User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160124153152/@comment-5918438-20160124194334

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160124153152/@comment-5918438-20160124194334 Do remember that redirects exist. So if Elisabeth of Bavaria as a redirect to wherever her page goes helps people find a historical figure in the search, it should be a redirect. But it's not used at all in the DWU source, so it can't be her name at the top of the page per T:CHAR NAMES etc.

Why do you suggest that Elisabeth (Empress of Austria) would follow standard policy? We disambiguate by first story.

That said, I'm not entirely certain, that "Elisabeth of Austria" would be a wrong thing to do, because she is identified as Empress of Austria; am I correct? It would simply be following current convention to name a member of royalty "[Name] of [Place]". Or sometimes "[Name] [Roman numeral]".

...Woah, looking at the category, there are examples like "Anne (Queen of France/Great Britain)". I don't know what's up with that. Anne of France, if not Anne of France, is certainly Anne (The Church and the Crown). But then Anne (Queen of Great Britain) doesn't actually appear. So this is why I was suggesting they should all simply follow Anne of France, Anne of Great Britain, etc, and maybe have tags if necessary.

Then you run into another naming inconsistency: Richard III of England and Edward IV of England, yet just Charles I, Leo XIII, Louis XV, Elizabeth II.

(On the topic brought up last, I actually take your point. Perhaps should not be on those pages where the second name isn't actually a surname, and a note should be added, hidden in the source, in case someone decides to re-add the template.)