Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 22

817:. It has nothing to do with putting forth a single format as a "recommended" option either. People can choose what format to use based on the flow of the article. The whole argument that each queen consort should have the word "consort" attached to their title as an adjunct or "qualifier" does not hold up. We have no such rule and countless redirects and outside material prove that. Sonja Haraldsen is the queen consort of Norway. Based on that logic, she should not be referred to as 1737:

context, the link itself would make it clear which "Mary" is the relevant one (just click or hover). If the phrase "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" were linked in the wrong context, the link would make it easier to find/notice the mistake and fix it, since either Mary, Queen of England, should not be referred to as "Queen of the United Kingdom" in any article. It's more likely such a mistake would be missed if the text were not linked.

3541: 1701:(2001) which lists her as "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" in its index. It's not implausible that someone would describe her in this way (objectively, they already have), and therefore not implausible that someone would find this redirect helpful. Of-course, I'm sure you'd rather people use the search bar instead; we should probably just agree to disagree about whether it is "helpful". – 1285:

King. My point has been, Queen consorts are styled queen, unqualified, during their lifetime, and shortly after, but when time passes, their are either noted as Queen consort, or introduced with mention of their King. The example dates from soon after her death and during the rule of Henry. The Catherine of Aragon example does not generalise to all queen consorts.

563: 4074: 142: 270:– The "You-Can-Spam" name is mentioned in the article. The fact that the "YOU" isn't an acronym is obviously irrelevant and not the point of the joke. A Google search will reveal that it is commonly used, perhaps not with "of 2003" afterwards, but the redirect isn't confusing, ambiguous or causing any problems. 1183:, arguing that people might think Elizabeth II was Queen of England or that Elizabeth I was Queen of the United Kingdom. Yes, they might, and it is an encyclopedia's job to correct them not to mislead them, and a hatnote would be sufficient for that purpose. And as Scyrme said, the format "Name <comma: --> 2954: 3635: 513:. While delete was the most popular option by a small margin, it falls short of even clinching a majority, let alone a consensus. Editors disagreed on whether this is a plausible search term, and the degree to which the term is erroneous or misleading, but no side has a decisive policy-based advantage. 3245:

per nom. Based on an off-wiki conversation I was just having, Covid lockdown regulations were my first thought. Google search results are a complete mixed bag, featuring YouTube videos about strict rules for royal children, cast members on various TV and movies, public drunkenness in San Marino, food

1841:

That the name of the Earl includes his surname is irrelevant to the point, and it doesn't help your case to insist that it matters. It does not help to argue that the format is exclusive to Knowledge; the argument to keep the redirect is stronger if the format is used widely both on and off Knowledge

1303:

Catherine of Aragon was "Queen of England" during her marriage, and so were Henry VIII's other five wives. All six of them have been described as such. This has nothing to do with making a political statement. In fact, Catherine's grave was upgraded during George V's reign by his wife Queen Mary. And

1170:

is misleading as well? In fact it would be even more misleading by that logic since there were other queens of Scotland named Mary, albeit they were queens by virtue of marriage. And what is even misleading here? Mary of Teck was Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of George V. Mary I and Mary II

825:

either due to the fact that the latter format just like the first one does not make it clear whether she is a queen consort or queen regnant. And frankly, it doesn't matter. She is simply The Queen of Norway just as Mary was simply The Queen of the United Kingdom. That's what their actual titles are.

