Jump to content

Talk:Crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

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

Platinum

[edit]

This article says this "is the only crown for a British king or queen to be made of platinum.ref:Mears, Kenneth J. (1988). The Tower of London: 900 Years of English History. Phaidon. p. 152. ISBN 978-0-7148-2527-4." but Queen Alexandra's Crown says that "was made of platinum for lightness,ref: Cruso, Thalassa (1935). Costume. Lancaster House. Retrieved 1 November 2022. 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:691F:F623:CF1E:F7D3 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that platinum is more dense than gold and twice as dense as silver I think we can safely ignore that 1935 source. Firebrace (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2023

[edit]
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: No consensus. No such user (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– User:Ravenpuff and I initially moved these pages to the suggested titles as they are clearly WP:COMMONNAME, but they were all moved back by User:Estar8806, so we might as well hold a proper RM. The website of the Royal Collection Trust refers to Elizabeth's and Mary's crowns as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Crown and Queen Mary's Crown. Both Mary's and Alexandra's crowns are referred to as Queen Mary's Crown and Queen Alexandra's Crown in a recent article published on The Royal Family's website. The same pattern (Queen [Name]'s Crown) can be observed in secondary sources such as the BBC, NBC, the Guardian, etc., which further proves that the format chosen by Wikipedia is neither common nor accurate. Keivan.fTalk 05:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support There seems to be enough evidence of WP:COMMONNAME. Estar8806 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Besides being more common variations of what are essentially the same names, the proposed titles look better in prose. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially for Queen Mary's Crown, which has been in the news lately with sources clearly using that very name, and so there is substantial evidence that WP:COMMONNAME applies here. This was the direct rationale for my original move of that page, which was followed by the other moves by Keivan. It seems quite logical that we should move the other crowns likewise, although if they do have different common names the article titles don't have to be totally consistent. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Title Ngrams Google news
Crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Title too long 56 results
Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Crown 12 results
Crown of Queen Mary Preference for "Crown of Queen Mary" Unable to get an accurate count; too many irrelevant results
Queen Mary's Crown
Crown of Queen Alexandra Preference for "Crown of Queen Alexandra" 20 results
Queen Alexandra's Crown 10 results
Crown of Queen Adelaide No results 4 results
Queen Adelaide's Crown 5 results
However if there is a consensus to move any of these articles then it should use the lowercase crown, per MOS:CAPS; looking through the sources, "crown" is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources; of the sources provided by the nominator, two of the three use "Queen Mary's crown". BilledMammal (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen on numerous occasions how news websites pick up names put forward by Wikipedia, so to use them back in a circular manner to reinforce a name that is not officially correct is pointless. MOS:CAPS states In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized. Proper nouns name specific people, things, and places, and these crowns are specific objects. I have already given other examples. And while "crown" is not consistently capitalized, it is capitalized in the majority of online sources and indeed by the official website representing Crown entities. Keivan.fTalk 18:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't dismiss results on the basis that their name choice might have been influenced by Wikipedia, and even if we could the ngrams results which favor the current title include data which predates Wikipedia.
Regarding MOS:CAPS, of the 12 results for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's Crown, 5 use Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's Crown and 6 use Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's crown. The 12th doesn't use either, with the result being due to a user comment. I assume the result is similar for the others. BilledMammal (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet recent sources are somehow more inclined towards using the "Queen [Name]'s Crown" format, especially after the palace's recent announcements about the upcoming coronation. I cannot understand why we shouldn't pick up the correct pattern. Regarding capitalization, the difference between article titles and contents should be taken into consideration when looking for online results. An article title might use the "Queen [Name]'s Crown" format, but when using the word in a sentence it might naturally use "crown" multiple times instead, which would give more results. The word's appearance might also vary within the same source. Example The BBC: 1) Instead Camilla, the Queen Consort, will be crowned with Queen Mary's Crown, which has been taken out of the Tower of London to be resized for the 6 May coronation. 2) The Queen Mother's crown (pictured), which has the Koh-i-Noor diamond fitted in the front middle cross, will not be used during the ceremony. So one could argue that there's not a clear cut pattern within online sources, but considering what the official sources say, and the existing examples on specific objects for which we have articles, and MOS:CAPS's stance on specific names and phrases, I don't see why "crown" should not be capitalized. Keivan.fTalk 18:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to consider sources over an extended period of time to avoid WP:RECENTISM issues, but even looking at just the past month sources prefer the current titles, although to a smaller degree than they do over a longer period. BilledMammal (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, WP:RECENTISM issues arise when an article is written without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. It is highly unlikely that the official name of these objects might change in the future, not to mention that our focus in this discussion are not the articles' contents but their titles. Keivan.fTalk 20:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose per WP:CONSISTENT.
