This template is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles
Sorry for editing while logged out. Anyway, until Princess Isabella was named, the article about her was titled Princess NN of Denmark. While Prince Henrik was unnamed, the article about him was titled Prince NN of Denmark. This is how the template looked like while Prince Henrik was unnamed. The names cannot be released because the names have not been given yet. Besides, "HRH Prince (name not released yet)" looks and sounds awkward. Even "HRH a Prince" would be better. Surtsicna (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you win. But, I did not put "(name not released yet)," which does sound awkward! I had "(name not yet released)." At least you can try to get that right! My original contention was that there is no rule on Wikipedia for leaving a name blank with "NN". The only place that abbreviation is used is in a template which sets up articles for deletion. Check it out yourself at Template:Notability. Thank you for giving me your real name. I did have suspicions when I saw only an IP address. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My goal was not to win. This is not a game. We are just trying to figure out what's best for the articles/template. Anyway, God forbid that Surtsicna is my real name :D Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant your registered name. I realize that no one wishing to remain anonymous would use his real name here. :-) BTW, when you say you want consensus for any changes here, and you say "We are just trying to figure out what's best," who is WE? Just curious. Is it the "royal " WE? (Which means only one person, that is you?) That would make an interesting form of democracy. All others are shut out because WE are right. --Skol fir (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that you too wanted to improve the articles and the template so I said "we". I deeply apologize for mistaking you for a well-meaning editor. If that assumption insults you, I must say that I no longer consider you to be one! :) Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression was that you had already decided in advance that any objections to "NN" had no merit since the precedence of Henrik and Isabella basically ruled supreme. I don't see there having been any debate about the use of "NN" in those cases. It sounded to me as if you were using that as the only rationale for continuing its use, like a "fait accompli" (An accomplished and presumably irreversible deed or fact.) This was the reason why your statement gave the impression that "we" meant those who had decided previously that the convention would be "NN" for no name. I was not included in that discussion, remember? --Skol fir (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind my saying so, I think that "UNK" is a much better choice here for an unknown item, until it can be properly entered. "UNK" is universally accepted for only one meaning, that is "unknown," except for one other meaning, the airport code for Unalakleet, Alaska USA. I don't think that would be a problem here, to confuse a Prince and Princess with an airport!
I would suggest that "UNK" be put in place of "NN," which in contrast gives 44 results at Abbreviations.com. Just my humble opinion. ...or "name unk." which is very commonly used in English. You can consider it my last suggestion on this topic, unless you are interested in real consensus. --Skol fir (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Prince and Princess are not unknown. In fact, they are very well known considering that they are only two days old. Is there any other abbreviation that stands for "no name" besides the obvious NN? Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Unknown" refers to the name, not the person, although I could say that two twins, not yet 2 days old, would also be relatively unknown to Wikipedia readers. To answer your other question, yes. Another abbreviation would be "anon." which stands for "anonymous," defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "1. Having an unknown or unacknowledged name: e.g. an anonymous author
-From Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anonumos, nameless : an-, without; see a-1 + onuma, name (influenced by earlier nonumnos, nameless)." --Skol fir (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