795:

place" is a grammatically correct and entirely normal way to refer to royalty/nobility, and this is reinforced by the many articles with titles in exactly that format which set a predictable pattern that readers are likely to follow when searching. Seems entirely plausible to me and I'm surprised you

2755:

That is on normal search results. Given that Knowledge is a general purpose encyclopaedia aimed at lay people rather than subject experts, it is reasonable to presume that those without specific (relevant) scientific knowledge will form the most sizeable proportion of searchers. People searching for

2166:

Mary to have been Queen of the United Kingdom. Nobody else in the entire history of the earth has ever been both named Mary and also Queen of the United Kingdom. She was formally and officially The Queen from George V's ascension until his death, and then formally and officially Queen Mary until her

1923:

I didn't say anything about it being an "unavoidable" "problem". I asked a question. If you're confident that listing "of the United Kingdom" in the first sentence would be within the guidelines for disambiguation pages, then that's fine; I agree that explicitly adding it to the first sentence would

3214: 1908:

There are no shortage of examples where one disambiguation page disambiguates multiple terms, meaning that some people are redirected to a page that has a different title to their search term. The way this is handled is that the first sentence of the disambiguation page lists all the terms that are

1344:

is an not really Princess of Wales since she holds the title by virtue of marriage, so she should be called "Princess Consort of Wales". And upon seeing the phrase "Queen of " no one assumes that the woman is a queen regnant. In fact, when thinking of a global audience, one could easily see that in

641:

There has been only one Queen Mary who has been Queen of the United Kingdom and that's Mary, wife of George V. Listing other redirects here is pointless. And a queen consort is a queen just as a queen regnant is a queen, or a queen dowager is a queen. There's no such rule that states queens consort

2817:. Casting the net a bit wider, but still aiming to look at usage in reliable sources, I tried searching on Google books, and it does seem that "anagenic" is roughly about as likely to be used alongside "anagen phase" as it as "anagenesis". I now agree that there isn't a conclusive primary topic. – 2183:

were both princes) but the same is not true of Queen, there are many Queens who were not the Sovereign. There is no such thing as an "inferior" Queen, there are just Queens. A few are also Sovereign, but the fact that Mary of Teck was not is irrelevant to her royal title. There's no confusion here

1958:

Confusion is unlikely, perhaps not "highly" because, while you are correct in that Charles III is erroneously called "King of Great Britain" or "King of England", those are titles that were used by his predecessors. His predecessors were not called "Kings of the United Kingdom", because that title

1870:

Yes, Charles can be confused with his predecessors - that's the point. However, as the current king is very clearly the primary topic for the ambiguous terms they should lead to his articles. None of the queens are primary, it is equally likely that someone will be looking for the queen regnant or

1339:

Do sources describe Mary as Queen of the United Kingdom/Great Britain? Yes, they do. Have there been any other queens of the United Kingdom (regnant or consort) named Mary? No. Are there any sources that suggest she and thousands of other queens consort were not really queens? No, none exists. The

1760:

anywhere in a prose alone, because there's nothing in that name that suggests to me that the woman is a queen consort. The whole "Queen of " is a format entirely made up by Knowledge for consorts. Also, I doubt anyone would support throwing the word "consort" as a qualifier into Mathilde's name

1284:

At the time of her funeral, Henry was the long ruling and uncontested King. Contrary to the king’s instructions, Catherine styled herself as Queen, as did her supporters, and funeral and burial of her as Queen, not Dowager Princess of Wales, was a political statement, during the lifetime of the

2378:

The mere fact that it was used on her mother's article without any objection shows that it is not a useless redirect. Thanks for bringing that up. And I also agree that both this redirect and "Queen Mary of the United Kingdom" should point to the same page and, if people are afraid of potential

1736:

It doesn't seem likely to me that someone would use this as a standalone link in an article where the context doesn't make clear which "Mary" is the "Queen of the United Kingdom" (such as by naming the relevant King or establishing the year/century). Even if it were used without any additional

1641:

If people may get confused between the UK and Great Britain, then based on that logic they can confuse the UK with England as well, which means that Charles can also be confused with his predecessors. In any case, it's not an issue that a hatnote cannot solve. And I'm not vehemently opposed to

3883: 2553: 2107:

A lot of editors who have responded to this evidently think confusion is plausible, in which case the hatnote provides helpful clarification. Unless you persuade them otherwise, the hatnote should remain so long as the redirect exists. To be clear, I'm fine with removing the hatnote

1237:“Should not” is irrelevant compared to “is”. I am thinking only of written references to last queens, not current usage anywhere. When referring to an historical queen, only queens regnant are introduced simply as queen. Queens consort are introduced with reference to their king. 2412:

would be misleading – the Queen Mary in question was not Queen of England, despite how some people refer to the Queen of the United Kingdom. Redirecting to the broadest target removes all arguments over that sort of thing, and all the Queen Marys from British history can be listed.