27 articles use "Crown of NAME":
  1. Crown of Augustus III of Poland
  2. Crown of Augustus II the Strong
  3. Crown of Bahadur Shah II
  4. Crown of Bolesław I the Brave
  5. Crown of Charlemagne
  6. Crown of Christian IV
  7. Crown of Empress Eugénie
  8. Crown of Eric XIV
  9. Crown of Faustin I
  10. Crown of Frederick I of Prussia
  11. Crown of João VI
  12. Crown of Louis XV of France
  13. Crown of Napoleon
  14. Crown of Napoleon III
  15. Crown of Pedro I
  16. Crown of Princess Blanche
  17. Crown of Queen Adelaide
  18. Crown of Queen Alexandra
  19. Crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
  20. Crown of Queen Maria Josepha
  21. Crown of Queen Mary
  22. Crown of Ranavalona III
  23. Crown of Saint Wenceslas
  24. Crown of Sancho IV
  25. Crown of Stephen Bocskai
  26. Crown of Wilhelm II
  27. Crown of Zvonimir
Only two use "NAME's Crown":
  1. Christian V's Crown
  2. St Edward's Crown
BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLECON states: Titles for the same kind of subject should not differ in form or structure without good reason. The good reason here is that we know the specific objects discussed here have sources referring to them in a manner not consistent with how Wikipedia has chosen to refer to them. Keivan.fTalk 02:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom as commonly used format. BhamBoi (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A list of what reliable sources have called these objects over the past 30 years. I think we should avoid being influenced by Google News. For a start, some of those news website are ones that Wikipedia has determined to be unreliable sources, e.g. the Daily Mail. Also, to save money no news website employs a copy editor, and churnolists can't generally be relied on to use correct punctuation and grammar.
1994 guidebook
  • Queen Mary's Crown
  • The Crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
  • Queen Mary of Modena's State Crown
  • Queen Victoria's Small Diamond Crown
2002 guidebook
  • Queen Mary's Crown
  • The Crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
  • The Crown of Queen Alexandra
  • Queen Adelaide's Crown
  • Queen Mary of Modena's State Crown
  • Queen Victoria's Small Diamond Crown
2010 guidebook
  • Queen Mary's Crown
  • Crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
  • Queen Alexandra's Crown
  • Queen Adelaide's Crown
  • Queen Mary of Modena's State Crown
  • Queen Victoria's Small Diamond Crown
Keay, Anna: The Crown Jewels, Thames & Hudson, 2011
  • Queen Mary's Crown
  • The Crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
  • Queen Alexandra's Crown
  • Queen Adelaide's Crown
  • The State Crown of Mary of Modena
  • Queen Victoria's Small Diamond Crown
Royal Collection Trust website
  • Queen Mary's Crown
  • Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Crown
  • Mary of Modena's Crown of State
  • Queen Victoria's Small Diamond Crown
Firebrace (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When we exclude unreliable sources the results still prefer the current titles, and there is no basis to consider all news results unreliable. In addition, the evidence provided for the proposed title only shows that it is in use, not that it is the most commonly used title.
