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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is clear opposition to the proposed move, largely premised on an asserted ambiguity of the proposed target. BD2412 T 00:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anne, Queen of Great Britain → Queen Anne
• Queen Anne → Queen Anne (disambiguation)

– "Queen Anne" is by far the most common way to refer to her. Yes, there were other Queen Annes, but they were either only consorts (i.e. Anne Boleyn) or they were obscure leaders of non-Anglophone countries. In English, the British monarchy is by far the most commonly discussed monarchy, so on English Wikipedia, it's entirely appropriate for the only Queen regnant named Anne to be "Queen Anne". "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" gets me 67,400 google results. "Queen Anne" gets me 28,000,000. She was also not just the Queen of Great Britain, she was also Queen of Ireland (and Queen of England and Scotland up until 1707), so let's ditch this inaccurate, awkward, uncommon title in favor of the more common and accurate way of referring to her. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject British Royalty has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Scotland has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Women's History has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment isn't "Queen" in front used for consorts, i.e. Queen Camilla, and queen regents are with the country format, i.e. Mary of Teck? cookie monster 755 23:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary of Teck was also a queen consort (she was neither a queen regnant nor a queen regent). For deceased consorts we typically use their maiden names (Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck), unless they are predominantly remembered by their queenly titles or are strongly associated with the royal family they married into (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Marie of Romania, Anne of Romania, Empress Elisabeth of Austria). For living queens consort we use the "Queen [Name] of [Country]" format (Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Sonja of Norway, Camilla being an exception when it comes to country name since her husband reigns over multiple realms). For kings and queens regnant we have all different sorts of formats: [Name], King/Queen of [Domain] (like this page or John, King of England); King/Queen [Name] (like Queen Victoria), and regnal names, either with or without domain (like Richard II of England or Elizabeth II). All of these examples are outlined at WP:NCROY. Keivan.f^Talk 06:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this the English language Wikipedia, but it is not the Wikipedia of the English-speaking countries. PatGallacher (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, as well as being WP:CONSISTENT with Queen Victoria whose title is specifically listed in WP:NCROY as an acceptable exception to the general rule for monarchs without ordinals. Note also that the proposal is technically incomplete as the dab page at Queen Anne will also need to be moved to Queen Anne (disambiguation). Rosbif73 (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No evidence of primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikinav statistics are pretty conclusive: Anne, Queen of Great Britain accounted for 85% of clicks from the Queen Anne dab page in December 2023, and over 90% in January 2024, i.e. significantly more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought. Long-term significance would not seem to be in doubt either. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The proposed title removed any disambiguation between queens regnant and queens consort.Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are other Queen Annes and the disambiguating clause is more precise. The primary use argument is weakened by considering that the Tudor Queen Anne is more popular in page views[1]. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anne Boleyn's page might be more popular overall, but apparently it does not get the majority of views from people who visit the "Queen Anne" disambiguation page. I think Rosbif73's link shows that. Keivan.f^Talk 06:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's probably because, although Anne Boleyn was indeed a queen and is listed on the Queen Anne dab page, she is almost exclusively known by her WP:COMMONNAME, "Anne Boleyn"; she is definitely a red herring in this discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I am capable of forethought and I can see that this is a prelude to moving King John and King Stephen, but I don't agree with those moves either. I don't agree that concision is more desirable than precision when the article title is fairly short anyway. DrKay (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand your point. Keivan.f^Talk 17:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply There is no Wikipedia guideline which says that monarchs are necessarily more important than their consorts. It is possible that more British people have heard of Anne Boleyn (she's certainly featured in more historical dramas). Page views and the like are not always decisive. Queen Victoria may deserve her place as primary topic, but there are two significant differences. Firstly, there are not many alternative people of this name. Secondly, she is a more important historical figure, who gave her name to an era, e.g. Victorian values. PatGallacher (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Anne's 12 years don't amount to an era, but we do have her architecture and her furniture, which are well used. Not sure how these affect this request. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Comment There is also Queen Anne's War (1702-1713), the North American theater of the War of the Spanish Succession. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply: I think an alternative would be to have the title be Queen Anne of Great Britain. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that naming format is reserved for WP:CONSORTS. Keivan.f^Talk 17:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe this could lead to confusion with Anne of Denmark and other queens with the same name. Векочел (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - If anything, concerning another British queen regnant - Queen Victoria should be moved back to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community already voted against that move a couple of months ago. It's simply her WP:COMMONNAME and is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think we should all stop fixing things that are not broken. Keivan.f^Talk 17:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to fix the inconsistency mess (thanks to the updated WP:NCROY), among the monarch bios names. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT, If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies. Wikinav is quite conclusive in showing that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no naming convention or other P&G that would tell us to use the longer existing title in a case such as this. The existing title was in accordance with WP:NCROY but this has been amended through RfC whereby the proposed move is now quite consistent with WP:NCROY. I would note that a consequence of this move is that Queen Anne (a disambiguation page) would need to be moved to Queen Anne (disambiguation) as a natural consequence. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:NCROY. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:NCROY says: "Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when it was in official use, as with Juan Carlos I (not Juan Carlos, King of Spain). When there is no ordinal, the formats John of Bohemia and Joanna of Castile or Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain are used. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy, e.g. Queen Victoria, Alexander Jagiellon." Why is Anne treated differently from Victoria? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per WP:TITLEDAB at WP:AT, I actually requested this exact move over 3 years ago - to no avail. Good to see that some people are still calling for this. However it looks like it might fail again. Maybe try again in another 3 years! :) I still support it though, of course. (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as "Queen Anne" is too ambiguous. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, "Queen Anne" isn't ambiguous at all. The Tudor consort is almost universally called "Anne Boleyn" and not "Queen Anne" in English. DixonCider3 (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. For as long as Kings and Queens of the British Isles have existed, some have had colloquial names as well as regnal names. "Edmund II" is Edmund Ironside. "William I" is William the Conqueror. "Mary I of Scotland" is Mary, Queen of Scots. "Victoria I" is Queen Victoria, and "Anne, Queen of Great Britain"....is Queen Anne. She is not known by anything else. Look alone at the naming of derivative articles linked to her. Architecture of her era is Queen Anne style architecture. Furniture is Queen Anne style furniture. The war during her reign is Queen Anne's War. All this leaving aside the fact that the current tile naming her "Queen of Great Britain" leaves out that she was also Queen of Ireland. So even if this move request fails, the status quo doesn't work, either. LegerityFortis (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too many other Annes. Violates NCROY. And of course "Queen Anne" has more popular use in reference to architecture, furniture, etc., not the person. Walrasiad (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The very first point at WP:SOVEREIGN says Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent. There is no need to do so in this case. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but the fourth point says that various formats are used for monarchs with no ordinal and specifically mentions Queen Victoria as an example of a possible format that is justified by policy. And, of course, the third point tells us not to use "of country" when the monarch is a primary topic (as Anne clearly is, based in particular on the wikinav stats cited above). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, agreeing with most of the points raised by the opposers above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, several queens both in the UK and in other countries which could cause confusion and it would clearer to differentiate the person from the furniture and architectural style. Suonii180 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There would appear from many of the comments added, that there is clearly a misunderstanding of title policy (WP:AT and particularly WP:TITLEDAB), disambiguation policy (WP:DISAMBIG) and the matter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per WP:NHC, irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue should be discarded.