1928:. The combination you suggested isn't covered, but the guidelines aren't exhaustive; if you say there's a precedent, I believe you. My disagreement was based on retargetting to the disambiguation page in its current state, since neither you nor anyone else suggested modifying it. 414:

a name used to refer to the act, even if it's incorrect, and the article explains the use of the incorrect name as criticism. Moving redirects is generally pointless, and I'm not convinced that adding the year confers legitimacy, and even if it did, refer back to RNEUTRAL.

2184:

that can't be handled with hatnotes, but we will certainly introduce confusion by redirecting this to a disambiguation page for Queens of a predecessor realm. I don't understand the accusation that the redirect was created in bad faith and it also doesn't matter at all.

1626:

That redirect exists because Charles III is unquestionably the primary topic for that search term and so it's irrelevant here. My point is that the assertion that nobody will confuse a queen of the United Kingdom with a queen of Great Britain is demonstrably false.

1280:

Catherine if Aragon is an unusual case. In her lifetime, her status as legal wife of Henry was in dispute, by herself, her followers, and during the rule of her daughter, Queen Mary, Catherine’s status as legal wife connected to recognition of Mary’s claim to

2266:) I don't see any reason why moving the position of the word "Queen" would make this any less plausible. Contrary to the claims that no-one would ever use such a redirect, the stats for that redirect indicate that has been used fairly regularly. If people use 812:

In response to one of the comments above, the string is fine and it is not a poor way to refer to the article because in no way it implies that she was a queen regnant which is what the core of the nominator's issue with this redirect is. Not to mention that

1252: 1578:

Why do you think confusion is "highly unlikely" given that there is widespread confusion between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom for present-day, e.g. there are many sources describing Charles III has "King of Great Britain", including the

968:

to Mary I or Mary II, which are similarly common I'd imagine. A hatnote on Mary of Teck would be rarely-used (like this redirect: rarely-used but still helpful enough). Therefore I'll weakly opt for the cowardly dab target over the correct target.

3268:. Could disambiguation be a viable option? While this could refer to many things, Knowledge only needs to aid navigation to content that already exists rather than content that could hypothetically exist but doesn't. A comparable example would be 2727:. My search results are an almost 50:50 split down to the middle of page 2 when a company and a band start getting a few results, but of the two topics we have articles for the split remains pretty much even at least until the end of page 4. 1893:

I think a hatnote is a more appropriate way to disambiguate here, since that would allow some clarification to provided to the reader (rather than dropping them onto a disambiguation page with an already bloated "see also" section). –

939:

to the disambiguation page. This is cheap, but it is also ambiguous as to whether someone is searching for a queen consort not commonly known by this name or a much more widely known queen regnant but are mistaken about her domain.

1682:

More hatnotes to paper of the the problems of not-helpful unwanted redirects, is a worse option to “delete”. Not every technically correct term should be created as a redirect. If there was no good reason to create it, delete it.

