was known as "The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer". So should it be her birth name, or her maiden name before marrying Charles? The Queen Mother was "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" just before marrying King George...or should I say Prince Albert Duke of York as he was known at the time, but she was born "The Honourable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon". So the 2 names do not follow the same rules. Have a look at the info box for Charles, Prince of Wales, if we are looking for consistency his mother's name is incorrect because when she was born she was not Queen and was not Queen when she married Philip...and for that matter Philip was born "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark" and not Duke of Edinburgh. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed recently at Talk:Prince Louis of Cambridge#Mother's name. Please use the highest style they had by inheritance or personal gift, so Lady Diana Spencer, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Queen Elizabeth II, and not a style that is a feminine form of their husband's titles. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford: I don't really understand, is this part of a guideline somewhere? In the Template:Infobox Royalty it says for both father and mother parameters Most common shorthand title, no need for preceding styles (e.g. HM). May include multiple individuals, such as (biological), (adoptive) or (hānai). See also note for 'predecessor'. but nothing about the title being only inherited or personal gift. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty/Style guide. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot for the life of me figure out why so much hassle has been made out of this just now. Maiden names have always been used in articles about US presidents and nobody bats an eye. Why is there always so much furor when it comes to articles about royal people? Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually US presidents are a bit mixed with the last eighty years especially all over the place - Trump has his mother's maiden name listed, Obama's mother divorced and reverted to her maiden name which is listed so take your pick, Bush II has his mother's married name, Clinton maiden name, Bush I mother's married name including maiden-as-middle-name, Reagan ditto, Carter maiden name, Ford married name from her second marriage after her son's birth, Nixon married name including maiden-as-middle-name, Johnson II maiden name, Kennedy married name including maiden-as-middle-name (even though her article excludes the latter), Eisenhower maiden name, Truman ditto, Roosevelt II married name, Hoover maiden name, Coolidge ditto, Harding ditto, Wilson ditto, Taft ditto, Roosevelt I ditto, McKinley ditto, Cleveland ditto, Harrison II ditto, Arthur ditto, Garfield ditto, Hayes ditto, Grant ditto, Johnson I ditto, Lincoln ditto, Buchanan ditto, Pierce doesn't have his parents listed, Fillmore maiden name, Taylor ditto, Polk ditto, Tyler ditto, Harrison I ditto, Van Buren ditto, Jackson ditto, Adams II ditto, Monroe ditto, Madison married name including maiden-as-middle-name, Jefferson doesn't have his parents listed, Adams I maiden name and Washington married name including maiden-as-middle-name. I guess the big difference is that most of these mothers are not particularly well known outside interest generating from their sons, whereas royals are often prominent in their own right and it feels odder to see them listed by names of less to no familiarity. Timrollpickering 12:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title of Prince Henry has just changed.

Confirmed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II this morning, His Royal Highness Prince Harry (Henry) has just been re-named 'His Royal Highness Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.210.10 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of editors who just happen to be 'wild' about Harry :( GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Prince Harry. Many of the oppose votes cite WP:COMMONNAME as rationale for not supporting this move and their argument is that the most commonly used name for this person is indeed the title of the page. WP:CONSISTENCY was the main rationale for the supporters of the move, however, the consensus that emerged is to move the page back to Prince Harry. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 21:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex → Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex – Prince Henry of Wales has since today a new title, now he is the Duke of Sussex. Before, he was in fact known as "Prince Harry", but now he will be known as the Duke of Sussex, just like Prince William is now most referred as the Duke of Cambridge. "Prince Harry" only can make sense isolated, not mixed with the ducal title. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this move per WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that reliable sources(at least until now) call him Harry. If that changes, then this can be revisited. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Acjelen (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's Harry, and we've done this like a million times. Yawn. DBD 09:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Known as Harry. Keep as is, per WP:COMMONNAME.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 09:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be proper name. Thee17 (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thee17 Please cite a Wikipedia guideline or reliable sources that support your position. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there is no rule about needing to use proper names. Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, and Jack Nicholson would have been moved years ago if that was a rule.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Use the common name. There are no reliable sources using "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". It is a Wikipedia invention. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, page names should be recognizable: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." DrKay (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. Should be keeping in format with the renaming of his brother's article once he received a new title as Duke of Cambridge. I don't see how Harry's article should be any different. Brocicle (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I misunderstood the request. Brocicle (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the title, but Henry or Harry. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That cannot be used as an analogy, as William has only ever been known as William. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Thank you for the correction, I misunderstood the move request. Brocicle (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As with stage names and nom de plume this is the name that the subject in question and Royal Family social media accounts and books etc has chosen to refer to themselves. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Parson's Cat (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At least until now, he has been known almost exclusively as Harry. Article title should remain in the current form under WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:NCROY). --Editor FIN (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a confused discussion, since there is a third option, that we just leave him at "Prince Harry". When this article was at "Prince Harry of Wales" there were objections that this was an awkward hybrid between his formal title and his common name. PatGallacher (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PatGallacher: Thank you for stressing that out. I even prefer keeping it just "Prince Harry" than mixing "Harry" with the "Duke of Sussex". Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the most obvious of reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anotherwikipedianuser, only the non-WP:RS tabloids are going to be using "Prince Harry" from now on... Firebrace (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Obviously not. Reliable and the most reputable of sources have been referring to him as Prince Harry for the past 24 hours (much as they have done the past three decades). See this article by The Telegraph published an hour ago. And another one published few hours ago. And another one published today. Here is a full list, actually. Here[1][2] are some by The Guardian. This one calls him Harry in the title. Here is one by the BBC. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Legal name; WP:UCS which I believe, for a serious encyclopedia, always should matter more than media frequency. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject's legal name is "Henry Charles Albert David", not "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". When he was born, his parents and the Palace announced that he would be known as Harry. It is definitely not something the media invented. Surtsicna (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - SergeWoodzing Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Common names are usually valued more than legal names for titles. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Surtsicna: Of course it wasn't a media invention, but the circumstances now are different. To me the options are moving it to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex or moving it back to Prince Harry, not a mix of both ways. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He has been known as Harry all his life, and took his marriage vows using that name. Keivan.f^Talk 12:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support On a second thought, I think the formal form is preferable. Mixing his common name with his official title doesn't seem to be reasonable. Keivan.f^Talk 20:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f:This is for all intents and purposes a sort of Encyclopedia and I find the formal style also preferable. His sister in law is also commonly referred to by her nickname but that didn't impact the name of the article on her. I don't see any meaningful difference. If she becomes queen one day, I bet people will call her Queen Kate but the article will be called Queen Catherine of the United Kingdom. Why deviate from a very consistent policy ? --Killuminator (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Prince Harry or Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, but the current mixed form is quiet silly. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Norden1990: has put it simple. Both options above are better than the current one. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the most obvious of reasons. Even the royal website calls him Prince Harry. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammartinlai: It does call him Prince Harry now, but will it on Monday? This requested move is premature. Firebrace (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we laying guessing games or contributing information to the article?Sammartinlai (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, he's always been known as Harry. Spiderpig662 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's a issue with naming, and, here, WP:COMMONNAME correctly takes precedence. And the current mixed form is indeed silly. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 14:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Prince Harry or Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, perhaps with a re-direct from one to the other. Apparently, I can't read, and I misunderstood the request completely. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 16:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Prince Harry" as per WP:COMMONNAME. Edge3 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex" with a redirect from "Prince Harry". You use the formal name or the informal name, you don't mix the two. The 35th President of the U.S. was John F. Kennedy or Jack Kennedy. He was never Jack F. Kennedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwolfe (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposed move (just to be clear, because there seems to be confusion above) to "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex" because it's his actual name, not a nickname. In the formal announcement he was referred to by his then title, Prince Henry of Wales: [3] 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Either that or “Prince Harry”, the current title is a Wikipedia neologism, see previous discussions regarding “Prince Harry of Wales” Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of sources using "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", e.g.[4][5][6]. I can't find any that use the suggested target. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - USA Today is factually incorrect: "On the morning of Prince Harry and Markle's wedding, his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, as expected granted him a new title: HRH Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", and The Telegraph and Times of Israel have obviously copied the image descriptions, which are identical, from whichever website they purchased the images ("Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex kisses his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex as they leave from the West Door of St George's Chapel"). The Telegraph is a British newspaper, and if they had written it themselves, they would not have referred to him as "Britain's Prince Harry". Firebrace (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, as that's his official name & title. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll find all the official sites will either use "Prince Harry" or "The Duke of Sussex" from now on. "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex" is no more or less "official" than "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". DrKay (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminator says it best. We ain't using Prince Eddy for the article Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Therefore, we shouldn't be using Prince Harry. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Eddy was never used officially. Prince Harry is, as you can see at the official websites. "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex" is a Wikipedia neologism. This is very different from "Prince Henry of Wales", which was definitely in use and official. DrKay (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking with Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. Either the article title will be changed or it won't. It's not entirely my decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the other princes with ducal titles also a Wikipedia neologism ? They might be better known by their full names, but the format is the same Prince + Name, Title of Somewhere. As for official, it doesn't get more official than legal instruments such as the consent for his marriage, which BTW used his full name, territorial designation and KCVO as an award. If we go by strictly official, what would the official names for other royals be ? His Royal Highness Prince Something, Duke of Something, Earl of Something, Baron of Something Else, KG, KT etc. --Killuminator (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not Wikipedia neologisms. This is the only one for which I can find absolutely no sources whatsoever using Henry. I already said that "Prince Henry of Wales" was definitely in use and official. It is the suggested target that is not. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prolly because he was created Duke this morning. With all the courtesy and protocol surrounding people of his pedigree, I doubt they'll deviate from long established standards. He was Prince Henry of Wales but better known as Prince Harry this morning, not Prince Harry of Wales. The ducal title just changes the suffix. There was debate on this title's page even when he was a bachelor, and it was settled for Prince Harry not Prince Harry of Wales so I don't see a reason to make tortured compromises now with a ducal title being the ending part rather than a territorial designation. Either revert it back via common name or pursue consistency with other similar pages. --Killuminator (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Or stick to just Prince Harry rather than a garbage compromise. His sister in law is still widely called Kate, yet her page starts with Catherine. He is not the first prince with a nickname, we don't have page called Prince Eddy for Queen Victoria's lamentable grandson. --Killuminator (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Killuminator: Very good point indeed. This is pretty much the only case in which there is a fuss about a nickname. There has been a good reason to use it, until this morning. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no substantial difference with this case and that of his sister in law. The titles aren't the contentious part at all so why would the way we treat their personal names be ? If you google Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge you'll get more Kate than Catherine and yet her page does not use a nickname. --Killuminator (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great difference: Catherine never used the name Kate. It was coined by tabloids and used by tabloids. Harry's parents announced that he would be known as Harry on the day he was born. He has been referred to as Harry by his family, the Palace and the entire world all his life. Surtsicna (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, a few points, Surtsicna: He is only 33 and has not lived most of his life yet. He is also an adult and a married man capable of making his own choices. "Kate" was not an invention of the tabloid press; former classmates referred to her as Kate, so did William, and so did the non-tabloid media.

