Talk:William the Lion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jakegard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Feb 2008 RM result

The last RM held on this article was ruled as no move to William the Lion. Therefore, I revert the erroneous change. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It was moved in response to changes in the naming guidelines. It has been stable at William the Lion for nearly half a year. If you want to move it, open a WP:RM discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The articles were so neat & trim, when Name # of country was in place. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya may aswell go back to the lion version, Pat. Even though I disagree with a page being moved contrary to it's last RM ruling. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is short-sighted behaviour by both of you and Pat. Established Wiki-practice is that after a month, certainly after three, a page's location becomes stable. Transgressing it for your own advantage not only is unlikely to do any good for the move you want, but will in the long run be non-beneficial as you see others violating it for POVs you don't like. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already 'reverted' one editors move & I'm not gonna do it again. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A potentially controversial move is a potentially controversial move. You're supposed to go through WP:RM, and, if you don't, I think others should be able to revert no matter how much time has gone by in order to discourage unilateral moves like this. However, every time I've tried to get consensus on this rule at WP:RM (and I've tried several times), I can't get consensus to support it. In fact, consensus is always that once an article is move and established at a new stable name, then once again WP:RM is required to move it. That means, by current rules, it was acceptable to move it today, but once it was reverted, that should have been accepted. In any case, someone who cares probably should file a proposal at WP:RM - and this history should be explained in the nomination. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the custom on wikipedia and serves us well if you actually think about it. We don't check back to 2003 to place the burden of consensus on individual edits, if original stable version was always preferred to most recent stable version we'd have a nightmare of a time. But to correct you on one thing, the move was not unilateral, but was one of dozens made at one time in response to changes in the naming guidelines that preferenced well-known nicknames over obscure numerals (having RMs for each one was both unnecessary and unreasonable waste of community resources). I'm going to allow PatGallacher a chance to move it back, but will move it back myself if he doesn't do so. If a move is still desired, an WP:RM can be started. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You should let a non-involved administrator do that, as you've an interest in Scottish monarchial articles. The move back to William the Lion by you, could be interpreted as your 'personal preference'. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is good evidence of why making knowingly controversial moves is a bad thing - all the energy so far (including mine now) has been expended in discussing procedural issues, instead of addressing what we know will we have to discuss in the end anyway: what are the pros and cons of the various proposed titles. Is it possible to move on to that question now? --Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To start the ball rolling, Google Books returns me 50,000 hits for William the Lion, 704 for William I the Lion, and 474 for William I of Scotland. Unless I've overlooked some issue with the search, that would appear to settle things rather overwhelmingly. (I don't see what any change in the guidelines has to do with this - WP:NCROY has always acknowledged that common cognomens can be used instead of the name+numeral form.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cognomens should've been limited to monarchs who came before their successors starting using 'regnal numbers'. For example Edward the Confessor, Alfred the Great in England. What happened as NCROY is that the anti-'Name # of country' crowd took over & thus the instabilities followed. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I still see the pro-name#ofcountry crowd in control at NCROY, even though the last RfC showed them to be in a minority. But that isn't the issue here - as I say, the guideline has always (at least, for longer than I can remember) allowed cognomens - do you have any arguments as to why we shouldn't use this one?--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The latest RM's seem to proove otherwise. As for why 'name # of country', if the monarch's got a regnal number - use it. When there's a I, we should have a II, III, IV etc. As for the 'of country'? many countries monarch shared the same name. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know what you mean. Has another country had a monarch (or anyone) called William the Lion? Do you believe we should have articles called William II of Scotland etc.? Why should we use a rarely used regnal number when there's a far more recognizable name we can use?--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Pruss/Germay had 2 monarchs named William & the United Kingdom has a William & likely another in the future. England had 3 named William (including Willia II of Scotland). GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And all this is relevant how?--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this discussion should be taking place at NCROY. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a bad case to be making a stand on. He is almost never known as "William I" because there is only poor realization that there even is a "William II", the latter being thought of as "William of Orange" and as a King of Britain (even though this is actually inaccurate). @GoodDay, yes, this is my preference, but proper procedure requires it to go back to the last stable name if you are actually contesting it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's best to have a non-involved administrator handle it. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not an administrative matter ... and anyway you (a non-administrator) are the one that started trying to kick up a fuss here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then somebody who's not involved, can revert. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, though I will do it myself if they don't. A WP:RM is needed to move this page away from its recent stable name against current naming conventions. If you want to show your own good faith you should move it back yourself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already made 1 revert, which was to correct a non-supported page move. If you're gonna revert it, there's nothing I can do about, nor do I intend to revert you 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, stop arguing about who moved what - does anyone have any arguments to support calling this article anything other than the common and unique name of its subject: "William the Lion"?--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Scotland had 2 monarchs named William, of which this fellow is the first. The Scottish monarchs before & after him, also go by name # of country. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of Lion has its origins in the 14th century (maybe earlier) and is the way that he is referred to by anyone who knows anything of Scottish history. The use of the name is synomynous to William the Conqueror who is not referred to as William I of England. The article should be returned to William the Lion asap. -Bill Reid | (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. As for the conquerer, it should be William I of England, but I haven't protested it, 'cuz the RM was ruled correctly & that page wasn't moved hastily. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that it was Deacon of Pritzdeam who made the move back in October 12, and marked it as minor, which it clearly wasn't. This is disruptive editing. PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The October 12 (2010) move had no consensus. Recommend 'Deacon' or anybody, begin an RM if the wish to seek a consensus for moving to William the Lion. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm wondering which calendar defines 3 and a bit months as "half a year"! Deb (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not on, claiming there is consensus against this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility), when it's just the same ideologues pushing the same minority POV. The article is has been at William the Lion for 4 months. That is the last stable name. Trying to manipulate and transgress established wikipedia etiquette because you think you'll get an advantage in an WP:RM proposal is tendentious editing and bad faith. . Note that at Talk:James Chichester-Clark PatGallacher seems to have a different opinion about article stability. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We're just going in circles here & there's not enough input. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Did DrK rule the RM as no consensus to move to William the Lion (February 2008)? Did anybody complain about the page not being moved between February 2008 & October 2010? Was the page ever moved in that time frame? GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we all quit bickering, and just have a simple move discussion to get this sorted. Either to William I of Scotland or William the Lion, whichever the page currently isn't at. Nightw 13:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Adjust the RM to today's reversion to the non-consensus title. Then re-start the RM. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To review: An RM was held in February 2008 for moving William I of Scotland to William the Lion, the RM was ruled no consensus for move & this was respected for about -2.5 yrs-. Deacon then moves page to William the Lion in October 2010. It was alright for him to move a page that was stable for way over 2.5 years, with no-consensus to do so. Yet, it wasn't alright for me to revert his erroneous move, that was stable for only 3 months? Something is wrong here folks, article such as these shouldn't be hijacked in this way. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