600:

Retargeting to a dab page, or other pages, only makes matters worse. More hatnotes makes more clutter on in the prime real estate of articles. Anyone entering the exact text into the search box is perfectly well served by the

1889:

readers searching "of the United Kingdom" to get redirected to a page titled "of England"? Even a reader mistaken about the domain of the Mary they're looking for is likely to know that "United Kingdom" and "England" are not

605:. No one should be linking this string, because it is a poor way to refer to the article, and should not be encouraged as a recommended option, which is what I guess is the only reasonable motivation to create the redirect. 770:, to search for those queens? Maybe yes, maybe not. Yet no one can say they are not useful. As long as the redirect is accurate and helpful there's no reason that it should not remain. And given the fact that a source like 1931:

I can accept retargeting as a second preference, if this title is explicitly added to the first sentence and the link is raised out of "see also", assuming this does not contradict guidelines about disambiguation pages. –

986:. Per Keivan.f and Presidentman. Minor errors and misconceptions like this should be corrected not humoured as equally valid targets. "...of England" is unambiguously wrong, and retargets misleading. An extra hatnote with 722:, etc. all of whom were queens consort. And the accusation that the redirect was "created only to make a point" is baseless and untrue. This is a name that has been used in different forms by other sources, including the 1288:

Your redirect fails to note either “consort” or that her position derived from George V. Why did you create this redirect? It seems part of a current campaign to deny that the current queen is style with “consort”.

1715:

I know that. The point is context. It is not normal to refer to a Queen consort as an unqualified queen unless it is already in the context of the king, unless the king is already introduced or will be in the same

1740:

If this is retargetted rather than kept, then any unintentional use of the link would be discouraged. The link would be likely to get replaced by a more specific one which would resolve any potential confusion. –

1755:

Context is important within an article, but it's not as if someone is going to see "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" and say, oh she must have been a queen regnant then. Based on that logic we should not use

1978:, because Mary I never would have been called Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom during her reign or has she been called by such a name since. Mary of Teck was the only Mary to be Queen of the United Kingdom. 3013: 1411:

Common English is lacking. Queen can mean two different things, Queen Regnant, and Queen Consort. The two are different, with the very clear hard line distinction, despite the usage of “Queen” for both.

1774:

The "(title) name of place"/"name(, title) of place" format isn't made up by Knowledge, and isn't used exclusively for consorts. The name-title-place format is used for royalty and nobility in general.

1456:

rightly redirects to Charles III because there have been no other kings of the United Kingdom named Charles. The issue of confusion with other queens regnant or consort can be addressed with a hatnote.

1885:

Redirects to disambiguation pages are usually minor spelling variants, plurals/singulars, or differences in case, not completely different titles that might share the same target. Wouldn't it likely

3246:

additives in Sweden, what not to put in a dishwasher, a random woman's family trip to Disneyland, Starbucks employees and gambling adverts in Australia - and that's before we even get to page 3.

2224:

I agree the redirect is technically unambiguous, if you assume all readers are fluent with the technicalities of the changing names of England, Britain, UK, etc. That’s not a good assumption.

2068:

note if others would prefer something more concise. If this redirect gets retargeted, the hatnote can obviously be amended appropriately. (Or, of-course, removed if the redirect is deleted.) –

3898:. Maynilad more commonly refers to the water concessionaire in most contexts now, and very rare for anyone to think of Maynilad as the old spelling of "Maynila" (the Tagalog name of Manila). 1556:. Mary was the only Queen of the United Kingdom by her name. Confusion with Mary I or II of England is highly unlikely. While the format "Name, Queen of X" may indicate a Queen regnant under 1452:

I never said that. I said the correct target for the redirect would be Mary of Teck, because she has been the only queen (regnant or consort) to ever be Queen of the United Kingdom. Just as

1697:

This isn't just a hypothetical "technically correct" description, it's one that has been used outside Knowledge, examples of which can be found by searching the phrase on Google Books. eg.

1267:), but I doubt any reader would find it confusing after reading the first few words of the article. So no, in a real word setting no one would assume that "Queen of " is a queen regnant. 551: 3433:

I didn't mean to be pedantic; I only meant that readers searching might be looking for something else. (So I was agreeing with you that the search engine would be more helpful.) –

1394:

and my brain made a connection between that statement and this one. Thus, I thought by unqualified he meant unreal. In any case my response stands. Consort and regnant are simply

646:, defining a queen's rank. And "Queen of the United Kingdom", "Queen of England", "Queen of France", etc. do not imply that the given queen is necessarily queen regnant. We have 557: 3548: 1197:"mary of teck was queen of the united kingdom" is only correct if George V is mentioned in the same sentence. Standing alone, it is incorrect because it implies Queen regnant. 39: 34: 2133:

Without the redirect, readers using the so called search box won’t be offered this title, and if the actually manually enter it in full they will get detailed search results.