Royal wedding: The Kate Middleton story – BBC News
- Former classmate Charlie Leslie: "Kate is an absolutely phenomenal girl - really popular, talented, creative and sporty"
Prince William and Kate Middleton - Full interview – ITN
- William at 2:35: "I was torn between asking Kate's dad first and then the realisation that he might say no dawned upon me. So I thought if I asked Kate first then he can't really say no"
- William at 6:40: "I would say I'm getting better at cooking... Kate would say I'm getting a lot worse ... when I was trying to impress Kate, I was trying to cook these amazing fancy dinners"
- William at 8:20: [The Queen] had wanted to meet Kate for a while ... Kate's got a very close family ... Mike and Carol have been loving, caring and really fun and welcoming and I hope Kate's felt the same about my family"
- William at 10:20: "When I first met Kate, I knew there was something very special about her"
How 'commoner' Kate Middleton won Prince William's heart – The Guardian
Prince William engaged to Kate Middleton; royal couple to marry in 2011 – The Washington Post
William and Kate: A Fairy Tale, Ending Unknown – The New York Times

Firebrace (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, Firebrace. When Harry does make a choice to be known publicly and privately as Henry, please let us know about it. So far you are the one making that choice for him. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His parents made the choice for him 33 years ago, and you suggest that it should still apply to him now, as an adult. That's one opinion. Mine is more open-minded: He may wish to move away from the "Prince Harry" moniker and be known as something a bit more grown-up. I have previously said that this move was premature. We should have waited six months before deciding whether to rename "Prince Harry". Firebrace (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do suggest that the choice of name made by a person's parents should apply for so long as the person does not express a desire to be known by another name. That's how names work. How many of us named ourselves? That "Prince Harry" does not sound grown-up is only your opinion. The subject goes by that name, however, and no move should be made until that changes. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given name should always be used with official title. Mixing up title and nickname is gossip-mag cringeworthy .Plutonium27 (talk)
Support as per Killuminator. smileguy91^{talk x my huckleberrying} 17:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONSISTENCY with similar with other articles. This is now his official title and style, and an encyclopedia should reflect it. CookieMonster755 ✉ 17:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Support per WP:CONSISTENCY with similar with other articles. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have changed my mind, Prince Harry is his common name. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cite WP:CONSISTENCY, but please note that the policy also requires us to consider "naturalness" of the article title, "one that readers are likely to look or search for". In this case, people are unlikely to search for "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". Edge3 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't supporting that option though. What do you type when you search for his sister in law, or his mother ? You'll be directed to the desired pages anyway. --Killuminator (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support renaming to "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". This is an awkward one because there doesn't seem to be any true precedent. The naming conventions for royalty and nobility says (bold mine): It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles. In terms of consistency in article naming, he should be "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex", but in terms of common name, he should be "Prince Harry". Following WP:NCRAN, I'm leaning towards the former, because it's clear that WP:COMMONNAME is not meant to be the be-all and end-all in cases like these, and existing articles follow the former. However, Prince Harry is the only royal I can think of who has been so thoroughly known by his nickname, to the point that he's been called "Prince Harry" during official functions. This has blurred the line and made a case for his article being "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". Marianna251TALK 19:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marianna251: His sister in law is also far and wide known by her nickname, Kate. The Wikipedia article however uses the more formal and courteous Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I don't see any substantial difference between these two and why we should treat him differently. She's not a princess in her own right, but that is irrelevant because that is not the contentious part, it's the personal name and nicknames. Even when he was styled Prince Henry of Wales, there was debate between using Prince Harry, Prince Henry of Wales and Prince Harry of Wales. The only difference now is he has Sussex instead of Wales in his title. --Killuminator (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I was thinking more in terms of Prince Harry being the only born royal to be known so thoroughly by his nickname. Whether he's publicly known by a nickname would have been a factor in his life from the time he was born; the same can't be said of Kate, which makes her nickname more or less incidental. His would have been a deliberate choice. Marianna251TALK 21:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is being born or married into the royal family a meaningful difference in this topic ? Feels like a red herring tbh. Both categories of royals have personal names like every other person, and some have nicknames. Those who marry into royalty don't get a princely prefix, but this isn't the contentious topic here. --Killuminator (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the meaningful difference - in terms of long-term media attention affecting WP:COMMONNAME, I think it does make a meaningful difference, but it isn't a strong argument which is why I landed in support of "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". I think we actually agree on that one, anyway. :) Marianna251TALK 22:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Killuminator, CookieMonster755, and Plutonium27. Either we go with just Prince Harry, or we go with Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. A mix-match of the two would be, to my knowledge, unprecedented, and just very messy from a social norms perspective. Sanctaria (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as per Jwolfe and Marianna251. From now on it will be probably (in the media) "Prince Harry" (his nickname) or "The Duke of Sussex" (his official name), but both - this weird emulsification of nickname with official name - is just awkward and incorrect. Thus, acc. procedure "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex" with a redirect from "Prince Harry". Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the co-mixture of a diminutive name and a formal title makes no sense. We should allow logic and common sense to triumph here. Nothing wrong with using 'Harry' in the article, but we don't want a title that is confused. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The precedence has already been set with other articles has other editors have stated above. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 00:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the mixture of informal name and formal title sounds terrible. Andrew Yong (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The wedding invitation says "His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales" Since he probably approved of them, I would say that Henry is his preferred name for official usage.Bobsd (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, for many of the same reasons as stated above ToastButterToast (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - He is more famous as Prince Harry than as Prince Henry. News sources cite his name as "Prince Harry". Hansen Sebastian 03:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Since Meghan is not going by her legal first name, neither should Harry. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 04:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I too am leaning towards opposing but your reasoning is seriously flawed and unhelpful. Surtsicna (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He is formally known as Prince Henry therefore if his title is to be included then I support it being "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex", redirecting from Prince Harry. If we don't include his title then it should be "Prince Harry". Ljwiki (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Neither the current nor the proposed title satisfies the WP:Common name policy. But then again, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge is never called "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge" either; it's either "Prince William" (common) or "the Duke of Cambridge" (formal). In both cases we have a mixture of the common name and the formal title; in Harry's case it's only more prominent. We are not bound to use the formal name and we certainly do not do that anyway; titles such as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, etc, are actually inaccurate and frowned upon, as they suggest that the subjects are divorced duchesses. Yet we use them because a) Wikipedia is not the Court Circular, b) we judge it wise to include the subject's name in the article title. His biography on the official website, updated yesterday, refers to him as Prince Harry 74 times and as Prince Henry once (and that's in the form of Prince Henry Charles Albert David). On the very day that he was born, it was announced that he would be known as Harry, and the Palace has been referring to him as Harry all his life. There has been no announcement to the contrary since his marriage and no indication that the practice will change. Surtsicna (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The official web page contains "Prince Harry" 11 times; the other 63 are within links to old press releases at the bottom of the page. Of the 11, 8 are pre-wedding tweets and videos. Of the remaining 3, 2 are in the context of the "The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry" (now just The Royal Foundation). So in reality, the official page refers to him as "The Duke of Sussex" 9 times, and "Prince Harry" only once. Firebrace (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And how many times does it refer to him as "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex"? How many times as "Prince Henry"? Where are the new press releases that would show that the old ones are outdated and that he should no longer be called Harry but Henry, as suggested by this move proposal? Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not a difference at all. Both were given nicknames by other people, both are called by such nicknames by other people, both are royalty and yet the only difference is people are gung ho about keeping the nickname in article name for him but not for her. The pages for her wedding dress and fashion effect still have Kate in them. --Killuminator (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He is clearly better known as Harry, there is a case for just sticking to plain "Prince Harry". PatGallacher (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and keep title as is. He's most commonly known as Harry, in the same way that William Henry Gates III is known as "Bill", Charles Thomas Connors is known as "Stompin' Tom", or Sir Richard Starkey is known as "Ringo". Adding his formal title serves to naturally disambiguate the Duke of Sussex from several other people also named Prince Henry or Prince Harry, names which are largely interchangeable in England. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though one could justifiably argue that this article's title should be "Prince Harry", as he's likely the most prominent of all people commonly known by that name. Prince Harry is already a redirect to this page, rather than to Prince Henry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nobody calls him Henry. He is always known as Harry. This proposal puts pedantry and nit-picking ahead of common sense and Wikipedia policy, WP:COMMONNAME, which says:
"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