Regarding the books, they both only demonstrate that the title is in use, and they all appear to be official publications which means they lack independence and are not useful for determining the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer official sources with authority on the subject over some news website reporting on it. This has nothing to do with independence, and choosing one title over another would not create conflict of interest. Keivan.fTalk 01:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independence is relevant, because it is part of our guidelines about how to title articles that we use independent sources. As reliable and independent sources, it is also part of that guideline that we use news sources to help us determine what the common name of a topic is.
We cannot decide to ignore those guidelines, so if you disagree with them then you should open a discussion proposing that we change them, and if there is a consensus to do so then propose this move on that basis. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is no conflict of interest here. And there is no indication that the proposed titles are uncommon. WP:COMMONNAME is about using a name that is common and recognizable. The proposed titles meet both those requirements as they are used not only in official sources, but in the online independent sources as well. So if I were to choose between a correct form that is used by both independent and dependent sources, and an incorrect form that is used mostly by independent sources, I would go with the former. Keivan.fTalk 02:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To simplify this discussion: What policy based reason do you have to support this move? The policy based reason to oppose it is WP:COMMONNAME, as the current titles are the ones most commonly used for these topics even when non-independent sources are considered. BilledMammal (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME can be equally used to support it as the policy states Use commonly recognizable names. There is no indication that the proposed titles are either uncommon or unrecognizable. All I see in your argument for opposing the move is showcasing a narrow difference in results between the current format and the suggested format on online platforms. Not to mention that you completely excluded the results on Mary's crown, despite the fact that there's a huge preference for the suggested title over the current one, even if you were to eliminate irrelevant results (if there are any). Combine that with the fact that the crowns have their own official "recognizable" names, there would be no need to strictly adhere to what some random website calls these items (for example for "Crown of Queen Alexandra" the first two results are The Juggernaut and The Mirror, both of which are hardly reliable, and WP:TITLE dictates that article titles should be based on what the subject is called in reliable sources). Keivan.fTalk 02:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common name tells us to use the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). It isn't enough that the alternative name is common, it needs to be more common, or there needs to be a good reason to set aside the common name - for example, WP:CONSISTENT, although that argument is also in favor of the current title.
showcasing a narrow difference in results between the current format and the suggested format on online platforms Ngrams is print books, and with the exception of the Crown of Queen Adelaide the difference isn't narrow.
If you look at the results for Queen Mary's Crown you will see that almost all of them don't include the phrase "Queen Mary's Crown"; they are only included because when the pages were indexed the page included a headline from a different article that did use the phrase "Queen Mary's Crown". I tried to exclude these irrelevant results, but there were too many.
both of which are hardly reliable - WP:DAILYMIRROR, and I don't think The Juggernaut has ever been discussed. However, as I said above, even when we exclude unreliable sources (and include non-independent sources), the common name remains the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun. Both the Mail and the Sun are deprecated sources, so something that is even slightly on par with them is not the beacon of reliability.
Regarding Mary's crown, the reliable online websites refer to it as "Queen Mary's Crown". I have not been able to find an alternative at the moment. If we were to look at print sources, however, all I see is a constant switch between the two formats, surprisingly even when looking at the guidebooks. Frankly, I have no horse in this race; all I wanted was for the titles to match the items' so-called official names. I'll be looking to see how the results turn out to be, because right now I don't think there is a solid consensus. Keivan.fTalk 03:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the Daily Mirror should be considered as unreliable or even deprecated like the Mail and the Sun then I suggest you open a discussion at WP:RSN; I have no opinion on that topic.