1184:

Title of Place" is an entirely common and valid format on Knowledge. Not to mention multiple sources that describe Mary of Teck as Queen of the United Kingdom/Great Britain.

2436:- Not a name that anyone is ever going to use. The idea that someone will type "Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom" and expect to find Mary of Teck is completely ridiculous. 1223:– this might well be much more obvious to people living in a monarchy (assuming you are from the U.S.), who are the significant proportion of readers searching this phrase. 585:. An unqualified “Queen”, devoid of reference to her King, implies a Queen Regnant. Redirect was created only to make a point, not for any utility, and this is not ok. 1813: 1463:

of is a format we commonly use here. I listed dozens of articles and redirects with the exact same format. And unlike what you were trying to suggest it is not part of

1314:. Never in my life I have seen a queen consort being described as an "unqualified" queen. This is something that you have entirely come up with. And your allegations of 826:

And an article title or redirect is always used in a text with the necessary context provided so the chances of anyone mistaking these women for queens regnant is slim.

4062: 4106:

when it was split without discussion. And the split was executed so badly that neither article mentioned the other. May I suggest that this discussion be continued at

780:

there might be people who could search for May, Queen of Great Britain/the United Kingdom/the UK and that is what a redirect is for; to assist with finding a target.

4141:

For further participation. Post the last comment, No such user merged back content on the House of Bourbon–Anjou, and the nom removed it as unsourced and unverified.

4068: 2250:

before the redirect was created (as a piped link). No doubt Mary of Teck's title as Queen of the United Kingdom was used to distinguish her from her mother; using

130: 2741:

Is that on normal search results? If so, shouldn't we favour usage in more reliable academic sources particularly given that these are both scientific topics? –

2998: 154: 136: 3338:

could easily be replaced with a direct link. I actually tried to get it nominated on AFD because I did not know RFD existed, and ips can't nominate on AFD.

719: 711: 1462:

Because she has been described as Queen of the United Kingdom in various different sources, and anyone familiar with Knowledge knows that <comma: -->

1488:, are likely to confuse, are confusing, are are weird, and are more suitable for a trivia question than a redirect inviting other users to make use of. 3320:

Not a golf-related phrase at all, any more than any other sport or activity. Seems to me more a dictionary term than anything we need a redirect for.

1761:

because she's simply Queen of the Belgians or "The Queen" just like Mary was simply "The Queen" with no adjuncts or qualifiers attached to her title.

1481: 2255: 1909:

disambiguated, this means that the problem you allege is unavoidable with a redirect to a disambiguation page is neither a problem nor unavoidable.

642:

or dowager are "unqualified" queens as the nominator is implying here. The only difference is in their rank. Regnant, consort, dowager, regent are

2579: 153:

Appears to be a joke redirect of a non-existent name; the actual name is an acronym so the "YOU" in this redirect title is pointless and made-up.

2942: 1584: 1180: 707: 545: 323:

because of the 2003 afterwards per MClay1. Using the joke along with the year attempts to pass this off as a genuine act name. We already have

21: 3360: 3339: 3280:, which cover a range of topics including some more common senses. To be clear, the question isn't rhetoical; I've not really decided yet. – 1580: 1387: 715: 703: 695: 1219:. The more I think about this the more surprised I am that you would think not that it is slightly misleading (which it is), but that it is 3623: 2130:

Confusion is likely if they arrive at the page via a redirect, especially via it having been offered to them from the so called search box.