Everyone supporting this proposal has disregarded, or is unaware of, Wikipedia's policy and just asserted that we should use his official name — that's just wrong. Richard75 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you should know by now, there are exceptions to the common name policy, e.g., "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Firebrace (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is the name ambiguous or inaccurate? Where does it say that the proposed one is accurate? DrKay has pointed out several times that the proposed title is not used by any reliable source whatsoever. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And those using "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" have only done so because that's what it says on Wikipedia. This is an absolute debacle. The article should have remained at "Prince Harry" while this discussion took place. Firebrace (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, Firebrace. Both this move and the move of Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex were premature. In neither case did we get the most accurate title, and in neither case did we end up with the best-known and most recognizable name. Discussions were started a month before the marriage to prevent that, but both efforts went down the drain when Jimbo Wales and Timrollpickering decided the page titles on their own. Celia Homeford and Marc Kupper's opinion that the moves should not be performed without discussion, per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, was flatly ignored. So were opinions of a dozen users (including you and me) who explicitly disagreed with the current titles of these articles. That should have been enough to warrant a proper move discussion before (not after!) the moves, but (as Feminist noted) influential administrators can get away with anything. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that regular people and news sources are coming to Wikipedia to see if they should start referring to the subject as Prince Henry now that he has a title? Prince Harry has never been referred to as Prince Henry in normal usage and a quick reading of the news coverage of his wedding leads me to believe that we won't start now. You can already find sources using the formation "Prince Harry Duke of Sussex". Acjelen (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna Meghan's page was moved by Jimbo Wales personally. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said, isn't it? And that's the most embarrassing part. Surtsicna (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose as utterly failing WP:V (seriously, only wikipedia mirrors and copies use this formulation per this search), and our WP:TITLE policy. No idea how this move has a single support. Support alternative move to just Prince Harry Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everybody calls him Harry, including his family. We should follow WP:COMMONNAME and use either Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, or simply Prince Harry. Edwardx (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's Harry. Commonname applies. He can be moved when another name becomes the common name. Any alternate or "real" names etc can go in the lead. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support long story short, it doesn't make sense to have informal with formal in the title. Prince William's isn't "Prince Wills, Duke of Cambridge" even though his nickname is Wills. Either leave it Prince Harry to change it to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex.Trillfendi (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different case... Reliable sources don't call him "Prince Wills", but rather "Prince William". As for Prince Harry, almost all sources use his nickname. Edge3 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because we've been here before. "Harry" is not incorrect - it's the form of his name that his parents decided to use when he was born and which was officially announced at that time.Deb (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harry is not just a nickname in this case but is the only name he is known by to most people. WP:COMMONNAME should, therefore, apply in this case. While some have argued that the inclusion of Duke of Sussex in the article title justifies the use of his most official title, I believe this misses the point. Prince Harry will now commonly be referred to only as the Duke of Sussex, or as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. It is easy to find instances (headlines of news articles, social media, official royal communications, etc.) where the Dukes of Edinburgh, Cambridge, and York are referred to by just their dukedom. As such, the inclusion of his dukedom in the title does not justify using the much more obscure name "Henry", but is a common name, and completely consistent with the use of the name "Harry". Blue jays (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMON, though if the current title is deemed unacceptable I offer weaker support for a reversion to Prince Harry. WantaghNY (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mixing the common name with the official title looks wrong, and doesn't work, since it's no longer the common name. zzz (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either use the official legal name which is Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, or the COMMONNAME which is Prince Harry with no ducal title. The current article title is an abomination merge, is unnecessary and is a name that does not exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and comment Harry is so infrequently referred to as "Henry" that many, particularly outside the UK, don't even know that that is his actual name. Making this change would be an egregious violation of WP:COMMONNAME, but I don't think the current hybrid of his common and official name is appropriate either. Including titles is pretty common sense with royals, as there are dozens of notable Williams, Henrys, Charleses, Edwards, etc., but "Prince Harry" is what the vast, vast majority know him as, and there's no one close to his level of notability who he would be confused with. The article name should, therefore, be moved to Prince Harry...and, just because it's been brought up, nothing says Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's articles have to match. Rockhead126 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – Harry is his common name, which overrides WP:OFFICIALNAME. The current title – Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex – is correct. The Royal Family's website even uses "Harry". Corky 03:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose as the current title is an appropriate amalgam of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY under the circumstances. Calling him Henry violates the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME; the world knows him as Prince Harry. There may be some basis for reverting to just plain Prince Harry (created previously due to similar objections to Prince Harry of Wales), but certainly not for forcing us to use his legal name. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He will obviously still be known as Harry, just as the Duke of Cambridge is still commonly known to everyone as William (and his grandfather, despite having been the Duke of Edinburgh for seventy years, is still very commonly known as Philip). Also, to those claiming that Henry is now his preferred name, why did the Archbishop of Canterbury refer to him as Harry during the marriage ceremony then? He gave his vows as Harry, not as Henry. That is clearly his preferred name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:UCRN. "Prince Henry" is not what any common person is likely to know or refer to him by. ChrisDown (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per common name. Would support the removal of ", Duke of Sussex" from the name as there sis only one Prince Harry. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that not only because reliable sources call him Harry he's known around the worldwide as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" also known as "Prince Harry". FrederickWinchester (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have always regretted the free popular use of a nickname only the Prince's intimates should feel entitled to use,even if His Royal Highness has encouraged it thanks to his mother's bad taste.(Supposedly she only agreed to the name Henry if he would routinely be called Harry,a name I would only use for a Harold,not a Henry).12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: His name is Harry and he is the Duke of Sussex. Let's not be pedantic.--Hazhk (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Aside from on his wedding invites, he's universally known as Prince Harry, not Prince Henry. To have his article use a name that he isn't commonly known by would be to completely violate WP:COMMONNAME. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given that "the royal website calls him Prince Harry", as mentioned above, including the page showing an image of the Queen's instrument of consent to his marriage[7], and that the article begins "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, KCVO (Henry Charles Albert David;.... more commonly known as Prince Harry, [fn 2 Harry is a traditional nickname for Henry] is a member of the British royal family.." there is little reason at present to change the article's title, but if we find in future more frequent use of "Prince Henry", it would be reasonable to reconsider. Qexigator (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Prince Harry remains his common name until proven otherwise, and Wikipedia needs not obey the Court Circular. — JFG ^talk 09:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for consistency. Very often I support using a more formal name as an article title, and object to the very frequent quoting of WP:COMMONNAME as if it was the only rule about titles. But in this case I agree with all the most recent comments. He is known by the media (now) as the Duke of Sussex (formally) and as Prince Harry or even plain Harry (informally eg in headlines) so the present title satisfactorily does the job of combining both "common names". The fact that the (nick?)name Harry has been official since his birth is compelling and easily distinguishes this case from the Catherine/Kate example or other examples such Elizabeth Hurley where the subject herself does not use the nickname. Of course, the full "legal" name must remain in bold in the lead sentence. Sussexonian (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNANE, the name "Harry is widely used than "Henry". --B dash (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Folks are using WP:COMMONNAME as a reason to change the article name back to Prince Harry. Are we really going disregard his royal title Duke of Sussex for that? Does this mean, we're going to change Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex back to Catherine Middleton & Meghan Markle? because we all know, they're still referred to many time in media by those names. IMHO, going with common name in this article's title, does a disservice to our readers. They'd learn more about the guy, if they seen his real name, rather then his nickname. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there's a move request for precisely that for Meghan Markle Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez. Next thing ya know, we'll be merging United Kingdom into the article England, under the name England, because many mainstream media describe the UK as England. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, the subject's real name is not Henry but Henry Charles Albert David. You can hear it pronounced very clearly. But we don't call him that, do we? "Harry" is the name he has gone by his entire life. "Prince Harry" is the name used by the Palace as well as by the world. It is by no means inaccurate, unless you suggest that the man does not know his own name. Would you prefer Bill Clinton to be moved to William Jefferson Clinton, Oprah Winfrey to Orpah Winfrey, Winston Churchill to Winston Spencer-Churchill, etc? Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike those examples, the Duke of Sussex is royalty. His name should be changed to Henry, now that his got that title. This article is certainly a case of WP:COMMONNAME gone too far. It's even now spread to his wife's article. Is his sister-in-law's article, next? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing my entire comment on the grounds that Prince Harry is royalty? Incredible. Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this article isn't going to be moved to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex? then it should remain as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Above all, 'Duke of Sussex' shouldn't be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Clinton and co stuff is a red herring IMO. The only common link is the nicknames. They aren't titled Bill/William, President of the United States or anything to that effect. These is a prince with a ducal title, and these titles have a whole lot of courtesy baggage with them. There is a policy on naming articles regarding British nobles and royal so why deviate from it and throw these irrelevant people into the fray or make a tortured compromise ? There are other special naming policies for older queen consorts and recent queen consorts, anglicizing names of older and recent foreign monarchs, names of artists and transgender people etc. but none of that is applicable here. And how is Prince Harry different from Duchess Kate ? Move her page as well under this line of thinking, because people call her Kate regardless of what we call her article. --Killuminator (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this article should be moved to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. We're hear to educate readers. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Educate readers by using the Wikipedia neologism "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex"? Seriously, that formulation isn't used anywhere but here Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is used for every other prince, a format that goes Prince or Princess as prefix + First Name, Title + Territorial designation. Only difference is this prince is well known for his nickname and is a household name unlike most of these (Redacted). --Killuminator (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree its usage elsewhere, but what has that got to do here? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it wouldn't be a neologism to use that format here, but this status quo as it is does represent a neologism. Let us imagine he never married. There was even then a debate on this and the 3 choices were identical, only difference being Wales as a territorial designation instead of Sussex. People chose Prince Harry and all was fine and well till yesterday. They didn't opt for Prince Harry of Wales. --Killuminator (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: The format "[name], [title]" for nobility flatly is not a neologism, nor is it exclusive to Wikipedia. For example, this is the National Trust page on Wimpole Hall, at one time owned by the Earls of Hardwicke, and it refers to one owner as "Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke". I know that's only one example, but it's not hard to find others because this style is common use and has been for centuries - Wimpole Hall was the first thing I thought of because some family visited there recently. The main difference when it comes to royalty is that the surname is omitted. Given that it's also been common practice for nobles to give their children the same name (see Earl of Hardwicke; the first three earls had exactly the same name), WP:NCRAN points out a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles, so it makes perfect sense for royalty & nobility to have article titles that use their name and title. So article titles for royalty/nobility on Wikipedia follow this format because a) we're using established methods of referring to nobility/royal, and b) it's practical. Why should Prince Harry be an exception? Marianna251TALK 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood the argument. The format is not in dispute. "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" can be found in sources. "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex" is not. It is the change in one word that is under discussion. DrKay (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" is a case of citogenesis. There was no reason for anyone to use that term unless they saw it on Wikipedia. Like "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex", it has not been mentioned by any official source. Firebrace (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possible, had the same thought; which is why I preferred just "Prince Harry". Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, DrKay; thank you for the clarification. Marianna251TALK 23:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't dispute that format, but that doesn't mean we can apply it ourselves to create terms not used in sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate is the red herring, Killuminator, because she has never referred to herself by that name. The Palace has never referred to her by that name. Harry uses the name Harry. The Palace has always referred to him as Harry. Prove otherwise and we will have something to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was the instrument of consent for his marriage just a few days ago, and that is a legal instrument unlike A Royal Website. It does not use Prince Harry but goes with full name, territorial designation at the time and his KCVO order. --Killuminator (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Buckingham Palace and the Kensington Palace, not a website. The man has called himself Harry and has been known as Harry his entire life. Bringing up government documents is not helping your case because nobody disputes what his legal name is. What is disputed is your assertion that Wikipedia is bound to use legal names. It is obviously not, and this is becoming ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Given that "the royal website calls him Prince Harry", as mentioned above, including the page showing an image of the Queen's instrument of consent to his marriage[[8]], and that the article begins "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, KCVO (Henry Charles Albert David;.... more commonly known as Prince Harry, [fn 2 Harry is a traditional nickname for Henry] is a member of the British royal family.." there is little reason at present to change the article's title, but if we find in future more frequent use of "Prince Henry", it would be reasonable to reconsider. Qexigator (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you, Surtsicna. Your argument makes complete sense to me.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

