![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to move. BD2412 T 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Álvaro de Figueroa, 1st Count of Romanones →
Count of Romanones – As one of the obvious exceptions under
WP:OBE, of application in equal terms to other European nobility (When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known
), to the point that he is even referred under the shortened "Romanones" nickname. The proposed title has been a redirect to the main article since 2007, so there's quite a lot of stability in the in-wiki use of the title as well.
Impru20
talk 16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting.
Jerm (
talk) 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk)
04:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known"being of application, it's this one. Otherwise, when should that exception be enforceable? Impru20 talk 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Treat other European nobility like British nobility above.
adapting to local circumstances. Some of that circumstances popping up from my mind are the use of Count rather than Earl, Marquis rather than Marquess, the availability of a (not necessarily obscure) second surname in some circumstances, the inconsistency in the use of the nobiliary titles, and in a pragmatic sense the absence of a continuity of the peerage line in most cases in Wikipedia to justify the numeral as a sort of disambiguator (a numeral that in some cases is either unnecessary, obscure or even disputed by sources—the titles of Wikipedia articles are not expected to serve any educational purpose whatsoever in any case—). Not to say that Romanones (a true kingpin of Restoration politics) is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (I'd venture to say that even vis-à-vis the municipality).--Asqueladd ( talk) 10:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC) PS: Regarding the notion of a correct "nobility project title" Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility states: "Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects." and this man is not precisely here because of a nobiliary title. Article titles of politicians from Spain have been terrorised for too long by blocked SPAs wanting to "educate" us about nobility "titles", "numerals", "obscure translations to English", "title pre-eminences" et. al. in the most rigid fashion imaginable all going against usage, concision and common sense.
"When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known"to begin with. And that's the case, both in English and Spanish language sources. WP:OBE also states that
the use of 1st, 2nd, 3rd... (...) is a matter of convenience"Which more conveniences for removing the cruftesque "1st" numeral do you want? The ordinal is not appropriate at all.
" there are literally hundreds of articles on British peers that should be moved"If British peerage articles do not even follow WP:OBE, because someone thought the nuances of policies and guidelines on titles need to be overruled because of a foolish notion of consistency, that's a problem for those articles. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Let's not transplant that here, slippery slope fallacy notwithstanding.
"Best to leave the status quo"A status quo reached through multiples moves and no rationale provided in any of them is worth nothing (the worth of a salted redirect).--Asqueladd ( talk) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known. This is indeed done on other articles such as Lord Byron, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Marquis de Morès or Cardinal Richelieu, among others. CONSISTENT is not in question here, and it'd be wrong for you to assume that it means some sort of prohibition to keep improving Wikipedia just because some other stuff may exist which somehow "hinders" it. Impru20 talk 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known", has. Sources have been provided showing that this guy is actually the overwhelmingly-best known holder of this title. Can you prove otherwise?
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to move. BD2412 T 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Álvaro de Figueroa, 1st Count of Romanones →
Count of Romanones – As one of the obvious exceptions under
WP:OBE, of application in equal terms to other European nobility (When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known
), to the point that he is even referred under the shortened "Romanones" nickname. The proposed title has been a redirect to the main article since 2007, so there's quite a lot of stability in the in-wiki use of the title as well.
Impru20
talk 16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting.
Jerm (
talk) 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk)
04:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known"being of application, it's this one. Otherwise, when should that exception be enforceable? Impru20 talk 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Treat other European nobility like British nobility above.
adapting to local circumstances. Some of that circumstances popping up from my mind are the use of Count rather than Earl, Marquis rather than Marquess, the availability of a (not necessarily obscure) second surname in some circumstances, the inconsistency in the use of the nobiliary titles, and in a pragmatic sense the absence of a continuity of the peerage line in most cases in Wikipedia to justify the numeral as a sort of disambiguator (a numeral that in some cases is either unnecessary, obscure or even disputed by sources—the titles of Wikipedia articles are not expected to serve any educational purpose whatsoever in any case—). Not to say that Romanones (a true kingpin of Restoration politics) is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (I'd venture to say that even vis-à-vis the municipality).--Asqueladd ( talk) 10:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC) PS: Regarding the notion of a correct "nobility project title" Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility states: "Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects." and this man is not precisely here because of a nobiliary title. Article titles of politicians from Spain have been terrorised for too long by blocked SPAs wanting to "educate" us about nobility "titles", "numerals", "obscure translations to English", "title pre-eminences" et. al. in the most rigid fashion imaginable all going against usage, concision and common sense.
"When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known"to begin with. And that's the case, both in English and Spanish language sources. WP:OBE also states that
the use of 1st, 2nd, 3rd... (...) is a matter of convenience"Which more conveniences for removing the cruftesque "1st" numeral do you want? The ordinal is not appropriate at all.
" there are literally hundreds of articles on British peers that should be moved"If British peerage articles do not even follow WP:OBE, because someone thought the nuances of policies and guidelines on titles need to be overruled because of a foolish notion of consistency, that's a problem for those articles. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Let's not transplant that here, slippery slope fallacy notwithstanding.
"Best to leave the status quo"A status quo reached through multiples moves and no rationale provided in any of them is worth nothing (the worth of a salted redirect).--Asqueladd ( talk) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known. This is indeed done on other articles such as Lord Byron, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Marquis de Morès or Cardinal Richelieu, among others. CONSISTENT is not in question here, and it'd be wrong for you to assume that it means some sort of prohibition to keep improving Wikipedia just because some other stuff may exist which somehow "hinders" it. Impru20 talk 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known", has. Sources have been provided showing that this guy is actually the overwhelmingly-best known holder of this title. Can you prove otherwise?