This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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 articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles
Image 2 is better & I wish the fellow who attempted to change it, would stop & seek consensus first across several bio articles, before making such bold changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted what he did because at the time nobody had responded to the article talk page post he had made. So since at the time there was no “consensus” I changed it back. When I saw he changed it back I checked to to see if anyone responded to him on the article talk page. I then saw that after I reverted his edit somebody responded agreeing with him so after that I didn’t change it back. Orson12345 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use male pronouns for a person whose identity is a complete mystery to you. Your 'explanation' here is faulty in many ways, but that one really irritates. DrKay (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since statistically, 85% to 90% of Wikipedia contributors are male, it seems completely reasonable to me to use male pronouns by default. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to educate yourself by reading Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns instead of doubling down on insulting behavior. DrKay (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forget I’m so very sorry. In regards to my explanation I don't find it faulty but truthful. Again I’m very sorry if I upset or offended you that was not my intention. Orson12345 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK You can keep it and display. Usernogood (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Shee intended green sky, 2 seems superior.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Early reign section mentions he created his eldest son, George, Earl of Munster. The Later reign and death section includes "William and his eldest son, the Earl of Munster, were estranged at the time, but William hoped that a letter of condolence from Munster signalled a reconciliation. His hopes were not fulfilled and Munster ...". Apart from the later section referring to the son as if he hadn't been mentioned earlier does it need editing anyway? At 16:49 on 3 March 2023 "Royalty are usually known by their first names" appears in the edit summary. Mcljlm (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems OK to me. The second usage is with a shortened form "the Earl of Munster". He would not be referred to by first name as Munster was not royalty, but simply nobility due to his creation as an earl.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. With panversal argument opposing the proposition, advocating its speedy closure or both, it is clear that, per WP:SNOW, consensus will not form in favour of the move. Arguments in opposition were generally made with reference to a community-backed guideline or policy—WP:NCRAN, WP:BIAS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT for example—and also on the grounds of procedure, noting three RMs in as many years. There was less weight provided supporting the proposal.(non-admin closure) SN54129 11:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
– I agree that the bulk of UK monarchs from George III onwards are the primary topic, but I suggest that he is an exception. He was king for only seven years, the second shortest reign since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and unlike his brother he was not an important figure before becoming king. The sheer number of other people at the dab page should make us cautious about deciding that there is a primary topic. We also have William IV, Prince of Orange, an important ruler of the Netherlands, the first hereditary stadtholder, I suggest not much less important than the British William IV. PatGallacher (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 17:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy procedural close First, a Requested Move that included this page, archived here, closed on August 4, less than six weeks ago. It is too soon to bring another. Addressing the matter on the merits: The British king, William IV, seems to be averaging 4,784 hits per day. The prince of Orange, less than two hundred. The dab page, five hits per day. King William is the primary topic and we do our readers no service by placing another click between them and the information they are looking for. Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close. This move was just rejected in a RM discussion less than 2 months ago. This article should not be moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT. The British monarch is the primary topics here. This is the English Wikipedia, and the vast majority of our readers who search for "William IV" will be looking for this article. That makes it the primary topic. The current title is also the most common name for this person as well as the most concise. It is also consistent with the title formatting of all the other modern British monarchs. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Opposers seem focused on readership figures, however more important IMO to the concept of primary topic is the persons long term significance to history and scholarship, Proposer makes I feel a reasonable case that we cannot assert the English king as being the PRIMARYTOPIC on that count. sovietblobfish (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usage is more important than long-term significance when deciding on a primary topic. And in regards to long-term significance, the nominator does not even attempt to make a case that any of the other William IVs have as much long-term significance as the British monarch. So the British monarch wins on both usage and long-term significance. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sovietblobfish, what can possibly be said in this RM that has not been said in the multiple RMs that have been brought regarding this article and the other British royals over the past 13 months? Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any other move requests concerning British royals, I do not follow these things that closely. I just happened to be on the move page because I have an active move request of my own.