His wife's article will likely have Duchess of Sussex in its title. Yet, this article may possibly have Duke of Sussex not being in its title. GoodDay (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what, GoodDay? We have Queen Mathilde of Belgium, but her husband is merely Philippe of Belgium. And quite a few kings and queens are treated like that. You never seemed to mind that. In fact, you supported moving Letizia of Spain to Queen Letizia of Spain despite the name of her husband's biography not containing his title. So why is this different? Surtsicna (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so disgusted with the possibility that this article is going to stick out like a sore thumb, by being out of sync with Prince William, Duke of Cambridge & the other British dukes, that I'm just gonna post nothing further. Let the Page move end in whatever way it does. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate is just fucking ridiculous and is just the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Richard75 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a bad name for many reasons, and this is way down at the bottom of the list. Firebrace (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this up for debate, I had two streams of thought: one, that it seemed absurd to bring this up, given that his notability in the world has always been as 'Prince Harry,' but, on the other hand, that the royal website and Court Circular represent him as Prince Henry. I was initially inclined to the latter argument, and so I intended to vote for the change. However, after more consideration, I think we should keep the name of the page as it is. Despite his official representation being as Prince Henry, the world always has, and always will, largely know him as Prince Harry. This was his parents' wish when he was born and it has been carried throughout his life by his family, friends, school faculty, classmates, military, and patronages. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with the name Harry. 'Ted Kennedy' was always 'Ted Kennedy' even though people knew his name was Edward and he used Edward officially in the Senate; the public at large knew him as Ted. The late Duke of Gloucester was a Henry, but often went by Harry in private correspondence; the reason we have him in Wikipedia as Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, is that he was not known to the public as Harry. This is not the case for the Duke of Sussex, who has always been and will continue to be known as Harry. Last point: The Duke of Sussex consistently signs his name as Harry, not Henry. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2018 (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.

Comment after close

I would recommend another Rfc on this topic. But with 2 options Prince Harry or Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Oh well, increasing sources for the latter, will see this article's title changed again. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a further page move initiated, the closure has somehow resulted in a move to a title that was neither the original nor the proposed move target. Nor is it in any way clear how the closer could imagine the discussion resulted in a consensus to move to a third title. Sussexonian (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Although I didn't vote, I have been watching. A few people expressing distaste for the present title expressed a preference for either Prince Harry or Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, but not all did. BTW, the royal website seems to be frequently referring to Harry as the DoS now. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was the original title... the page was moved from that title by someone the day of the wedding without doing a proposal. Now it’s back where it started since there wasn’t any agreement to change the title before. 63.139.68.83 (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How accurate is the move history on this page? An early, 2002, edit summary suggests that the original name was "Prince Harry of Wales". The move history shows the earliest change of name to be "Prince Henry of Wales → Prince Harry of Wales", on 24 July 2009. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move histories from before about the start of 2006 aren't very well recorded on the logs. Timrollpickering 21:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely favor another RFC or something... we are no longer consistent with the other Royal Family members... can someone show me where the majority favored its move to Prince Harry? From what I see, the majority said his name is Harry, and that the article should not have been moved to Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. Corky 13:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I voted for 'Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex', but I would more so prefer 'Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex' over just 'Prince Harry'. It's now more inconstant than it was before! Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before anything else, let's take stock and analyse what happened here so that lessons can be learned, and hopefully the mistakes are never repeated.

