Revision 37355 of "Etruscan" on enwiki

Well hello there, [[welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to the 'pedia! I've seen you in Recent Changes making some positive improvements to several different articles. I would have greeted you earlier, but I generally wait for a new user to create their user page first. Good work - I hope you like the place and decide to stay! [[user:maveric149|maveric149]] 

Welcome to the project, hope you like it here! --[[user:Uriyan|Uriyan]]

Hey Danny. I just fixed a link to your user namespace on my Talk page (from <nowiki>[[Danny]]</nowiki> to <nowiki>[[User:Danny]]</nowiki>). A cool and easy way to sign messages while you are looged in, is to type tree tildes in a row. The wiki software will then automatically create a link to your user namespace ''after'' you save the page (it currently does not show up in the preview mode though). Hope this helps. Cheers! [[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
---- 
Hi! I thought I'd use this page to raise a topic that has been bothering me. I have been planning to write a few articles about historical figures, but seem to be getting more and more confused as to proper titles and spellings. I realize that the people writing here represent many different countries, cultures, and languages, and that it is therefore inevitable that there will be discretions in naming conventions. I propose that we find some standardized source and stick to it, rather than have everyone using the names and spelling with which they are most comfortable. For example, suppose I choose to write about one of the French royals, say Henry IV. Someone with a French background might be tempted to use Henri, which is more correct, though less commonly used in English. Now, this is easily resolved in more "popular" historical figures, but what about figures or places that are less well-known. I recently saw Malopolska changed to Little Poland, while I was tempted to change it to Lesser Poland. Staying in Poland, Kazimierz the Great or Casimir the Great? How about Mao Tse-tung or Mao Zhedong? Good arguments can be made for all of these options, and this is only the tip of the iceberg. 

While I have my own preferences, I believe that they are less important than overall uniformity. There are ways to resolve the problem--it is done all the time in popular reference books. My question is, can it be done here too? Should it be done here? Who will determine what is the Wikipedia policy?

I am sure these questions have been dealt with before, but I do not know where. Has anything absolute been decided? Should it be decided? [[user:Danny|Danny]] 

:Hi Danny -- now is a good time to ask...there have been lots of discussions on various talk pages and elsewhere.  There is some discussion in 'History special topics' and I think in history of poland talk.  Also in lots of other places where we try for damage control.  Right now, there are a few of us who seem more interested than others in standardization -- Michael Tinkler, David Parker, Maveric149, Vicki Rosenzweig, and myself among them.  The way it's been working is that someone sees an incredibly badly named article, is horrified, and asks for better suggestions.  Then we dink around until we reach a consensus, usually by trusting that the people who claim expertise are not lying! Since there are a few medievalists (or mediaevalists) and classicists around, we've been doing pretty well up through early modern. Any contributions you have would be welcome, and no one is shy about disagreeing!  I suppose it's too much to ask if you are a specialist in non-ancient, medieval, or early modern history???  

At present, we're trying to use 'most common english version of name', 'ordinal', 'title of place (where not a king or queen)' or 'of place', or Holy Roman Emperor (and I suppose we should also use Tsar/Czar of Russia), for nobility.  After that, it's the name most English speakers would recognize.  In the case of Chairman Mao, i would go for Zedong, since it's been that way in newspapers and books for about 20 years now, with the older spelling in the first line of the article.  Hope this helps!  [[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]
---- 
Belated greetings, Danny - I didn't realise you were new! And sorry I'd previously missed your query above: many thanks for asking first rather than just wading in regardless. As JHK says above, those of us working on these areas of the 'pedia have been trying to come up with a standard form, and your input is most welcome. 

The basic form we have so far for kings is, as JHK wrote, "Henry IV of France" - English form of name, ordinal, and "of [country]": where they're <i>below</i> a king, we have the form "George William, Duke of Prussia" - name, ordinal (if any), <i>rank</i> and "of ...". 

Where there's an ordinal (I, II, etc.) we avoid attachments like "the Brave", because they're unnecessary and can be translated in different ways from the native original. Secondary names appearing after the ordinal (e.g. the redundant "William" in Frederick I William) should be omitted (so as to avoid confusion with Frederick William I; the former is first in a sequence of Fredericks, the latter in a sequence of Frederick Williams).  

The use of the English name is standard practice in encyclopedias and English-language historical works, where it reflects the crucial fact that rulers could move around and rule polyglot assemblages of peoples, or different lands in succession (Emperor Karl V =  Carlos I to Spaniards, where he was simultaneously king - so we call him Charles). 

Where a ruler held titles of differing rank, as in the cited example, it's the senior dignity that should be used for the article title, in the following order of precedence: 
:emperor 
:king 
:grand duke or archduke 
:duke 
:marquis (marquess in England - I used to think it was a female marquis!) 
:count (earl in England; margrave, landgrave or burgrave occupy a similar position in Germany) 
:viscount 
:baron 

Charles I of Spain is thus entered as "Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor", because although the crown of Spain was independent of the Emperor, an emperor outranks a king (and the medieval "kings of the Germans", "kings of the Romans" or "kings of the Lombards" were indeed vassals of the Emperor when there was one, being usually his elected successor-in-waiting). These aren't just polite distinctions, and I suspect there's a large element of specifically titular aspiration in duke William's pursuit (1066) of the kingship of England. 