671: 2948: 3004:

seems to support that, but it cites off-web sources so I can't verify the claim (and its reliability is highly dubious, in any case, per

3102: 2803: 2707: 2675: 2243: 1798:

One of the points of logic is that long dead queen consorts are referred to differently to when they were living, or recently deceased.

1776: 1602: 1453: 1175:, and as an encyclopedia we should not spread incorrect information by retargeting this redirect IMO. It's like changing the target for 1077: 675: 1818:

One of the points of logic is that long dead queen consorts are referred to differently to when they were living, or recently deceased.

4207: 3730: 3629: 3202: 1365:

You've misunderstood. "Unqualified" means without an adjective or additional description (a qualifier) like "consort" or "regnant". –

923: 699: 687: 667: 17: 2167:

own death. Queen consort/dowager/mother are not formal titles, they're titles of courtesy or respect, with the possible exception of

624:. Not an entry to Mary of Teck any normal person would ever use. Whether the redirect was created to make a point I leave to others. 2279: 2271: 2093:

A featured article with almost 4000 views per day has an unnecessary hatnote, due to the existence of this redirect that helps who?

1485: 855: 679: 663: 449: 3912: 3423: 3390: 3208: 2603: 2316: 2283: 2267: 2263: 2214: 2190: 2180: 2168: 1821: 1304:

I think she as a princess and then as a queen had a better idea than either you or me of how a queen consort should be described.

683: 421: 4056: 2136:

Using hatnotes to rescue confused readers helps them, but muddies that page header for the vast majority of readers of the page.

727: 2380: 1467:

to alter Camilla's title or anything like that. I really doubt a redirect on Knowledge would influence the palace's decisions.

659: 221: 181: 3871: 2541: 1506:. That pattern should not necessarily be followed for redirects and in fact it has not been followed. As an example, we have 1143: 3012:

also makes reference to the phrase, in connection to "to the stories of the memorable battles led by the prophet ", as does

3016:, in connection to "conquering and marauding campaigns". I hope this makes the existence of the redirect somewhat clearer. 873:. Unlikely search term. If kept, redirect to Queen Mary as an incomplete disambiguation from other Queen Marys of England. 2653:

goes)? That section would probably be a better place for the hatnote I suggested rather than at the top of the article. –

861: 124: 1924:

mitigate any surprise. All the disambiguation page I've seen had a narrower range of variation, of the kind described at

3877: 2547: 1561: 1450:

You seem to be arguing that no one could be confused because everyone knows the UK has had no Queens Regnant named Mary?

1414:

You seem to be arguing that no one could be confused because everyone knows the UK has had no Queens Regnant named Mary?

1341: 2576: 1655:

Regarding the hatnote, which would you prefer of the ones I suggested above (right under my "keep" recommendation)? –

1511: 1176: 691: 1613:. And I don't believe we need to change that because some website mistakenly describes him as king of Great Britain. 1820:

In cases when an article title needs to be chosen, yes, that is a "consideration", but there are exceptions such as

964:). I'd normally advocate for a straight keep in such an instance, but I'm concerned about reading navigability from 4231: 4215: 4183: 4166: 4155: 4130: 4119: 4094: 4035: 3957: 3937: 3919: 3844: 3769: 3755: 3738: 3721: 3683: 3660: 3598: 3508: 3494: 3471: 3442: 3428: 3412: 3395: 3368: 3347: 3329: 3310: 3289: 3261: 3255: 3236: 3177: 3106: 3084: 3073: 3053: 3044: 3025: 2978: 2915: 2844: 2826: 2807: 2780: 2765: 2750: 2736: 2715: 2701: 2683: 2662: 2632: 2582: 2516: 2445: 2422: 2395: 2373: 2332: 2295: 2233: 2219: 2195: 2148: 2125: 2102: 2077: 2035: 2002: 1987: 1941: 1918: 1903: 1880: 1851: 1836: 1807: 1790: 1769: 1750: 1731: 1710: 1692: 1677: 1664: 1650: 1636: 1621: 1596: 1573: 1522: 1497: 1475: 1429: 1406: 1374: 1353: 1345:

many countries queens and empresses have been mostly wives of monarchs, and it's the queens regnant that are rare.