Regarding Mary's crown, reliable online sources also refer to it as "The Crown of Queen Mary"; for example, 1, 2, 3, 4.
all I wanted was for the titles to match the items' so-called official names I think that is where the disagreement is coming from; we don't use the official name of an item, we use its common name. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Mirror might not be an entirely unreliable source but it is NOT a reliable source either. When there's no consensus on a source's reliability it is best to avoid it, because users do not agree on the validity of its content, so there's no obligation for me to start a discussion on a source with dubious reliability. And I'm still behind what I said; reliable sources such as BBC, NBC, the Guardian, etc. prefer "Queen Mary's Crown"; and there's no indication that the official names are 'uncommon' because if they were I wouldn't have gone through the whole ordeal of starting a discussion in the first place. You argued that we should see which names are more common. Well, I don't see a clear-cut result on the online platforms because frankly there are tons of unreliable sources that must be dismissed. Looking at print sources, there are no results for Elizabeth and Adelaide's crowns on the Ngram whatsoever. That leaves the official sources which, yet again, use different names. Keivan.fTalk 03:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vague claims that dozens of sources are unreliable aren't convincing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to blindly assume that all are reliable is not an option either. Keivan.fTalk 03:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then go through each and say which ones you consider unreliable. My assumption, borne out by the review I did, is that the ratio remains when we exclude unreliable sources, and becomes more in favor of the current title when we exclude non-independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as you wish.
For "Crown of Queen Adelaide" the unreliable sources are: Page Six (unreliable per WP:PAGESIX), and Daily Express (unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS). 4-2=2
For "Queen Adelaide's Crown" the unreliable sources are: Daily Mail (unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL), and Daily Express (unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS). 5-2=3
Ratio: 2/3 = 0.66; "Queen Adelaide's Crown" is more common.
For "Crown of Queen Alexandra" the dubious sources are: Daily Mirror (used twice, dubious reliability per WP:DAILYMIRROR). 20-2=18
For "Queen Alexandra's Crown" the unreliable sources are: The US Sun (unreliable per WP:THESUN). 10-1 = 9
Ratio: 18/9 = 2; "Crown of Queen Alexandra" is more common
For "Crown of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" the unreliable sources are: Daily Express (used seven times, unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS), Daily Mail (used three times, unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL), Daily Star (unreliable per WP:DAILYSTAR), Metro (unreliable per WP:METRO), Vice (dubious reliability per WP:VICE), and Daily Beast (dubious reliability per WP:DAILYBEAST). 56-14=42
For "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Crown" the unreliable sources are: Daily Mirror (dubious reliability per WP:DAILYMIRROR), Newsweek (dubious reliability per WP:NEWSWEEK), and Daily Star (unreliable per WP:DAILYSTAR). 12-3=9
But, there's also "Crown of the Queen Mother" for which the unreliable sources are: The Mirror (dubious reliability per WP:DAILYMIRROR), Daily Express (used twice, unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS), Daily Mail (used twice, unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL), and Metro (unreliable per WP:METRO). 1 irrelevant result about the son of a horse trainer. 42-7=35
And "The Queen Mother's Crown" for which the unreliable sources are: Newsweek (used twice, dubious reliability per WP:NEWSWEEK), The Mirror (used four times, dubious reliability per WP:DAILYMIRROR), Daily Express (used seven times, unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS), Cosmopolitan (dubious reliability, no WP link exists so check the list), Daily Beast (dubious reliability per WP:DAILYBEAST), Daily Mail (used thirteen times, unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL), Evening Standard (dubious reliability; no WP link exists so check the list), and Vice (dubious reliability per WP:VICE). 1 irrelevant result about the line of succession, 1 about Christmas, 1 on Luxembourg royal wedding, 1 on royal family's favourite events. 4 results taken out for using "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Crown" (3 were already taken out for being unreliable). 9 results subtracted for "Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother's Crown" (three were already counted as unreliable sources). I now get 130 results instead of 172, so 130-47=83
"The Queen Mother's Crown" gets the majority.