Original request withdrawn. Nightw 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Article was moved back to its previous title. Nightw 13:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC) William I of Scotland → William the Lion — This was the title of the article before it was recently moved to its current title in a unilateral decision. WP:NCNT states, "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country". A Google search will show that "William the Lion" is far more common, but this could be due to the awkwardness of adding "of Scotland" to the alternative. Online encyclopaedias are divided: he's listed in Britannica as "William I (king of Scotland)"; in Columbia Encyclopaedia as "William the Lion"; and in Britroyals as "King William I (the Lion) of Scotland". For the record, I don't know enough about the subject to cast a !vote of my own, and I remain neutral, but the community should decide what the name should be. Nightw 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Note - the page may already have been moved to the proposed target (since it was stable at that title before recent events); in this case the proposal is to retain the present title.--Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Support, as I noted above, "William the Lion" comes out as overwhelmingly the most common name in a simple Google Books search.--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

William the Lion → William I of Scotland — In response to recent move-warring on this page, I've lodged this move request in order to ascertain consensus regarding the article's title. Online encyclopaedias show divided useage: William is listed in Britannica as "William I (king of Scotland)"; in Columbia Encyclopaedia as "William the Lion"; and in Britroyals as "King William I (the Lion) of Scotland". Nightw 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I remain neutral. Nightw 15:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, per David I of Scotland, Malcolm IV of Scotland, Alexander II of Scotland etc. Cognomens aren't NPoV based, as they're usually given by the monarch's admirers or detractors. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support to some extent in protest at the way this issue has been mishandled. However, although "William the Lion" does have some currency, he is not quite a household name comparable to Robert the Bruce or William the Conqueror. There are quite a few Scottish kings with cognomens which we do not use at present e.g. Donal Ban, Malcolm Canmore, Alexander the Fierce, Malcolm the Maiden. PatGallacher (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose 'William I of Scotland'. William the Lion is the one Scottish monarch overwhelmingly known by his cognomen, and it would be surprising to see the article not titled the way it is. Scots do not know a 'William I' because, really, there is no 'William II' (though William of Orange technically was he is not known as 'William II' but William III or William of Orange). Compare 5400 hits for <"William the Lion" "king of Scots"> with a similar search with 'WIlliam I' (you'll see 2,860, but the vast majority refer to William the Conqueror, the English king 'WIlliam I'-- when they refer to the Scottish king most are citations of the Barrow RRS charter collection with that name). If you say 'William I' to a Scottish historian they'll think you're talking about William the Conqueror, though a historian (probably unlike a layman) will understand 'William I' (the RRS edition has given it a little currency). PatGallacher's comparison with "Alexander the Fierce" is not a good one; William is almost always referred to as 'the Lion' both popularly and among historians (and incidentally, his only biography is entitled William the Lion: 1143-1214: Kingship and Culture). 'William the Lion' is a no brainer application of WP:COGNOMEN, more so than William the Conqueror (and definitely more so than Cnut the Great). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose move from William the Lion to William I of Scotland, according to the guidelines If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used. I had never heard of "William I of Scotland" before I noticed this discussion. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, though I won't die in a ditch over this one. I would just comment that, when the present second-in-line to the UK throne becomes king, people will inevitably ask "Why is he William V of Scotland as well as England? Who were the earlier Williams of Scotland?" Deb (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Which is how relevant to what we title this article as? If anything, having an article called William I but no succeeding one called William II is going to confuse people any more (but if they want this analytical information they'll have to read the articles anyway - the only information the titles can impart is that of what the kings are usually called, which in the case of this William appears to be "the Lion").--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's something to consider, isn't it? As you say, it could be an argument either for or against. Deb (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