Regardless I stand by my argument that the short reign of this king would suggest they may not be the most significant king of this name (though personally I would in an ideal world want to move the Dutch monarch to Willem IV but I recognise I am in a deep minority on that one.) Of course a more full exploration of the relative significance of the two monarchs might be useful. sovietblobfish (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, this seems quite an extensive and recent discussion. I therefore cannot see this move request advancing. sovietblobfish (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and procedural close We had a discussion on this very same topic about a month ago, that not only covered William's page but those of the other British monarchs. I do not see a change in circumstances that would result in me supporting this move and singling out William IV's page. He is still the primary topic and consistency must be preserved. Keivan.fTalk 21:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not simply because I prefer returning to "Monarch # of Country", but because I'm unconvinced that William IV of the UK has more long-term significance. The WikiNav results also don't support a primary topic based on WP:PT1. [1]
I would also say that a procedural close is completely unnecessary considering that the discussion a month ago very heavily focused on Charles III and Elizabeth II, not to mention that it was an inevitable WP:TRAINWRECK. Single-page RMs like this are much better to gauge support for more widespread changes like that. Thus I believe this RM should at least be allowed a typical RM length. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which William IV are you claiming has more long-term significance than the British monarch? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and procedural close The title for William IV's article has been discussed at length before. There was a discussion earlier this year, so any further discussion should really wait some time. Векочел (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer returning to "Monarch # of Country". By the way, concerning William's long-term significance, his reign includes the Reform Act 1832, which granted voting rights to "small landowners, tenant farmers, shopkeepers", and some groups of householders and lodgers. Britain acquired a much larger number of people with voting rights, and the political scene underwent major changes. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I question the call for procedural close. The problem we had with some previous move requests was that people were proposing a whole pile of moves in one go, which raised a series of different issues which people might have different views about, leading to a confused discussion. Specific move requests like this could lead to a more coherent discussion. William's reign did see some significant changes, but the king himself did not have much to do with them. PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand your logic. This article was proposed for move in July, along with others. Had the discussion succeeded, this article would have been moved. The strategy of those who seek moves of the British monarch articles is irrelevant. The bottom line is, a RM was attempted with request to this page that failed six weeks ago and it is too soon to take another bite at that apple. This RM should be procedurally closed.
Support - I've always & will support the re-implementation of "Monarch # of country" style, for all monarch bios. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That position has been soundly rejected by many RM discussions over the past 13+ years. We aren't going to force every monarch article to conform to that rigid format, because doing so would blatantly violates our article titling policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And supported by several others, including just a few days ago. Nowhere in the article titling policies does it blatantly say that we cannot force articles to conform to a certain format. As a matter of fact, it saysthe exact opposite. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forcing all monarch article titles to use that formatting would be a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Even WP:NCROY reaffirms that by stating: "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it." Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly different. A COMMONNAME in that context is William the Conqueror, for example. Just read through the examples provided. The implications there aren't to prefer the removal of a territorial designation, but to avoid unrecognizable titles like Eric III of Norway. As a matter of fact, NCROY formerly did say If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION (emphasis my own) was removed by community consensus in this RfC. Also of note, William IV is not unambiguous as many other rulers were known by that name.
