Talk:Victoria

Victoria
Rfd-redundant, sense: A monarch named Queen Victoria, especially Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom (reigned 1837-1901).

Although she was a remarkable personage of great importance to the history of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the world, all of that strikes me as encyclopedic rather than lexicographic information. In reality it's just a special case of the given name sense. This same formulation can be applied to any person referred to by their title who has ever been the subject of discussion in CFI-worthy publications. Aside from all the Kings, Queens, Tsars, Kaisers, Emperors, Dukes, Duchesses, Lords, Ladies, etc, what's to keep this being used for Popes, Presidents, Governors, Senators, Mayors, etc? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would keep it and improve it. Surely, there are very very many texts that use the term Victoria: to mean the British queen. Move to RfV and I'll add a few. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But all those texts are (also) just using the general sense, "(someone with) a female given name which is Latin for victory". Assuming you don't want to have a separate sense for every distinct Victoria who's been mentioned 3+ times in literature (or do you?), what objective line would you draw to keep [[Victoria]] and [[George]] from being Wikipedia disambiguation pages with 100+ senses? And should we have senses for every Uni that's ever been referred to as simply "Uni"? "I go back to Uni in a few weeks..." - -sche (discuss) 10:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd think it would have to be cited as just Victoria, not Queen Victoria, although the latter is more certainly an appropriate page title. Personally, I would want to see metaphorical use, such as:
 * "the powerful empress dowager Cixi, the Queen Victoria of nineteenth-century China"
 * except, again, without the royal title. I'm not saying it should be kept, but it's something that's potentially keepable, in my opinion. DAVilla 06:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 10:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can understand that lots of texts use Victoria specifically to mean Victoria of the United Kingdom, but what about other Victorias that are still used in enough texts to be citable per WT:CFI? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are the various places named after Victoria worthy of inclusion (including some which are quite obscure to English speakers), but not the monarch that they're named after? Furius (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are all of the places named after Victoria worthy of and entitled to inclusion? Not necessarily. Look at Paris, where Davilla reduced all of the minor towns to "Any place named after the French city." Look at West Point ("any of several towns..."), Abbeville ("any of several towns..."), Fulton ("any of several towns..."), etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, should we expand "Victoria" and "George" to say "a given name, or any of the people who have this name"? Yes, because when people say "George", they mean "person named George", not "a name", just like "shirt" doesn't mean "a word [for clothing]", it is a word; it means "clothing for the upper body". - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the place names should definitely be merged into "Any of several places...". Delete "Any monarch named Victoria", but I'll Abstain on separate definition for British Queen Victoria. She's the only notable monarch of that name and has no numeral. Also she's the origin of many of the place names. --Makaokalani (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 15:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)