1298: 1275: 1246: 1232: 1206: 1192: 1161: 1147: 1123: 1102: 1085: 1062: 1009: 978: 949: 931: 903: 882: 865: 834: 805: 788: 772: 757: 742: 633: 614: 594: 524: 453: 426: 398: 375: 353: 342: 315: 296: 279: 258: 238: 227: 196: 184:

lobbying and was carefully crafted to not do what the title promised. That, alas, is very common in US legislation.

161: 103: 1971: 4248: 4107: 4004: 3974: 3933: 3816: 3786: 3574: 3525: 3364: 3343: 3153: 3123: 2891: 2861: 2492: 2462: 1757: 1326:. She is the exception here, not Mary who like all the other queens consort was simply called "The Queen" (check 500: 470: 79: 1000:) pointing to the disambiguation page is sufficient to help someone misinformed and looking for someone else. – 3265: 3040: 3021: 2756:

a topic on Google Scholar aren't looking for the same results as people searching the same topic on Knowledge.

1825: 1824:

who has been dead for 21 years. Also, that is not ground for deleting redirects. For example, should we delete

1812:

The Earl of Shrewsbury's article has the format " , of ". In that sense it would be similar to something like

1439: 878: 3001: 3098: 2799: 4031: 3895: 3830: 3734: 3465: 3269: 2711: 2679: 1963: 1167: 1081: 753: 629: 4203: 4115: 2930: 2573: 2205: 2176: 2087: 1507: 1340:

fact that they hold the title by virtue of marriage does not make their position unreal. It's like saying

1319: 1048: 919: 818: 767: 763: 731: 723: 655: 651: 4244: 4000: 3970: 3812: 3782: 3570: 3521: 3149: 3119: 3094: 2887: 2857: 2795: 2488: 2458: 1606: 849: 822: 578: 496: 466: 443: 311: 75: 3196: 2936: 2208:

who hasn't yet been given the title). Three of those were also the Sovereign. Only one was named Mary.

3694:

and is also an ambiguous title, because there are a number of other songs with the same title. We can

3479:. Strictly ambiguous to the negative infinity. (Somewhat of a golf pun ... did I make a hole in one?) 1871:

the queen consort, neither of whom are commonly known by this name, so should lead to disambiguation.

1842:(a fact that happens to be true), as that makes it more plausible that someone would search for it. – 748:

Queen of the United Kingdom"? I don't think anyone, and we don't create redirects just to create one.

187:

NB: I'm not claiming that other countries are better, just that I lack the data to do a comparison. --

4050: 3929: 3906: 3710: 2384: 2062: 1925: 1610: 1398:

defining the word "Queen". It's not as if one rank is the real deal and the other one doesn't count.

1260: 1119: 990: 647: 118: 55:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2023.

3679: 3656: 3617: 3490: 3403:

doesn't mention the word "strict" either, and "strict rules" doesn't necessarily imply pedantry. –

3251: 3036: 3017: 2761: 2732: 2339: 2229: 2201: 2144: 2098: 1983: 1914: 1876: 1803: 1727: 1688: 1632: 1592: 1569: 1502:

Those examples you are referring to are of articles titles, which to some extent have to adhere to

1493: 1425: 1294: 1264: 1256: 1242: 1202: 945: 874: 610: 590: 394: 215: 3185: 1327: 4027: 3691: 3611: 3458: 1886: 1503: 1139: 1073: 749: 625: 407: 1032:). I'm not sure whether the wording given by "distinguish" or "redirect" would be more helpful. 4225: 4200: 4177: 4111: 3298: 2974: 2613: 2052: 1975: 1018: 916: 582: 369: 4243: