Talk:Statue of Charles II, Soho Square

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Statue of Charles II, Soho Square article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Statue of Charles II, Soho Square appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the statue of Charles II in Soho Square, London was once the centrepiece of a fountain portraying four great rivers of England?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Charles II, Soho Square.

Wikipedia

London: Public art Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Public art task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Title?[edit]

@Neve-selbert: I'm curious why you moved this page, when Charles II of England is the name of the parent article (not "King Charles II"). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: Curious if you have an opinion about the article's title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the concision of omitting "King". WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says that "a good Wikipedia article title ... is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Ham II (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think "King" is necessary. I'd love to hear from User:Neve-selbert, or a third editor, to determine if we can move this article back. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this discussion to User talk:Neve-selbert rather than split it across this page and Talk:Statue of King James II, Trafalgar Square. Ham II (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neve-selbert here. I moved the articles for the sake of WP:TITLE consistency. Per WP:SOVEREIGN, Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. But in this particular case "King" does not act as a prefix, for in colloquial speech monarchs are usually referred to as "King [name]".--Nevé –selbert 09:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: For what it's worth, there's WP:COLLOQUIAL, a guideline against using colloquialisms, but that's a tad unfair as what you clearly mean is that it's idiomatic to use "King" in this context – in other words, it meets the "naturalness" criterion at WP:TITLE. I don't think this naturalness is particularly compromised by leaving out the honorific, which as I said above better meets the "conciseness" criterion. The point about "consistency" is moot because you mainly seem to be creating this consistency yourself, to judge from this discussion.

When I put List of public art in the City of Westminster up for review as a featured list candidate, I was called out for having used (e.g.) "unveiled by George VI" but "unveiled by Queen Elizabeth II", because it is indeed unusual to see a construction like "unveiled by Elizabeth II" for the living monarch. Would I be right in thinking that this is the consistency you're aiming for – between how a current monarch is referred to and how all other monarchs are referred to? Eventually I opted for "unveiled by Elizabeth II" and I quickly grew accustomed to it. The sense of historical distance even seems more appropriate to an encyclopaedia somehow.

It doesn't look as if a policy has been formulated for this yet, but whatever is decided on should apply equally to all kings, queens, popes, emperors, tsars, etc. Ham II (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: Re: your ping, I may be wrong, but I think you have to update your timestamp for the ping to go through. @Neve-selbert: Pinging you just in case you didn't see Ham II's reply above. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe a WP:RFC over this is in order at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility).--Nevé –selbert 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this discussion take place here? I'm not exactly sure how to move forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Charles II of England is the name of the parent article, then I think we should move this article back to Statue of Charles II, Soho Square. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prioryman: Also pinging you, since you've contributed to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly minor point in the overall scheme of things, but I agree – the naming should be consistent with the parent article. Prioryman (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: I went ahead and moved the article back, since there is not consensus to rename this article (User:Ham II, User: Prioryman and I all prefer the previous title). That being said, I have no problem with you starting an RfC, and if editors decide we should move the page, then great! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]