For "Crown of Queen Mary" the unreliable source are: Daily Mail (used four times, unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL), Times of India (generally unreliable per WP:TOI), Cosmopolitan (dubious reliability, no WP link exists so check the list), and Daily Express (unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS). The non-independent source is The Royal Family's website (appears once). 2 irrelevant result about lowering the cost of trips, 1 on a day care attack, 1 on employment misconception, and 1 on sealing streets in Islamabad. 40-12=28
For "Queen Mary's Crown", looking at the first 240 results the unreliable sources are: Daily Mail (used fifteen times, unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL), Times of India (dubious reliability per WP:TOI), The Mirror (dubious reliability per WP:DAILYMIRROR), Daily Express (used twice, unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS), Metro (used twice, unreliable per WP:METRO), Royal Central (unreliable; no WP link exists, check the list). The non-independent source is The Royal Family's website (appears 37 times). 1 irrelevant result about Kate making pancakes, 1 irrelevant result about the Imperial State Crown, 1 irrelevant result about Meghan Markle's wedding tiara, 1 irrelevant result about Line of Duty, 1 irrelevant result about Kate's latest tiara wear, 1 irrelevant result about Camilla wearing a sapphire tiara, 33 irrelevant results from Robb Report, 1 irrelevant result from Good Morning America, 1 irrelevant result from Yahoo Life, 1 irrelevant result about Harry and Meghan's loss of popularity, 3 irrelevant results from Samachar Central, 2 irrelevant results from 9Honey and 9Honey Celebrity, 1 irrelevant result about Andrew refusing to leave, 23 irrelevant results from Firstpost, 58 irrelevant results from The Crown Chronicles, 6 irrelevant results from ET Canada, 1 irrelevant result about Kate curtsying, 7 irrelevant results from News24, 4 irrelevant results from New Vision, and 6 irrelevant results from Geo TV. 240-212=28
Both "Queen Mary's Crown" and "Crown of Queen Mary" appear to be in common use.
So, no, the ratio does not remain when we exclude unreliable sources. And even with unreliable sources included the common names are "Queen Adelaide's Crown", "Crown of Queen Alexandra", "Queen Mary's Crown"/"Crown of Queen Mary", and "The Queen Mother's Crown"; though singling out Alexandra in this instance makes no sense per WP:TITLECON. Keivan.fTalk 05:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ratio: 2/3 equals 0.66; "Queen Adelaide's Crown" is more common. By one source; technically accurate, but not a strong argument, and rebutted by the WP:CONSISTENT argument against the move.
There are roughly 48,000 results - WP:GOOGLETEST; You can only get the real number of results by going to the last page of the results; any other method is an extremely inaccurate estimate. At the moment, there is no way to tell what the common name in news sources is for the Crown of Queen Mary; the only source we have there is ngrams, which tells us that the WP:COMMONNAME is the "Crown of Queen Mary". (Struck following modification to preceding comment) 06:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
You didn't exclude irrelevant results and non-independent results from your search for Queen Mary's crown. If you did exclude them I wouldn't be surprised if it was still slightly more popular in recent news results, but we need to consider several years of results at least, as we did with the ngrams results, and when we consider those years of results the WP:COMMONNAME is clearly "Crown of Queen Mary".
I didn't consider those alternative searches; I also see that "Crown of Queen Elizabeth" and "Queen Elizabeth's crown" sometimes refer to this crown (more often in the case of the former than the later), but sometimes refers to other crowns, or the crown jewels generally. Ngrams shows that of these "Crown of Queen Elizabeth" is the most commonly used, although this result is ambiguous as that name doesn't always refer to the same topic.
Considering all six possible titles for this article, it appears that the proposed title is the least common, with "Crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother", "Crown of Queen Elizabeth", "Crown of the Queen Mother", "Queen Mother's crown", and "Queen Elizabeth's crown" all being more common. Are you still proposing that we move this to "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's crown", or are you proposing a different title considering this new evidence?
I also note that your search results for "Queen Mother's crown" are not accurate; they have the same headlines issue that Queen Mary's crown has (for example, they include 2 year old boy partially swallowed by hippo in uganda, Can’t every day be like Christmas?, Republicans turn to the socialism playbook on Biden's infrastructure bill, labeling anything other than roads and bridges as 'Soviet', Royal treatment: 6 luxury safaris fit for Prince William and Duchess Kate, among many others) and they include results for "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's crown" as well as results for "Queen Mother's crown" - adding them together, as you appear to have done, will result in double counting.
though singling out Alexandra in this instance makes no sense per WP:TITLECON I agree that singling out just a few crowns makes no sense per WP:CONSISTENT but as there are 27 using "Crown of NAME" and only two using "NAME's crown" wouldn't we be singling out any crowns that we do move? BilledMammal (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't exclude irrelevant results and non-independent results from your search for Queen Mary's crown. I did exclude the non-independent source which was the Royal Family's website. Go and read the comment again.