The Hohenzollern margraves of Brandenburg are similarly styled "[forename] [ordinal] of Prussia" in 1701-1871 (and "[forename] [ordinal], Duke of Prussia" in 1618-1701 - I'll come to that in a moment): though the margravate of Brandenburg was their physical power base, their rule after 1618 over the smaller, sparsely-populated, less developed and highly peripheral duchy of Prussia (the area later known as East Prussia) carried the higher rank (duke from 1525 to 1701, and king thereafter), so it's the Prussian title by which they're styled.  

While we omit "King" from royal titles, we use "Duke of ...", "Count of ...", etc. for lesser ones, the title used in the article heading in each case being the highest that individual attained. An area might have a count Charles I, a later duke Charles I and after a further interval a king Charles I, so we have to distinguish between them. Plain "Charles I of ..." means he was king of the named country. 

<b>Prince</b> is a vague dignity which can denote anything from a duke to a count, especially in Germany where it is often associated with the dignity of <b>Elector</b> (<i>Kurfurst</i>) of the Holy Roman Empire (again, including archbishops, dukes and margraves and later one king, though his royal title was strictly held outside the Empire). Both forms should be avoided in article titles where a more specific rank is available. I have, however, so far retained "prince" for the rulers of the early Russian states out of concern as to the accuracy of "grand duke" in all cases (help, anyone?). 

[[<i>I think the above is agreed or at least tolerated among those of us who've been trying to work out a standard: what follows is pretty much my own take on additional issues, and I'd welcome contributions from all concerned.</i>] 

<b>Tsar</b> is something of a peculiarity (and I'd definitely avoid "<i>Czar</i>"  unless you're writing in Polish): though we use it for Russia as tantamount to emperor, Peter I adopted the latter title in 1721, implying an upgrade from a lowlier tsardom. The twentieth-century tsars of Bulgaria were only accorded the rank of kings by their fellow European monarchs, though their medieval predecessors are often spoken of as emperors. While I think either tsar or (from 1721) emperor is perfectly correct in the text of articles on 1546-1917 Russia, I'd leave it out of the title and just have "Peter I of Russia", and adopt the same form for both medieval and modern Bulgaria (and Serbia's two 14th-century tsars). 

Where a ruler held different lands each according him the same dignity, one (or an alternative formulation - below) should be selected for the article title (with redirects as appropriate for the other titles). I'd go for the more substantial territory (e.g. the Hohenzollern dukes of Prussia are remembered as such although they'd become dukes of Cleve four years earlier - though in this instance Prussia is also distinguished by its sovereignty from 1660) unless it was held for a far shorter time (e.g. Sweyn I of Denmark, who was king of the larger England for only a few weeks before his death). 

Sometimes, though, it's a close call, and the issue is complicated by differences in numeration: Canute/Cnut or Canute/Cnut I of England is sometimes styled Knud II of Denmark, and the difference in weight between the two kingdoms isn't in my view sufficiently overwhelming to choose either to the exclusion of the other: in this instance I've gone for "Canute the Great", reflecting his rule of England, Denmark and (for a time) Norway. I've similarly preferred the form "Harthacanute" (the most familiar one in England, sometimes as Hardicanute, but also valid in Denmark as <i>Hardeknud</i>) for his son (sometimes Canute/Cnut II or Knud III). Where forename, ordinal and territory are straightforward, though, they should be used alone. 

A king who was the only one of that name to rule the country doesn't take the number I, but should ideally have some form of additional name to distinguish them from all the country's other inhabitants of the same name: where one can't be found, I think we might need "..., King of ..." in the title after all. 

Now to put all that in an article - JHK and MT, if it's about article styles should it go as a subpage under "Wikipedia/" or "David Parker/"? 

[[David Parker]] 

:Hi David -- I think it should go under both history special topics (nomenclature) AND the page Michael had started on titles or honorifics or whatever.  I like the Tsar bit -- agree fully.  This is great -- we'll be able to just throw in the appropriate link in Talk to the recalcitrant HJ!  Thanks, David for the very nice product of what looks to have been hard work! [[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

::[[Royal and noble styles]].  Chat away there for standards.  Type in good examples of contradictions! [[user:MichaelTinkler|MichaelTinkler]]

Thanks for the direction. Avoiding, for a while at least, the use of titles, I want to get back to spelling of names and ordinals for a minute. The truth is, I agree with the examples you chose, though I am not sure that will always be the case. Here are some questions:
* Wilhelm II of Germany or William II
* Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary or Francis Joseph
* Peter the Great or Piotr the Great
* (If Peter--my preference--then what about ...) Pedro I of Brazil or Peter I (of the House of Braganza--or is it Braganca with a cedilla? I think Portuguese names are going to be as hard to call as Polish ones)
* Juan Carlos of Spain or John Charles

As for ordinal numbers, is it James I of Great Britain or James VI of Scotland or two separate entries? My gut tells me to be Anglocentric here, but is that correct? And it is very uncommon to find James II of Great Britain referred to as James VII (though that does exist too).