There is no actual article that occupies the name space Queen Anne. There are places called Queen Anne in the US that are disambiguated by convention by adding the state or other detail. No other person occupies this article-name space. Of the WP:CRITERIA, the key criteria is WP:COMMONNAME. The other criteria only become significant if there is no common name or if an other article might have a common name that would occupy the same name space. While there are other queens called Anne (eg Anne Boleyn), nobody has evidenced that their common name (per sources) is Queen Anne and that their article title should occupy the same name space as this Queen Anne daughter of James II. This addresses the first question, who has the common name that should occupy the article name-space Queen Anne.

The second question is whether this article being discussed should occupy the article name-space Queen Anne or whether it should be occupied by a disambiguation page? If there is no other article with a common name claim to the article title name, the answer is self-evident. In this case, there are four localities that have a common name to the article name-space Queen Anne. We then consider WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: is there an article much more likely to be the target of searches when using Queen Anne (alone) as the search term and is it this article about the daughter of James II? This is then the substantive question to be addressed by debate on the proposed move.

Through the recent RfC at WP:NCROY, there is no conflict between WP:NCROY and either WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

At present, Queen Anne targets a disambiguation page from which a reader then selects the topic they seek. If this Queen Anne becomes the target, a hat note would then direct them to Queen Anne (disambuguation) if it was not their intended destination. Application of primary topic is used to get the greatest number of readers to the article they seek by the quickest route.