I also note that your search results for "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's crown" are not accurate; they have the same headlines issue that Queen Mary's crown has. That is the same link provided by you in the table you set up earlier. In fact all the links that I used were provided by you except for the ones covering "Crown of the Queen Mother" and "The Queen Mother's Crown". Are you saying that some of the figures you provided there are invalid as well?
I agree that singling out just a few crowns makes no sense. Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, so the titles and contents of other pages cannot necessarily be used to set up a page in a particular manner. This discussion focuses on the consort crowns used by spouses of the monarchs of the United Kingdom and consistency between articles on objects from a single country makes sense. There's no need to add items from other countries into the equation as we don't even know how they are referred to in their native languages or even in English language.
Are you still proposing that we move this to "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's crown", or are you proposing a different title considering this new evidence? Weren't you the one advocating for using common names? Well, let's go with whatever is common. Isn't "The Queen Mother's Crown" the most common of them all? Keivan.fTalk 06:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read the comment again. I didn't realize you edited your comment after my reply. However, you also didn't exclude the irrelevant results.
That is the same link provided by you in the table you set up earlier. Sorry, I was referring to the search result for the "Queen Mother's crown". As far as I am aware, the search result for "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's crown" does not have the headline issues the results for "Queen Mary's crown" and the "Queen Mother's crown" does.
Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, so the titles and contents of other pages cannot necessarily be used to set up a page in a particular manner. Yes, they can, per WP:CONSISTENT.
Isn't "The Queen Mother's Crown" the most common of them all? Not, I believe, when you exclude irrelevant results. However, that also isn't the current proposal; perhaps strike it from this discussion and open a new one for that article? BilledMammal (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also didn't exclude the irrelevant results. I doubt that will reduce the numbers significantly but I'll have a look again once I find some free time.
Perhaps strike it from this discussion and open a new one for that article? Well, to be honest I have seen proposals where the page is not moved to the name suggested by the nominator but to the name the community decides is the common one. So, if a consensus is established here that "The Queen Mother's Crown" is indeed the common name, I bet there won't be an obstacle to moving the page.
Regarding WP:TITLECON; believe me, nobody desires consistency between article titles more than I do. However, the policy states that article titles can change if there is a good reason. And the purpose of this discussion has been to figure out if there is indeed a good reason, especially after the names of these crowns appeared in the news and the page on Mary's crown was moved. But I can guarantee that once this discussion is over, the dead horse will not be beaten again. Keivan.fTalk 07:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the recounting is done. The issues surrounding non-independent sources, irrelevant sources, and double counting for the Queen Mother's crown have all be addressed. The common names among online sources are "Queen Adelaide's Crown", "Crown of Queen Alexandra", "Queen Mary's Crown"/"Crown of Queen Mary" (apparently equally common), and "The Queen Mother's Crown". The stance of official sources and guidebooks is already clear (see earlier comments). That leaves print sources. Despite getting results for "Queen Mary's Crown" in the Google Books, none of those results appear to show up in the Ngram. The same concern about Ngram was raised at Talk:Christian V's Crown#Requested move 28 February 2023, because "St Edward's Crown" shows up numerous times in both print and online sources but does not appear once in the Ngram. I wonder if it has something to do with Ngram not liking apostrophes. Keivan.fTalk 17:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My ngrams for Queen Mary's crown was faulty; the correct ngrams can be found here. The results are much closer, but there is still a slight preference for the current title in the most recent results. BilledMammal (talk) 08:50, 7 March 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.

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crown_of_Queen_Elizabeth_The_Queen_Mother&oldid=1206833610"