This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy 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.
In the bald list of dukes, the reader takes for granted that these are all in the reference, which is Charles Oman. The reader could expect that any additional duke added to the list would have some note of some kind appended to his name, to justify his presence. If this is as it is, then no problem! --Wetman 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the source for the list was Foulke. So I added that source. I don't know why I didn't add it when I made the article. I suspect Foulke's list is a complete catalogue of what we know about the time, but I may be wrong. Srnec 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Rule of the Lombard dukes the actual subject here. "Dukes" is not capitalised when it's used generically. "Rule of the Dukes" is unnecessarily opaque. --Wetman (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
When I created the article I was under the impression that "Rule of the Dukes" was a proper noun, a term used to define a period in the transitional history of Italy from Roman to Lombard. It was not intended to be a descriptive title. Britannica puts the phrase in quotation marks. I thought Hodgkin and Oman used it too, but I'd have to look it up. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)