User:Afil raised a question in private that should be addressed in public.
What do we call popes? At the moment, we have entries under their family name, and entries under their adopted name.
For women, there is a clear rule: Use the maiden name. This makes genealogical sense as it connects families. It can be confusing, because many women are much better known by their husband's name.
For noble men, the rules are not clear, but we typically use the highest title achieved. Igor of Kiev was born as Igor of Novgorod.
Others may disagree. rtol 05:33, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
There are several issues to discuss.
1. I would agree with the proposal of User:Rtol to use the family name if it is known and use a redirect. Thus, even if our article has the title Bruno von Worms (972-999), persons searching for information and looking for Gregory V would still find it. In many cases, especially for early popes, such as the case of Pope Zephyrinus the first name might not be known. In such cases we should use the papal name. 2. Even if it is only a redirect, do we use the word Pope in the title of the article or not. For instance, Gregory V , even as redirect does not include the name pope, Pope Zephyrinus does. For Kings or Dukes we do not use the title. For Popes, wikipedia does use the title, and the article for Gregory V will be found in under Pope Gregory V.
3. I would suggest that we do not use the word Pope in the title and use only the name of the pope. However, if the person has been canonized, the name Saint should precede the name. Thus the title of the article Pope Zephyrinus should be Saint Zephyrinus
5. In the case of popes the redirects should also be included in the List of Popes. The same should be done for all cases in which lists are presented.
6. The same rule should be used for other prelates. In the case of orthodox prelates the articles should use as title the family name if it is known (with redirect from the religious name) or only the religious name (followed by the religous title) if the family name is not known - of course followed by the years. For instance Philip I, Metropolitan of Moscow (?-1473). Afil 20:11, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
1, 2, 4, 5: Agreed
3. I disagree. Zephyrinus is a saint according to Roman Catholics only. While Zephyrinus is uncontroversial (as far as I know), many religious figures are not -- just think about Sunni and Shia. The last thing we want is to become a religious battleground.
6. By the same logic of omitting "pope" and "king" and "engineer", "metropolitan" should be omitted too. rtol 21:19, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
3. While I consider your comment tendencious (Sunnis and Shias do not have saints and do even not have a hierarchy which has the right to canonize, which is the equivalent of giving titles of nobility, thus the equivalence of Christian Saints and Sunni religious figures is, to say the least objectionable; besides, whether you are pro- or antimonarchic, the king of Sweden is King not only for the Swedes - well maybe there was a time when King Louis XVI was Louis Capet) and even slightly incorrect (Zephirinus should theoretically be equally saint to Orthodox and other Christian denominations, as he was canonized probably sometimes in the third century), I understand your views and am willing to accept your proposal. Just to avoid the religious battleground.
6 In the logic of all the points on which we seem to have agreed upon, if we know the civilian name we should use it. In the case of the example - I agree that I chose it in purpose, just because it raised questions - I was not able to find the civilian name of the prelate, and probably nobody really knows it. So we have to use his religious name Philip, just as in the previous case we have used Zephyrinus. I do not like the ideea of calling him Philip I of Moscow, because it would create the impression that we are talking about a Grand Duke of Moscow. I also dislike the idea of simply calling him Philip I, because somebody who finds this title would hardly know who we are talking about and besides there might be many other Philip I.
Afil 05:51, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
All agreed. rtol 19:41, May 27, 2011 (UTC)