William would be 'William V' because the numerals of the British monarchs are taken from the English ones only (though they say this will change in future, it wouldn't make a difference here), beginning 1066 (three English Williams, plus one UK one). If Prince William were to become a Scottish monarch, he'd technically be either William III or William IV. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya mean, if William were to reign over the UK as David, Malcolm, Robert, James etc. It would be as David III, Malcolm V, Robert IV, James VIII etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was not what Deacon meant. I'm also pretty sure I don't understand what you mean GoodDay. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware nothing is certain. This article may be of interest to you. John Hendo (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Controversy or not, it's always good to consult the secondary sources themselves rather than relying on any preconceived notions about what one personally thinks would be the most appropriate name. Note that "per Article X, Y", is not an argument at all (nor is WP:Otherstuffexists) and we're not here to vote. Medieval Scottish history is not my usual fare or else I could have told from experience, but it doesn't take a lot of digging to find out that "William the Lion" is common usage. E.g. G. W. S. Barrow, The kingdom of the Scots, pp. 19, 49, if you want a reference. Surely, that the only modern monograph to be devoted to this ruler (by D. D. R. Owen) is entitled Wiliam the Lion, 1143-1214 is also a weighty fact. To dismiss such modern historians as POV-pushing "admirers or detractors" just seems to show a (somewhat amusing) lack of understanding how historians work. Cavila (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank goodness, his cognomen wasn't William the Nose picker, William the Farter or worst. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous remark. Time to grow up GoodDay. -Bill Reid | (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm 6ft tall, can't get any taller. PS: Don't be so dang serious. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just a comment, not a criticism - but I am pretty sure everyone here is aware that he is "commonly known" as William the Lion. The question is whether that is the best title for an encyclopaedia article. And a good title for an encyclopaedia article is seldom the same as a good title for a book. (I know; I write both.) Deb (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that you'd prefer the title Alexander III of Macedon simply because there were other Alexanders before him? Nightw 13:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, historians may occasionally go for a different name to illustrate a specific point or even to appeal to a wider audience, but we've already established that Owen is not deviating from the norm here. So what exactly is so inappropriate about it? Or do you simply disagree with WP:Article title? Cavila (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right - I'd say "often" rather than "occasionally". I'm saying that the fact that a book is called "William the Lion" doesn't make it the best title for an article. The criteria for selecting a book title are completely different. This is a point I raised some years ago in a naming discussion, and I think it's worth reiterating here. I didn't say that "William the Lion" is not a valid title for the article, just that the book title argument is potentially misleading. Deb (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Scottish educational system uses William the Lion, not William I of Scotland nor even William of Scotland. But if an advanced search of these terms in Google books is carried out a result of 51,000, 470 and 4580 respectively is received--hardly a ringing endorsement for William I of Scotland. -Bill Reid | (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am no historian but as a layman I know him as William the Lion. After reading WP:COGNOMEN I have no hesitation in opposing a move. John Hendo (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, evidence is clear that the cognomen is vastly better known than the form with the regnal number.--Kotniski (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, my military encyclopaedia calls him "William the Lion, King of Scotland" even though it normally uses XXX I for royalty. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose -- This is a difficult case because he was the only King William of Scotland; the next of the name was William III of England, who is not usually known as William II and II (unlike James VI and I or his father-in-law James VII and II). I would be happy with the article being at "William the Lion", provided the other version exists as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – {Sorry, GoodDay.) I long felt the anti-cognomen rule was applied too harshly. It seemed bizarre that William the Conqueror was at William I of England when it was just going to make everyone pipe link. Anyway, it seems this feller has been far better known as William the Lion, so there it should be. In general, I'm reticent about cognomens for monarchs who aren't well known outside their realm, but because Scotland has only had one King William of its own, I'm not troubled by this one. -Rrius (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per articles Alfred the Great, Æthelred the Unready, etc. Zarcadia (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This might be the first time, I've been in an RM to seek moving a page from its non-consented version (see Feb 2008 RM). But hopefully, this RM's ruling will be respected. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Eek, the trend isn't looking favourable. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 05:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