The article was originally moved to "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" at the feverish whim of User:Timrollpickering at 7:40 GMT on the morning of the royal wedding, with the edit summary "peerage now announced".[9] The official announcement did not use the terms "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex"; it merely said that Prince Henry of Wales now had the title "Duke of Sussex" in addition to his other titles.[10] I can find no reliable source that referred to him as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" before the article was moved. The move was based on a personal preference of the editor and not WP:COMMONNAME or any other policy. Administrator User:DrKay ~~locked the article instead of immediately moving it back to "Prince Harry" while the RM discussion took place,[11] and~~ even tried to influence the RM by finding a whole 3 sources that used the term "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" in an obvious case of citogenesis.[12] Unfortunately, in the past 10 days, millions of people reading Wikipedia have seen this personal preference of Timrollpickering ~~and DrKay~~, and I would not put any faith in reliable sources (except official ones or the BBC) to have done their own research instead of just following Wikipedia's lead. TL;DR: The whole thing was a bloody farce. Firebrace (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not move protect the page. The diff you provide is me extending the temporary edit protection. The move protection was applied earlier, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Harry&diff=841689029&oldid=841683593. Possibly as early as 2011: [13]. Please strike your mistake. DrKay (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but any one of you could move it back to "Prince Harry". That was the right thing to do, under the circumstances. Firebrace (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I commented and declared in the discussion just like any other editor. It would not be appropriate for me to move the article when commenting in the move discussion. I no more tried to "influence the RM" than anyone else who commented. DrKay (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, an admin should have reverted Timrollpickering's move pending consensus. Firebrace (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bit of WP:AGF there Firebrace. For the record:

It was not a "feverish whim" but following a standard practice of updating a subject's article title when the name has changed which has often happened over the years with little or no fuss. Here, for example, is Prince William's article being moved at about the equivalent time [14] and that never generated anything like the number of walls of text we've had here. Another case is the current Lord Snowdon (the Queen's nephew) being moved the day he inherited the title [15] with a follow-up shortly afterwards to remove excess middle names [16].
The title was in the form standard for articles on British princes with peerages (see Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex amongst others) as set down at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Royals with a substantive title. It was most definitely not a "personal preference".
Numerous articles on peers include both their peerage title and a more informal version of their first name or a middle name - to pick but nine examples: Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford (not "Francis"), Tom Denning, Baron Denning (not "Thompson" or "Alfred"), Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton (not "Charles"), Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew (not "Alexander"), Bill Morris, Baron Morris of Handsworth (not "William"), Harry Snell, 1st Baron Snell (not "Henry"), Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell (not "Francis" or "John"), Tony Giffard, 3rd Earl of Halsbury (not "Anthony" or "John") and Chris Rennard, Baron Rennard (not "Christopher"). Again there has been little fuss about this apart from a very long ago discussion on Longford's talkpage.

Timrollpickering 23:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely shocked to see how this move proposal ended. I fully endorse Timrollpickering's initial action, which was in line with our article naming standards. The closure by User:Dane was certainly quite improper, suggesting that there was consensus for something that was not even part of the proposal. Deb (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is, Deb, that there was no consensus to move the article from Prince Harry to any new title. Thus, the undiscussed move was reverted. That is entirely within policy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a very reasonable move, in line with the move of Prince William (which, along with Prince Harry, should have been a disambiguation page - thus it was also a very useful move). They should both have been at their correct birth titles, Prince William of Wales and Prince Harry of Wales.Deb (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna, Deb, Timrollpickering, DrKay, Firebrace, Nford24, Corkythehornetfan, Dhtwiki, Sussexonian, and GoodDay: I'd like to further clarify my reasoning behind my closure above in an effort to help those involved fully understand how I came to the result that I closed with. There were a number of editors who expressed opposition to mixing his official title with an his given name, "Henry". There was additionally enough commentary that mixing his official title with his nickname of "Harry" was not substantially supported. There was plenty of commentary from both the opposers and supporters supporting a reversion/retitling to just "Prince Harry", which is why I chose to close the discussion/move the page in the way I did. Additionally, Per WP:RMUM, the original move was not done in a requested move when it likely should have been, as moves without RMs take place when "it seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.". I believe the initial move was in good faith though. In full transparency, I reviewed the move again and came to the same conclusion as my first closure. While I may not see it another way, perhaps a move review is the best place to determine whether or not this closure was good or bad? -- Dane ^talk 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting your good intentions, but for a start I think it was unwise of you to involve yourself in closing this discussion, which turned out to be very controversial; an admin or at least a more experienced contributor should have done it. There was (in my opinion) nothing wrong with the move from Prince Harry (which was always a bad title) to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, when it was officially announced that his title had changed. If Prince Charles became king tomorrow, his article would be immediately renamed with minimal argument. The only subject in doubt was whether the prince would be Harry or Henry, and this has always been controversial. Most people voted to support or oppose in the context of the proposed move to Henry, an argument that has already been discussed on multiple occasions and has always failed, not in terms of whether it was correct to add his new title to the title of the article. Yes, there were some people who wanted to revert to the old title, but I do not see any evidence that they represented a majority. Deb (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification and I, too, am not doubting your good faith. I just don't see where there was a consensus to simply move the article to "Prince Harry" when the controversy (which I thought was pretty clear) was simply about on word – 'Harry' or 'Henry' – in the title. I'll wait for the next requested move, which should be opened soon according to a discussion below. For the next requested move, an uninvolved administrator should be the one to close it. Corky 19:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the "Requested move..." section and its "votes", I found it hard to determine whether, when some people said "Prince Harry", they were eliding "Duke of Sussex" but meant that title to remain. Others definitely posited the former title alone, but seemingly only to emphasize their objection to the "weird emulsification", as one put it, of "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". Has the article ever been titled this way before, as just "Prince Harry"? I'm finding inconsistencies with the move history section in the header, where it links to actual discussions, and there doesn't seem to be another way to audit the page-move history (an official-looking search tool only showed the last two page moves). I would have voted for Prince Harry, etc., because, after preferring Prince Henry..., I realized that Wikipedia itself is a weird emulsification of the correct and incorrect, and seeing the common name come up at the top of the search box drop-down menu would probably clue more people that that was what they wanted. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that before he became Duke of Sussex, the article had for years stayed as "Prince Harry", and recurrently "Prince Henry" had been rejected: see Talk Archives 2 and 3, including repeated requested moves July 2009, August 2012, July 2013, December 2013, and in Archive 4 see discussion "Upcoming Move - Harry or Henry?" April-May 2018. Sufficient source-based support for a change has not yet emerged. Qexigator (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If "of Wales" was left out before,it should not have been,just as "Duke of Sussex" should not be left out now.A bare name should never suffice.12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a MR would be appropriate, I know some had issue with the media still referring to him as just 'Prince Harry', but (mainly in Australia) the media have made an effort to refer to them both as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFord: A bare OR assertion of that kind unsupported by links to sources is next to no help in this discussion other than as a further indicator against change until something more has emerged, which at present seems likelier to be later than sooner. Are there any sources in New Zealand, Canada or elsewhere? Qexigator (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator, no offence to you but sources are sometimes not a great deal of use in article naming, particularly in relation to members of royal families. Official documents will refer to him as "The Duke of Sussex", which is no use at all as an article title because we avoid using "the" where possible, for obvious reasons, and "Duke of Sussex" is a disambiguator. We try to think about correct titles, but also about what makes the article easiest to find. The two don't mix easily. Deb (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that "Sufficient source-based support for a change has not yet emerged", as said above, and time will tell, likelier later than sooner, whether we should yet again review the question on its merits, rather personal preferences. Qexigator (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator I think you should give Jimbo Wales's talk page a read, He'd certainly disagree with you.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NF: If yours is intended to be a constructive comment for the purposes of this discussion, please explain what you intend by 'He'd certainly disagree with you'. Disagree about what exactly, and in what respect disagree exactly? Qexigator (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

WP:SNOW Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

How about a new option: Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex?Lotrjw (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mirrorthesoul (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most convoluted option for article name. --Killuminator (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Absolutely not. Completely abhorrent. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I appreciate the intention, but I think this option would compound the problem rather than help. Marianna251TALK 22:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nope. It will definitely cause further problems in the future. Keivan.f^Talk 00:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - He is more well-known as Prince Harry. Hansen Sebastian 03:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Support, because that's his official name, he's royalty–not an actor. But "commonly known as Prince Harry", or something to that effect could be in the lead as far as I'm concerned.Trillfendi (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is worse and not a even a mention in first or third party sources. Stick to Prince Harry. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The worst proposal yet, such double naming is deprecated on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this good-faith suggestion, it goes against WP:CONCISE and creates a disambiguation issue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Abominable suggestion. It should be "Prince Harry" or "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". Firebrace (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everyone knows Harry is a diminutive of Henry, so this is unnecessary; also it just looks terrible. Richard75 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone does not know that. "Harry" is now a name in its own right due to the success of Harry Potter. In the modern context it is entirely reasonable to think that Prince Harry is actually named as Harry on his birth certificate. Firebrace (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Acjelen (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion It is not up to us or anyone else to decide what is his name and title. He should be given his full name and current title. An explanation can be added something like "Commnonly known as Prince Harry" and another edit after his title with something like "Formerly xxxx etc". Historygypsy (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2018 (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.

Requested move 19 May 2018 (2)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed as duplicate of the request above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex → ? – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 122.110.229.47 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close as duplicate request which will just confuse things. 82.132.184.79 (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2018 (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.

Rank of Major

Yes there are pictures of him in a wearing the rank of Major, but the London Gazette does not specify his promotion. So do not add unless with a credible source.

Sammartinlai (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this link: https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/19/queen-gives-harry-ok-wear-military-uniform-wedding-day-despite-beard-7561068/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C1:C300:2A7:E8AC:B6DE:DF31:DA92 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloids are not a reliable source as stated here. If the London Gazette does not mention his promotion it should not be included. --KingUther (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Check his service number against the London Gazette, says so mention of promotion at all. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect that it will be posted in Monday or Tuesday's London Gazette. As of last Remembrance Sunday he still had Captain's rank insignia on his Cloak.Sundayschild58 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, it has not been.Sammartinlai (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are trying to overcomplicate this. The LG is a notification method. But ultimately if the Queen approves him wearing a Majors ranks then thats that. Its in her gift. Its normal form for all Royal princes to have their ranks increase in line with their peers after active retirement. I can find many broadsheets stating major like https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/mens-style/prince-harrys-wedding-outfit/ Garlicplanting (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Regardless of the article title, the intro should be Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex. AFAIK, his name didn't magically change nor did he become a different person, upon marriage. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no reliable sources using the construction "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". Wikipedia shouldn't invent new names when common names exist. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Change the source for Harry and Megan's title changes from news reports to the Kensington press release, cited below. https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles 2601:14D:8602:5CD0:ADAF:C5DE:625D:6D1C (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with using news reports as a citation for the titles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never gotten people's obsession with replacing secondary news reports with the primary source documents; news sources reporting on it allow us to make sure we aren't misinterpreting or using out of context press releases and other issues like that Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say use them all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uses both is fine, I suppose, but people usually replace 'em Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex first name is 'Rachel' but she is best known as Meghan, so this article should remain as 'Harry' as even the official Royal website mentions his name as 'Prince Harry, Duchess of Sussex' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellomonday 1245675 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that they call him a duchess. Richard75 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect note

Ivanvector and I seem to be having a disagreement over the redirect note. The intent of Template:Redirect is "to reduce confusion by helping users get to their intended page if they were redirected to another page while, for example, searching for a topic".

Prince Harry is the target of many redirects, and we can't include notes for all of them. Also, he is no longer known by his Wales title today. As such, I recommend that we switch to his Sussex title and remove references to his Wales title.

Current: "Prince Harry of Wales" redirects here. For other princes called Henry or Harry, see Prince Henry (disambiguation). For Princes of Wales called Henry or Harry, see Henry, Prince of Wales.

Proposed: "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" redirects here. For other princes called Henry or Harry, see Prince Henry (disambiguation).

This is the edit that I submitted (and which was reverted). However, after considering it further, I'm not even sure whether we need the "Duke of Sussex" reference at all. "Prince Harry" is a simple search term, and it is already the article title. If anything, we should just say, "For other princes called Henry or Harry, see Prince Henry (disambiguation)." Thoughts? Edge3 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest version is best, keep just the "other princes called Henry or Harry" part. — JFG ^talk 09:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the hatnote I restored was the work of Paintspot in three edits ([17], [18], [19]) about a week ago. The problem is that Prince Harry of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales are still redirects to this page, so we need a navigation note for readers who are looking for a different Harry of Wales or Henry of Wales; they are listed at Henry, Prince of Wales. We don't need the second note, it's obvious that Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex redirects here, and it's reasonably obvious that nobody is going to search for "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" when they are looking for a different individual.

The problem, really, is that the various "Prince Henry of Wales" redirects are not synchronized. If there isn't one already, I'm going to open a discussion thread at WP:RFD aobut that, and the result will inform a discussion about what hatnote should be in use here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no! Prince Henry of Wales is not at all the same as Henry, Prince of Wales! Harry is actually the only person that has ever been called "Prince Harry of Wales", and there are only a handful who have been Prince Henry of Wales.Deb (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on the RFD! Edge3 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should keep the present hatnote for reasons put forward by Ivanvector. PatGallacher (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Thanks for the added information. In that case, I would write For other princes, see Prince Henry and Henry, Prince of Wales. Short and clear. — JFG ^talk 09:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: That's a great idea! I completely agree that it's much clearer now. Edge3 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief,ANYTHING but plain "Prince Harry"!

I'm not proposing a particular new title,so this doesn't rank as a "requested move". But the very IDEA of an article title that makes no reference to some royal person's dynasty/country/title is an insult to every royal of every other country. It just shouldn't be possible.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's making Wikipedia look like the tabloid media. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that's exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to behave: follow the sources, not lead them. So let's wait until the media, tabloid or others, adopt the royal title in routine coverage. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 03:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can follow the sources AND write the content using better language than the tabloid journals. WP:RS says "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." That bolding of mine may rule out most journals that call him simply Prince Harry. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge should be moved to Prince William; Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh should be moved to Prince Phillip; and Elizabeth II should be moved to Queen Elizabeth? That is what you are saying, JFG - sources don't call them by the titles we have currently. This article is no longer consistent with the other Royal Family articles and it makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of dang fools. Corky 03:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From a personal standpoint, I'm actually sympathetic to your opinion, and I don't condone the plain "Prince Harry". But my opinion, or yours, should carry very little weight, if any. Each of those cases can be discussed by editors independently from each other, in light of sourcing and policy. The most recent discussion was settled in favor of the "Prince Harry" title, and another discussion in a few months may well change it again. Irrespective of official titles by the Court Circular, the Wikipedian community has the last say. — JFG ^talk 06:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, royal website pages predominantly use "Harry" not "Henry", including The Royal Foundation[20], but after his being made Duke of Sussex, they are predominantly using "Duke of Sussex" without "Harry" or "Henry". The Wikipedia page Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex redirects to Prince Harry. If in future there is more frequent use of "Prince Henry", it would be reasonable to reconsider. Qexigator (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that referring to the subject by the name the Palace and he himself use makes Wikipedia look like tabloid media or insults someone is the single most unreasonable thing I have seen repeated over and over again on Wikipedia. It is so ludicrous that I am embarrassed to address it. I had no idea that so many editors felt the need to prove themselves more Catholic than the pope. Surtsicna (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna's interesting hyperbole reveals a longstanding contributor's feelings on the question, but "to prove themselves more Catholic than the pope" is so far off the mark that expressing it may be a source of embarrassment. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Given that we are both in favor of calling him Harry, I will boldly assume that you have misunderstood my comment, Qexigator. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you remember the words spoken by Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson) as long ago as the 1990s: "you might very well think that, but of course I could not possibly comment."[21] Qexigator (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes having NOTHING BUT "Prince Harry" be the article title an insult to all royals of all royal families other than his has nothing to do with official overuse of his nickname,it's the matter of the complete lack of a designation implying that it is understood that any prince belongs to his royal family with no further identification being necessary.We don't call Prince Aymeric of Belgium just "Prince Aymeric" even though no other dynasty has a prince of that name.12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally no article about a member of the British royal family refers to the United Kingdom in its title. Several articles do not contain any territorial designation at all, including Elizabeth II, Anne, Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. The same is true for some members of other royal families. Some editors have been very vocal in their complaints that identifying British royals with the United Kingdom in article titles is "insulting" to Canadians, Australians, and a myriad of other Commonwealth nations. Now you are claiming that not doing so insulting to the rest of the world. The whole argument is silly. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In each case there is a designator of which Queen Elizabeth,which Princess Anne,which Princess Alexandra.To go completely without implies only one royal family exists.12.144.5.2 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing in the titles Elizabeth II, Anne, Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy indicates which royal family they belong to. Let's not fool ourselves. Surtsicna (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Princess Anne other than the British one is titled Princess Royal?...what Princess Alexandra other than the British one married an Ogilvy?...if you don't understand the importance of including something other than the bare name,you are fooling yourself.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what Prince Harry other than the British one is called Prince Harry? Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted,what Prince Aymeric other than the Belgian one is called Prince Aymeric?...just plain "Prince [name]" should never ever be used for anyone.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Prince Aymeric should indeed be called simply Prince Aymeric. You are welcome to make your case at Talk:Prince Aymeric of Belgium. Community decisions so far have settled on plain names before. Much like we have a plain Prince Harry, we also have a plain Queen Victoria. We have even plainer Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only case to be made is against "Queen Victoria" (regnal numbers suffice to distinguish individuals in the cases with numbers).Communities that decide wrongly need education,not deification of herd mentality.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If "regnal numbers suffice to distinguish individuals", then surely we would have Leopold III instead of Leopold III of Belgium. The cases of Leopold III vs. Leopold III of Belgium and Prince Aymeric vs. Prince Aymeric of Belgium entirely parallel the cases of Elizabeth II vs Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Prince Harry vs. [whatever it is that you are advocating]. If you believe that the community is wrong, present your case and reach a consensus. Saying that the community is wrong while presenting entirely incoherent arguments is not the way to go. Surtsicna (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a coherent argument in favor of plain "Prince [name]".12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator and Surtsicna, you may have missed the point. It's not the Harry vs Henry thing that's the problem. It's the absence of any indication of why he has that Prince title. See Prince William, Duke of Cambridge for what I'm talking about. The "Duke of Cambridge" bit is important. Harry's article should be consistent with Wills' article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why he has that Prince title? Guess he was born with it. Why he has that Duke title is because he just got married. — JFG ^talk 08:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment again, all of it. You haven't really responded. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 seems to have missed the point of my comment and the discussion generally, and added nothing to the discussion which has not already been considered. Qexigator (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would have been a better chance of this and Megan's article would have been moved to other titles if a couple of Admins had let move discussions happen rather than taking unilateral action. ~ GB fan 13:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince Harry" alone - atrocious. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those tuning in late, the present situation is the result of a recent requested move (see above) that some of us think went awry in how the result was interpreted. I expected the resulting article title to be "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", i.e. no consensus for change. However, others are reasonably arguing for us to wait-and-see, as to how coverage of Harry turns out. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on opening up another RM in the coming days, with the options of Prince Harry or Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. The previous RM developed into a three option discussion. My proposed RM, will have two options. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section on parentage

I am new to "editing" so I hope I'm proceeding correctly. The section on rumors about Prince Harry's parentage seems inappropriate as it is essentially gossip. The fact that individuals other than the person in question have responded to the rumor does not make inclusion valid in the person's biography. Thanks. PursuitOfPerfect (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a good point. Neither Harry nor his parents have never even acknowledged the existence of these rumors, let alone commenting on them. I suggest we move the section to the article about James Hewitt. That would be the best thing to do in my opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 20:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"never complain, never explain" Doesn't look much like his father, doesn't he? Fortunately Cosmo has the truth with some photographic evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can retain it in a less intrusive footnote? I'm not sure we can kill it off entirely. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're actually happy to use the Daily Mirror as a source?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I kept it in because the BBC source refers to it. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably not in a "we-wouldn't-publish-this-speculative-rubbish" sort of way. Doesn't seems totally unreasonable, although some RS hardliners might complain. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood the rumors. IMHO, Harry looks more like Charles, then William does. As for William? he resembles his uncle Edward. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he also looks a lot like Diana. Harry doesn't look much like either Diana or Charles, in my opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's time to drop the blatant original research. It's not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't original research., it's WP:FORUM. But thanks for the reminder. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing article title to match prince william

Should this now be Prince William, Duke of Sussex? William's is in that format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9A02:3D00:1CB6:7785:6D45:D496 (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several discussions on this page on exactly this question. Up until now there has been no consensus to move away from the long-term title of just plain "Prince Harry", which matches the WP:COMMONNAME for him used by a lot of the sources. — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, most people here would probably love to see Prince Wills 'cause that's what he's called! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wills" is nowadays seldom used except as a nickname. I never see it in conjunction with "Prince". Deb (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a move to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (or Henry, whatever), but it seems that users simply just prefer to refer to Harry and Meghan by their so called common names, and at the same time prefer the formal format of the rest of the royal family. It just doesn't make sense, but that's how it has recently been. Keivan.f^Talk 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People were just not happy with 'Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex' and preferred either 'Prince Harry' or 'Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex'. The Meghan Markle move was unpopular due it being carried out by Jimbo Wales, and the admins were very unhappy about that, but an administrator also took it upon himself to move this one to 'Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex', so it's all much of a muchness really. Firebrace (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this argument has worn itself out may I humbly suggest that the title be 'Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex'. I make this suggestion because that is the way his name appears (as 'Prince Henry (Harry) of Wales' in the last (2003) edition of Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, vol. 1, page clxv, and in other Burke publications. I would myself prefer that the word Harry be in inverted commas, indicating in a standard way used in many genealogical publications, that it is a name generally used but not the formal birth name. AnthonyCamp (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't support that myself. It's incredibly long-winded and unnecessary. I don't know why people are so unhappy with the present title, both for Harry and Meghan. The issue isn't just that there's confusion between Harry/Henry or that Jimbo made the move for Meghan... the issue is that "Prince Harry" and "Meghan Markle" are still overwhelmingly what they're called in the media, even in reputable sources such as The Independent,[22] and until that changes there's simply no reason to move it per WP:COMMONNAME.

To my mind, AC's suggested "Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex" could be acceptable if it becomes standardised by appearing in a future edition of Burke's Peerage and similar sources. Qexigator (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, "Princess Diana" is a WP:COMMONNAME, but the article is titled Diana, Princess of Wales, so there are some exceptions to that rule... Firebrace (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, adapting the above, that "Prince Henry 'Harry', Duke of Sussex" (which is the way I would expect to see it, with "Harry" quoted, not in parenthesis), is certainly a legitimate form. It may be the most "encyclopedic" (e.g. how it might appear in an actual, print encyclopedia) choice yet, however wordy. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator, his new title does now appear on Burkes Peerage [23]. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is in the context of giving his full style and title, and not together with "Harry" as proposed above. We are still waiting to see a more frequent use of "Henry, Duke of Sussex" than is yet apparent. Qexigator (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The in a nutshell at the top of the page says "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." We are lacking consistency as it stands. There are specific naming conventions such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) but as per WP:TITLE This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; I would suggest looking at the discussion on Diana and try and see if there are arguments that could be used here. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Diana's case, the article title was her actual official title once she ceased to be "the Princess of Wales", and was also the title by which she was generally known. In the case of Harry, he will now be officially known as "The Duke of Sussex" and informally and incorrectly known as "Prince Harry". To my mind, "Prince Henry (Harry), Duke of Sussex", is unworkable because it will never be the first thing a reader searches on. As has been said many times in these debates, we do have a duty to act as an encyclopedia and educate people by letting them known that "Prince Harry" is neither his correct title nor a unique title by making it either a redirect or a disambiguation page. BUT we can't call the page "The Duke of Sussex" or "Duke of Sussex", because these are also not specific enough for an article title. So the only viable option is "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". Both are, at present, unique and both are correct in the context of our article naming conventions. The debate on whether to use "Harry" or "Henry" to refer to him has been repeated many times and has always come out in favour of "Harry". To me, this is a no-brainer, but I understand why people who haven't spent as long on these discussion pages as I have are confused by it. Deb (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. If "Prince Harry" is what most sources call him, then it is not "incorrect", and we have no duty to "educate people" otherwise. WP:COMMONNAME is crystal clear that we follow the sources, we don't attempt to correct them, or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The duty of an encyclopedia to report on the real world, not an idealised or "official" version of the real world. — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: If Commonname is really that important would you be for moving the Diana page to "Princess Diana" and the William page to "Prince William"? and the Charles page to either "Prince Charles" or "The Prince of Wales"? I have never heard anyone call the Queen "Elizabeth II" and I have always heard Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother referred to either as "The Queen Mother" or "The Queen Mum" but never by the title of the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't right great wrongs, but we are not here to mislead people either. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" and I suppose that is why Wikipedia uses Diana's official title rather than "Princess Diana", by which she was more commonly known. Firebrace (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created as Diana, Princess of Wales back in 2001 as the choice of the editor that created the page. It was moved once to Diana, Whore of Wales by a vandal and once to Princess Diana and once to HERM E E ? by another vandal. There was a discussion here to request a move in 2016 and the decision was the opposite to the one above i.e. prefer WP:NCROY and not commonname. In 2011 the question had already been posed and the reply from User:Fvasconcellos one of the earlier admins was To actually answer the original question, articles on royals are governed by a different naming convention. WP:COMMONNAME is superseded by topic-specific conventions when the latter exist and have been accepted by the community.. It all seems to be a question of consensus at any one time and largely depends on the editors that participe. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the log does not show it, it's evident from the earliest comments on the Talk page for the article on Diana, Princess of Wales, that it had been moved from another article - by me - in 2003, and the reasoning given, ~~so it's probable that it did start at "Princess Diana"~~ and it seems to have started off at "Lady Diana Spencer". Amakuru is correct in pointing out one important difference in that "Princess Diana" always was, and always will be, wrong, whereas "Prince Harry" is not wrong in the same sense, but is ambiguous; moreover, it is neither his current nor his previous title nor does it include the title by which he will be known for the remainder of his life. Where Amakuru is incorrect is in assuming that reliable sources will persist in using Harry's former title in preference to his new one. Just as "Prince Andrew" and "Prince Edward" ceased to be called that by the media and official sources when they acquired additional titles, Harry will in years to come be known as the Duke of Sussex and people will forget that he was ever called anything else. Deb (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's great. Once it's obvious that everyone has started doing that, we'll just go right on and move the article. The fact that it's still at Prince Harry today doesn't mean we can't move it at any point in the future. However, your assertion saying that I'm incorrect in assuming the reliable sources will persist is unprovable per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Rather than predicting it, let's just wait and see. The Diana case is an interesting one, but I don't think it's entirely equivalent because "Diana, Princess of Wales" was found extremely often across the sources, in a way that "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" simply isn't. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said, he will never be called "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex". He will be called "the Duke of Sussex". He already is. A quick Google search on "Duke of Sussex" gets 29,500,000 results and "Prince Harry" gets 755,000,000. Bear in mind that he's been Duke of Sussex for less than a month when he was plain Prince Harry for 33 years, I don't think a crystal ball is needed. It's Wikipedia that is currently out of step. Deb (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody already mentioned, the reason for this article's current title is that enough editors pushed for it. Should it be Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex or Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex? of course it should. But that's likely not gonna happen anytime soon, per the continued resistance to add Duke of Sussex to the article's name. PS: And ya'll thought Elizabeth II's bestowing the title on her grandson would suffice?? HA, not on Wikipedia. Though strangely enough, it did suffice for Prince William. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it should be "Harry, Duke of Sussex" or "Henry, Duke of Sussex" is the bone of contention... Firebrace (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a marginal pref for Henry - in line with peers where the start is the most formal form of any title and thereafter the less formal form is used. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2018