I think that the answers should be based on some modicum of common sense, keeping in mind the general readership, not the specialists. In other words, keep Hirohito, though Showa is the more proper term for him after his death. 

The problem is that while these questions are more easily answerable, there are also those obscure little figures out there, who vastly outnumber the better known ones. 
* Dubh of Scotland or Duff
* Dietrich of the Northern March or Theodoric
etc. etc. 

That is why I think we should rely, insofar as possibe, on some external source, such as the Webster's Biographical (and Geographical) Dictionary. Having some authoritative problem-solver would eliminate much of the contention that such issues are bound to raise, resolve problems of spellings, and place historical information within the proper context. I wonder what other people think. [[user:Danny|Danny]]

:I think I've been going by my gut feeling -- but that's based on some fairly comprehensive experience.  When I've wondered about usage, I've generally pulled a textbook off the shelf next to my desk!  Here's my gut feeling on some of your folks -- Wilhelm, Franz Joseph, Peter (I've taken Russian History at uni and in grad school -- he's never been called Piotr that I can recall, except in very scholarly works), Braganza, Juan Carlos, and Theoderic -- and I am pretty sure that he was Theoderic and that Dietrich is a later convention.  By the way, it's not that I'm against external sources, but one of my pet peeves around here is that the trained historians don't actually get much credit in certain quarters for knowing their stuff.  If it's something I know because I've taught it or studied it, I think that should count -- especially because I (or any other of the professionals on the site) might actually have more recent (or more generally accepted among the scholarly community) information. End rant ;-)
[[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

::Actually, I agree with you on all of that, except Theodoric/Dietrich, and that is only because I don't really know enough to make a call on it. I would also say Pedro of Brazil. Peter the Great was brought in as a foil to Pedro, by the way. I would never think of calling him Piotr (though what do we do about Tchaikovsky ...). As for external sources, I just think it could help to resolve some of the debates that might arise. Then again, I think I learn a lot from the debates too. ;-)  [[user:Danny|Danny]]

:::I agree on Pedro. Tchikovsky, I've seen both, but the Piotr is becoming more used, IIRC.  I'm not a music historian, though.  I'll check the stuff on Dietrich, but I'm pretty sure that Theoderic was right.  Still, it's worth checking. [[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]] 
---- 
I'd go with the English name forms in all the above cases, though Emmanuel of Portugal does have a particulatly jarring sound (so did Humbert of Italy when I first encountered it). Practice is indeed complicated by our increased familiarity with local name forms through the growth of 19th- and 20th-century media coverage and the increasingly "national" character of surviving dynasties: John Charles of Spain sounds particularly horrible, but then why should be the sole exception? 

It's all illustrative of how this os still evolving, and I'm also having to think about things I'd never considered before - which I think makes it worthwhile. 

I'd definitely use James I with a redirect from James VI, since Scotland is included in the Great Britain title so it's definitely a "promotion": I don't think though that James VII is legally valid, as both former crowns were subsumed into the new one. 

The Japanese case is a very valid one, and I'd have chosen "Showa Emperor" (it's the reign, not the person, and I wasn't happy that someone stuck in a load of "Emperor such-and-such of Japan" entries) but at least it's an isolated case that doesn't undermine all the others. 

Tchaikovsky is no problem: the English forename rule only applies to title-holders (including saints too, their status being of a perhaps still more explicitly "transnational" character), so he's Piotr, just as we wouldn't say Leonard of Vinci (name, not title). 

The problem with external sources is that most of us won't have a copy of it unless it's on the web - and of course we'd be guaranteed to find some overriding reason for making just this <i>one</i> an exception ...! [[David Parker]]

:Sorry, but in certain cases I just can't agree. "John the Terrible" of Russia is more than just jarring. It's ridiculous. [[user:Danny|Danny]]

''Ugh -- definitely agree there!  David -- what names are most common in school/college textbooks in England?  I know that over here the name of the rule (Showa, etc.) has had only limited press.  If the average American  were to want to find out something on Hirohito, they'd look under that name.  Very early on in this discussion (I think before you joined us), or maybe on one of the more general 'pedia discussions, the consensus was "most common usage among English speakers" -- not necessarily the English version of the name.  It made sense to Anglicize most of the names of rulers (although I can see an argument for  '''Henri''' -- but not, as stated in the politically correct World Civ text I'm forced to use, '''Dom Henrique the  Navigator'''! yes, really), but not all.  After all, we still call Theodoric the Ostrogoth Theoderich (and not the accursed Dietrich!)...''[[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

---
Hi Danny!  Welcome to Helga's world! [[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

____
Hi Danny.  I've moved your new "Métis" page to [[Metis (people)]].  Unfortunately, the system will not find Métis if someone searches without knowing to put the accent.  Most anglophones don't even know how to make the character when they want to.  [[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 

:Thanks. What you suggest is a much better solution. I just wanted to distinguish between the people and the moon. [[user:Danny|Danny]]