Arguments to effect: There are many Annes that are queens, do not of themself address either of the key questions that resolve from the prevailing P&G. They do not show an understanding of the matter of issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but there are errors in this statement. You say that There is no actual article that occupies the name space Queen Anne [...] at present, Queen Anne targets a disambiguation page from which a reader then selects the topic they seek. Queen Anne currently is the disambiguation page, not a redirect to one. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra: Perhaps Cinderella157 didn't realize that because this is not listed as a multi-move. Can you rectify that? Or should the move be closed on procedural grounds? Srnec (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nom is a new user, so I don't blame them for not listing it as a multi-move. I'm not sure how to do that myself. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cremastra, there is no error in what I have stated. A disambiguation page is not an actual article about a particular topic/subject. Per MOS:DAB: Note that even though most disambiguation pages are kept in the Article namespace (mainspace), they are not articles. These pages are aids in searching for articles. Nor in fuller context of what I have written does this reasonably suggest the term Queen Anne is a redirect. Targets, means where one arrives upon selecting a search term.

In my comment of 19 February, I stated: I would note that a consequence of this move is that Queen Anne (a disambiguation page) would need to be moved to Queen Anne (disambiguation) as a natural consequence [emphasis added]. Is it a procedural technicality? Yes. Is it sufficient reason for a procedural close or would procedurally closing the discussion on this technicality fall to WP:NOTBURO and WP:PETTIFOGGING? I would view it as the latter. Can it be remedied at this time by adding the move to Queen Anne (disambiguation). Yes. Is it necessary? Probably not, given it is a natural consequence unlikely to be reasonably contested - it is after all a disambiguation page. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the second move as required.

If there is no other article with a common name claim to the article title name, the answer is self-evident. It is not. It does not follow that because there is no other article for which the common name is "Queen Anne", then "Queen Anne" must be the common name of this article. Nor does it follow that if this article is the primary topic for "Queen Anne", it's title must be "Queen Anne". Srnec (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TITLEDAB: It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary [emphasis added]. Article titles are primarily chosen by WP:COMMONNAME (per sources) unless there is no common name. Unless there is an article that would actually use the same name-space as Queen Anne, disambiguation is not required and should not be used unless a naming convention dictates otherwise. WP:NCROY no longer does this. It therefore does follow that if Queen Anne is the common name and no other article has an actual title competing for this article name space, then, this article should be titled Queen Anne.

Nor does it follow that if this article is the primary topic for "Queen Anne", it's title must be "Queen Anne". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is telling us that it really, really should be, as does WP:NCROY and WP:TITLEDAB. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per the reasons given above. It is important to note that she was the queen of Great Britain. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per WP:PRECISE. There have been dozens of Queens called Anne throughout history, many of who also have a great deal of long term significance (namely, Anne Boleyn). estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, Queen Anne is not the WP:COMMONNAME of Anne Boleyn and WP:PRECISE must be read in full. It tells us to apply sufficient precision to disambiguate an actual conflict in article titles, while also making explicit reference to a primary topic, more fully detailed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2024 (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: Withdrawn by proposer as the current article name is correct per WP:NCROY naming conventions. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anne, Queen of Great Britain → Anne of Great Britain
• Anne of Great Britain → Anne of Great Britain (disambiguation)
• Cultural depictions of Anne, Queen of Great Britain → Cultural depictions of Anne of Great Britain

– This move would match this article's name with the names of George I of Great Britain and George II of Great Britain. The other "Anne of Great Britain" is known in history of "Anne, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange" and is lesser known than Queen Anne. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No evidence of primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Celia Homeford, she was the Queen regnant of Great Britain so is clearly the primary topic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The proposed title is not her WP:COMMONNAME (that would be Queen Anne, which I favour as a title, though the previous RM failed to find consensus for this) nor is it compliant with the WP:NCROY naming guideline.
• Oppose. The current title fulfils the requirements of WP:AT: it is recognizable, precise, natural, and consistent with WP:NCROY, where it is used as an exemplar. I see no benefit from constant rehashing of move requests (this is the third in the last 12 months) when there is nothing wrong with the current title. 10,000 people a day find the right article without visiting the disambiguation page. No-one is lost. There is no problem here to fix. DrKay (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DrKay, yes I see it now. My own approach was after seeing her two immediately successors but having read WP:NCROY - which I didn't know - I understand the current form is the right one. If there is a way to speedy close this as not moved, I would support it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can close it as withdrawn per WP:RMEC. DrKay (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay, thank you. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]