Any attempts to interpret the line If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it. as supporting the usage of an unambiguous regnal name and number without a territorial designation is a violation of community consensus. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The community consensus is to drop the "of country" natural disambiguator from the title of primary topic monarchs. There have been numerous RM discussions on this point over the past 13+ years, including the two most recent discussions which were held less than 2 months ago here and here, and consensus is very clear on this point. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated attempts to move Elizabeth II and Charles III have failed; if you were correct, they would have succeeded. Many voters in refusing the page moves on those pages have interpreted naming policy in the way you would have us believe is a violation of community consensus. In fact, the consensus is that if there are names, especially of British monarchs, that receive many more hits than any Charles III of Pfennig-Halfpfennig, then we keep Charles III for the monarch that the reader is looking for, usually a British or present-day monarch, and those few seeking the monarch of Pfennig-Halfphennig can muddle along with a disambiguating parenthetical. In the meantime, the overwhelming majority is getting to the article they are looking for one click faster than you would have them do. Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there's no "correct" or "incorrect" in this situation. Just the fact that the community consensus was to remove the language I mentioned. If anything, Elizabeth II and Charles III are understandable exceptions (the former far more so than the latter), but they are far from the standard. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is set by similar articles, thus Edward VII, Edward VIII, Felipe VI, George VI, George V, all of which have been the subjects of attempted moves and all of which have failed. William may not quite display the same differential as compared to other rulers of the same name as those above, but he's still overwhelmingly ahead. Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I agree with the absence of a country in all these cases. However I would point out that almost all of them reigned for longer than William IV of the United Kingdom (I think the only exceptions are Napoleon II and Edward VIII) and that several of them are not just the primary topic, but the only monarch of this name. PatGallacher (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charles III has not reigned longer than William IV, and there are multiple Charles IIIs. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as not primary topic and per WP:NCROY and consistency with the great majority of royal articles. Oppose procedural close per Estar8806's evaluation of the ineffectiveness of the prior mass discussion. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems unnecessary, and I think there was a discussion about this earlier this year...? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per supporters, WP:PRECISE and WP:NCRAN. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT, as supported by pageview stats. This William IV has orders of magnitude more hits than the other most common William IVs. The king of the UK has around 5,000 to 7,000 page views per day (excluding a spike around Charles III's coronation), whereas the other William IVs are generally under 200. Also, the disambiguation page is typically single-digit hits per day, suggesting the vast majority of people looking for a William IV are looking for this William IV. I do not support a procedural close since the prior recent discussions were bundled for many British monarchs, rather than focused on William IV. FrankAnchor 13:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. William IV: 141,867 page views. The twenty-two other William IVs combined: 16,447 page views. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have informed all the participants of the previous RM discussions about William IV about this current discussion in accordance with the rules for appropriate notifications at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its too soon after the previous rejection of this move and no new evidence has been offered in favour of moving. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (invited on my talk page). The UK king has 20 times more pageviews than the nearest rival, ten times more incoming links and almost a monopoly on search results. He remains a clear primary topic by usage, significance and any other reasonable measure. Certes (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy procedural close as stated so well by those above. BCorr|Брайен 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePatGallacher, you accept that this William IV is the primary topic, so there would need to be a powerful reason for your move, and you are not suggesting one. Also, as others have said, this ground has been well covered already. By the way, I see you make no claim about what name the reliable sources use, but my guess is that almost none use your chosen name. You might like to look at that. Moonraker (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no other William IV is comparable in terms of notability as William IV was king of both the UK and Hanover. William IV, Prince of Orange is mentioned above but was not king of the Netherlands and looking at his article didn't do anything in his forty year reign. Sahaib (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAgain?!? (1) This was considered very recently, and the consensus was not to change. I see no reason to re-open the issue only 48 days after it was decided not to move it (August 4, 2023). William IV was clearly considered in that proposal and the move was rejected. It's not appropriate to re-open a recent consensus just because a different editor brings it up. (2) even on the merits, the info about page hits given above demonstrates that William IV is the primary topic. (3) again on the merits of importance, as Dimadick mentions, the Reform Act passed during his reign, and he was not simply a passive observer. His acceptance of the need to create new peerages in the House of Lords, if necessary to secure passage of the bill voted by the Commons, was crucial in getting it through the Lords. William's actions on this point were significant both for the development of electoral democracy in the UK, and for his acceptance that he had to take the advice of the elected majority government, drawing its strength from the Commons (although the PM, Earl Grey, was still in the Lords). Both aspects of his support for the bill make him an important historical figure in the development of democratic, responsible government in the UK; clear historical significance, supporting the argument that he is the primary topic. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, For all the reasons stated above and that King William IV wasn't just King of the United Kingdom but of Hanover as well. May we bring this discussion to a swift close. GandalfXLD (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy procedural closeper all the above. Multiple reasons why not, and multiple RfCs have shown the consensus on this. Why is this being relitigated yet again so soon after the last time? - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm against the endless time-wasting to-and-fro on royal renames. Frankly some editors should find more productive ways of spending their WP time. The British W IV has averaged over 9,000 views a day this year (ok, there was a Coronation boost), whereas the Dutch William IV averaged 185 - and only held the top positions for 4 years. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"(ok, there was a Coronation boost)" Plus the boost from all the editors who checked out the page in August on the last go-round. :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - those arguing that this article is not the primary topic have provided no evidence that I've seen for their claims beyond their own perception. Someone noted above the reader nav tool as justification, but without further elaborating; I can only assume they're referring to the fact that readers who land on William IV account for 41% of traffic to the dab page. But when you look at the pageview stats, 41% of 6 hits per day is not exactly compelling. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWilliam IV has had 139,831 views in the past 30 days. William IV, Prince of Orange has only had 5,564. An English-speaking reader is also more likely to be searching for this king because they came across his name in a book or a film about the period: see Cultural depictions of William IV. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. We've been through this before, and we're likely to get the same result this time. O.N.R.(talk) 20:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close The consensus won't change in a month and a half, despite what you may wish. We already had this discussion recently and it didn't go in favor of change. TheKip 20:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe any of the oppose votes citing the recentness of the previous move request should be taken into consideration. While technically true, if you look at that previous RM, it was mainly closed because the scope was far too large, and the opener of this RM is saying there's a reason why this article should be considered separately. "Oppose due to recent RM" is entirely missing the point. WPscattert/c 21:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one as far as I can see has simply stated, there was a previous move discussion, end of story. Each has cited arguments on the merits or, in one case, referred to the close of the previous RM, which found a consensus for not moving those articles, including this one, and stated that nothing new has been brought in support of this RM. That's a valid point of view. Keep in mind WP:CCC, "On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: none of the other Williams are kings, nor as famous as the British one or as likely to be the topic a reader is looking for. (I'm less persuaded by the procedural argument, because one article can always be an exception to the consensus that we shouldn't move a dozen articles.) Richard75 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy procedural close This same topic has already been debated ad nauseam. The idea to change the titles of the pages of British monarchs to "of the United Kingdom" has been discussed to end on other pages and shown that it is false. As well as mentioned by User:Ficaia, there are other pages referencing this, and the only other page has 25x less page views. For pages that have 25x the page views it should be kept as it is, since despite William IV's shorter reign, it isn't showing him to be less notable, especially as he was the last British monarch to be both the British monarch and the King of Hanover. His reign is highly important to the modern monarchy, and in my opinion, this page should not be changed and this move request should be closed CIN I&II (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for clarity and consistency. JIP | Talk 21:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with what? Monarchs of the United Kingdom all have articles titled simply Name Number (except Queen Victoria who has no number); none have "of the United Kingdom" in their article title. Certes (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This William IV gets the most page views by far, and has the most long-term significance. Certainly looks like the primary topic to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: this is the clear and unambiguous primary topic; none of the other possible targets have more than a tiny fraction of the significance, something abundantly demonstrated by both article size and pageviews. The article about the other William IV urged as a contender for this title says very little about him or his accomplishments, being almost entirely concerned with his family and titles. He was involved in some important events, but evidently not one of the chief drivers of them; he seems to have been a peripheral figure who had some symbolic importance at the time, but has faded into history. The argument that this William IV is somehow not the primary topic seems to be irrational and based entirely on wishful thinking; it does not pass the snowball test. P Aculeius (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are two questions here: (1) Is the British William IV the primary topic among all the people whose article could be located at the title "William IV", and (2) if not, is there a different William IV who is? The evidence presented by multiple people in the thread above, and in previous move requests, is that the answer to question 1 is "yes, overwhelmingly so". Question 2 is thus not relevant, but the answer seems to be "no" in any case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and procedural close seriously, how is there no guideline against repeatedly reopening these discussions after they get defeated? Anything less than a year old should be closed as a matter of principle. --jonas (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2023 (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.
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! HurricaneAndrew (444) 20:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.svg)
