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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
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
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
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. In regard to the common name argument for the move, the evidence presented did not indicate that a move is currently justified. Multiple responses in this RM called into question the recent move of Lord Mountbatten, which was used as part of the rationale for support arguments. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE15:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Smec. And FWIW "make the page consistent with the one on her husband" sounds like a classic piece of "everyday sexism" to me. I'm sure it's not intentional, but it is reducing a woman to an appendage of her husband. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the platform to right the wrongs of the society; we just go with what sources say. I'm sorry, but she drew her title from her husband and was evidently happy to use it. Even the current article name features the title that she acquired by marriage. Keivan.fTalk00:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was in terms of using common names for both. She could have been called an entirely different name and I would have stilled advocated for the page to be moved to that title. Keivan.fTalk02:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Srnec and DuncanHill. This is completely unencyclopaedic. The article on her husband should not have been moved either. What sort of populist trash website is Wikipedia degenerating into? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and like Necrothesp I would have opposed the move of her husband's article as well. They aren't even correct: they were "Lord Mountbatten of Burma" and "Lady Mountbatten of Burma", and the inclusion of the "of Burma" is not optional. Proteus(Talk)12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many of those instances of "Lady Mountbatten" in the ngrams are second (or subsequent) mentions, like "Picasso" tout court (to use one of the examples above). I note that the only biographies cited in the article which are specifically about Lady Mountbatten are titled Edwina Mountbatten: A Life of Her Own and Edwina, Countess Mountbatten of Burma. Her ODNB article cites another book called Edwina Mountbatten: A Life in Pictures, and there was an Edwina Mountbatten Trust (mentioned here).
Lord Dunsany and Lord Byron at least were writers, whose names appear that way on the covers of their books. This may be a flaw with WP:NCPEER's allowing exemptions from the usual naming convention "[w]hen one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known", when the only examples it gives were both writers: Tennyson and Byron. Ham II (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. "Edwina Mountbatten" appears to be more common than "Lady Mountbatten of Burma" and "Countess Mountbatten of Burma" but not as common as "Lady Mountbatten" 1. I think what matters when it comes to determining common names is the frequency with which the name is used. Concision can be another point of argument for retitling this page. Keivan.fTalk00:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If "Lady Mountbatten" were really the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME, rather than a way of referring to her in brief (equivalent to how other people are referred to by their surnames alone), it would be in the titles of any of the books about her. Ham II (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her husband is referred to as "Dickie Mountbatten" on some book covers. Would you advocate for a move based on what's written on book covers alone? I really don't think so. And "Lady Mountbatten" is a title, not a surname. In instances where these people are referred to by their surnames they are simply called "Mountbatten". Keivan.fTalk22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a surname. Uses of "Mountbatten" in brief are more likely to refer to her husband, not to her. "Lady Mountbatten" is the equivalent for her. Exceptions to the general naming conventions should be overwhelmingly preferred in usage other than repeat mentions for them to make the cut as article titles. Ham II (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma" doesn't make the cut either. Realistically speaking, whether you consider book covers, book chapters, online sources, etc. she is mostly referred to as "Edwina Mountbatten" or "Lady Mountbatten", though the latter is more commonly used. That was the rationale which got her husband's article and the other ones that I listed moved in the first place. Sometimes we don't need a train of a title to identify a subject when there is an overwhelmingly common name in use, even if the so called name is not 'formal' or 'correct'. Keivan.fTalk01:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Ngram quoted by the proposer fails to support the commonname argument.
The percentages in the ngram stand at 51% to 41%. 46% to 44%. Thanks to Keivan for the reminder, I had misquoted the figures. Corrected.
Additionally, "Lady Mountbatten" can be used for multiple people, so not only is it possibly less common for Edwina, it is also in conflict with WP:PRECISE.
Additionally, "Lady Mountbatten" can be used for multiple people. None of whom are as widely known as this woman. Google also points to the subject of this page as the primary result for the term "Lady Mountbatten". That alone shows who the primary topic is.
The percentages in the ngram stand at 51% to 41%. What Ngram are you looking at? And why should we even ignore the 10% difference? The suggested title is the common name per both Ngrams 1 and 2. And most results are from the 1940s to 1960s where only this woman was "Lady Mountbatten". Keivan.fTalk13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, upon rechecking I corrected my figures. My comment may have been on older figures for usage. THe actual difference is 2%, whcih enforces my point. I would recommend that you read WP:COMMONNAME carefully. For a name to be designated the "common" name, its usage has to be far greater than any other. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2024 (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.
.svg)