Prince Harry → Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex – Following extensive discussion, this appears to be the title that meets the most essentials - it is unique, it is in line with article naming conventions, and it is consistent with articles for people of similar status, such as Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The most recent move resulted in the present title, for which there is (in my opinion) no clear consensus. I do not think it is necessary for all the arguments to be repeated here, and it would be helpful if those voting could restrict themselves to voicing their feelings on the move actually being proposed, rather than some proposal which is not currently being made. Deb (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per requestor. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCROY, per Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and per numerous cases of using the better known familiar form rather than the formal first names for peers e.g. Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford (not "Francis"), Tom Denning, Baron Denning (not "Thompson" or "Alfred"), Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton (not "Charles"), Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew (not "Alexander"), Bill Morris, Baron Morris of Handsworth (not "William"), Harry Snell, 1st Baron Snell (not "Henry"), Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell (not "Francis" or "John"), Tony Giffard, 3rd Earl of Halsbury (not "Anthony" or "John") and Chris Rennard, Baron Rennard (not "Christopher"). Timrollpickering 12:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was cautious about re-opening this, but I have been convinced by Timrollpickering's argument. I would add a further example: Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury, not Christopher. We give Prince Philip and Prince Andrew their full titles, even though they are also the primary meaning of these names. PatGallacher (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per multiple recent discussions, and per WP:CONCISE: the current title is sufficient to identify the subject and does not require disambiguation. Consistency of titles between separate articles is neither required nor desirable on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom and WP:NCROY. I disagree with Ivanvector's comment that consistency is not required or desirable as this is in contradiction with WP:TITLE which clearly states "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent". (My bolding). It says in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. His WP:COMMONNAME is "Prince Harry'. His official name is "Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex". The proposed title is a mixing of the two and completely against any sort of article naming conventions. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with Timrollpickering. --Editor FIN (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Rreagan007. The proposed title is the body of COMMONNAME stitched together with the tail of NCROY, like an Egyptian god. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since this is his new title and COMMON. CookieMonster755 ✉ 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as from now on, increasing number of sources will be using it. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unproven. Use of "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" has not yet emerged, and may never happen. Qexigator (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not but in the same way that Prince William Duke of Cambridge is not used. It is either Prince William in most of the press or the Duke of Cambridge in official sources and certain more conservative press sources. In the same way that Charles is not known as Charles, Prince of Wales but either Prince Charles or The Prince of Wales. Before his marriage the official site of the monarchy, www.royal.uk, used Prince Harry almost exclusively and now uses The Duke of ~~Suffolk~~Sussex exclusively. Both are common names and official names. The proposed change is precise recognisable and consistent, is it concise ? I believe it is, is it natural...that's debatable but so many titles for royalty are not either. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Suffolk"? Qexigator (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to prolong this unnecessarily, but the idea that "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" must appear in those exact words in sources is a red herring (as already discussed just a few days ago). We already know that he will be called "Duke of Sussex" only. We are discussing a suitable title for an encyclopedia article, not what the Court Circular calls him. Deb (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, Deb you are as free to let us know your opinion of the relevance of the Court Circular to the discussion as others are to disagree, but if you have checked the Court Circular lately perhaps you could let us have a link to see for ourselves whether or not it supports the proposal to improve the article by changing from the current "Prince Harry" to "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex", which, as some others have pointed out, is neither one thing nor the other. It would be unprecedented, and for many would be misinformative outside the confines of Wikipedia. No one using Wikipedia is likely to be inconvenienced in any way by the article continuing to be named as it is, given the opening sentence and the redirect. Qexigator (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out by others, Prince William & Duke of Cambridge are used separately, as are Prince Charles & Prince of Wales. Yet we use Prince William, Duke of Cambridge & Charles, Prince of Wales for article titles. Therefore, there's a precedent. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination and WP:NCROY. --B dash (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its not a perferfect solution but consistency/ncroy and commoname this is a compromise. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We recently had this discussion and landed on the current title, which satisfies COMMONNAME. DBD 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: move moratorium

Given the recent frequency of move requests and drama that has come from certain editors' involvement in them, I propose that whatever the outcome of the 17 June 2018 request, a moratorium on move requests be implemented on this article for a minimum of six months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Let us get this proposal over first and see whether we can find consensus. I'm sure you are aware that the closure of the most recent proposal was highly controversial. Deb (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Deb's !vote. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only been one other move request this year in May when the subject actually changed his name, so hardly frequent. Lets just wait and see. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for six months only. No need to beat a dead horse. CookieMonster755 ✉ 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support six months. The choice discussed here doesn't really matter, but frequent equivocation over the question is distracting and embarrassing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for six months. Please keep calm on this. --B dash (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there haven't been many RMs on this article, in the last few months. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently nine (9) level-2 headers on this page bookending discussions about what the article title should be, just most of them don't have the move request template. There were three concurrent discussions alongside the 19 May request, and discussion over the result of that request has continued right up to the opening of the present request. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to moving the page every few weeks depending on who shows up to the move discussion at any given time, and puts off new editors at a time when a high-profile topic like this should really be attracting new editors to the project. It really doesn't matter so much what the title is, but we should have one final fulsome discussion and then stick with whatever title is chosen, until there is some future change in circumstance necessitating a new discussion, not just that some editors don't accept the result of the last one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an RM keeps popping up every month or two, after the current one? then I'll go along with a moratorium of six months. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support come what may. DBD 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 486: / Line 486: @@
 *'''Support''' per nomination and [[WP:NCROY]]. --[[User:B dash|B dash]] ([[User talk:B dash|talk]]) 07:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Support''' Its not a perferfect solution but consistency/ncroy and  commoname this is a compromise. [[User:Garlicplanting|Garlicplanting]] ([[User talk:Garlicplanting|talk]]) 09:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' We recently had this discussion and landed on the current title, which satisfies ''COMMONNAME''. '''[[User talk:DBD|DBD]]''' 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 === Proposal: move moratorium ===
 Given the recent frequency of move requests and drama that has come from certain editors' involvement in them, I propose that whatever the outcome of the 17 June 2018 request, a moratorium on move requests be implemented on this article for a minimum of six months. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@@ Line 500: / Line 500: @@
 ::There are currently nine (9) level-2 headers on this page bookending discussions about what the article title should be, just most of them don't have the move request template. There were three concurrent discussions alongside the 19 May request, and discussion over the result of that request has continued right up to the opening of the present request. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to moving the page every few weeks depending on who shows up to the move discussion at any given time, and puts off new editors at a time when a high-profile topic like this should really be attracting new editors to the project. It really doesn't matter so much what the title is, but we should have one final fulsome discussion and then stick with whatever title is chosen, until there is some future change in circumstance necessitating a new discussion, not just that some editors don't accept the result of the last one. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 :::If an RM keeps popping up every month or two, after the current one? then I'll go along with a moratorium of six months. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
+*'''Support''' come what may. '''[[User talk:DBD|DBD]]''' 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Aja viide. Aja lugu.

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Raadiouudised (13.03.2025 09:00:00)

Elektrilevi kasum vähenes aastaga 7,6 protsenti

Talv jätkub – Soomes veel niipea kevadet ei tule

VIDEO: Kiievi õhutõrje tulistas alla meteoriidi

Vene oligarh esitas nimekirja nõudmistest, mis tuleks täita enne võimalikku relvarahu Ukrainas

Sisedokumendid paljastavad: rahu Ukrainas pole võimalik enne 2026. aastat

NATO hävitajad saatsid kahte Vene pommitajat Läänemere kohal

Venemaa on esitanud USA-le oma nõuded rahuleppe kohta

Real võitis penaltitel Madridi derbi, Dortmund tuli kaotusseisust välja

Martin Helme

Revision as of 14:47, 18 June 2018

Mother's name

The title of Prince Henry has just changed.

Requested move 19 May 2018

Discussion

Comment after close

Alternate proposal

Requested move 19 May 2018 (2)

Rank of Major

Intro

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Intro

Redirect note

Good grief,ANYTHING but plain "Prince Harry"!

Section on parentage

Changing article title to match prince william

Requested move 17 June 2018

Proposal: move moratorium