---

William the Lion → William the Lyon – as an overwhelmingly used name for this king. Alison Weir also calls him "the Lyon" and a quick Google Books search turns this up:

• William the Lion on Google Books (356,000 results)
  • William the Lyon on Google Books (9,760,000 results)

So, per WP:NCROY, I propose this move.

• Support as nominator. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Modern historians use the name William the Lion. Searching Google Books and using the operands "William the Lyon" -"Lion" gives 14,800 hits while William the Lion" -"Lyon" gives 351,000 hits--that's a ratio of 24:1 in favour the Lion --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bill. I did a Google Book test of my own. I limited it to those published in the last century and excluded the words "wiki" and "wikipedia". I got only 867 hits for "William the Lyon", and a whopping 14,400 for "William the Lion".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Lyon" is simply not the "overwhelmingly used name" by historians. Quite the reverse. Ben MacDui 08:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I have never seen him called this before, always the Lion. Alison Weir might call him that, but this is probably an affectation on her part. PatGallacher (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• oppose The hits on that "9,760,000 results" search for William the Lyon are William P. Lyon, William S. Lyon, William F. Lyon, William Hector Lyon and so on and so forth... Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

King's evil

Although we do have one very dated source to back this up, I am cautious about the claim that he ever touched for the king's evil. This practice was certainly not normal in Scotland, and even in France and England it is questionable whether it was practiced as early as this. PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ada Fitz William

Either the birth date for William I or for Ada Fitz William are way off, or William fathered her around the age of 4. Unsure what the right answer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republicson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Husbands of Isabel and Isabella

Mentioned husbands of:

• "Isabel (1195–1253), married Roger Bigod, 4th Earl of Norfolk and Robert "of Fur Fan" De Ros, Sir Knight and had issue."; her page does not mention a second husband.
• "Isabella Mac William married Robert III de Brus then Robert Furfan de Ros, Magna Carta Suretor"; her page mentions both husbands.

It seems likely that the first one is wrong. --Japarthur (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Lack of citation

It seems like there is a lack of citation in the body of the article. There is not a citation in the life portion until seven paragraphs in the article.Jakegard (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Jakegard (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Swift as great great.xxx granddaughter

I have removed the mention; see Talk:Taylor Swift for more information. Lectonar (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)