This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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 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 Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars 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.
There seems to be a problem here...Albert Avogadro seems to be a generation younger, so they can't be brothers. Avogadro was also Patriarch of Jerusalem, not Antioch. And when was Bertold in Antioch? During which siege? Adam Bishop 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Tznkai (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Without an explanation of why he is "of Calabria" in the article, I can't support this yet. Srnec (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Further, "Berthold of Calabria" does seem well founded in sources, "Saint Bertold" works distinctly better. This indicates that MOS:SAINTS is in conflict with WP:UCN, and if true MOS:SAINTS needs adjustment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Berthold of Mount Carmel. No obvious support for this title over "Saint Bertold" in a quick search. As a nomination, it is too brief. Recommend closing this RM proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Why? 1x is less than 80x, see GBhits for Berthold of Calabria. The RM is in accord with both WP:RS sources and WP:5 five pillars, what/where is the objection? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to propose a title that did not even appear in the text of the article in question prior to you editing it in order to include that title, I would prefer more than a title of some random book as your source for that proposed title. I've yet to see any text that refers to him as the proposed title except the version of the article that you edited. RedSlash 21:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Red Slash, MOS:SAINTS applies primarily to article content. This article's lead did not follow either MOS:SAINTS any more than the title, but changing the lead does not require an RM, it only requires sources, 80x "Berthold of Calabria" in Google Books. And History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff is not "some random book" it is a major, used to be the major, standard work and I do not understand "I've yet to see any text that refers to him as the proposed title" - Given the number of sources I wonder if perhaps you may have misspelled your search terms in Google Books?
I followed the most stable name that appeared at the time before your first edit to the page (not saying your edit was inappropriate at all!). I freely withdraw that proposal as per both of you but I've got a lot of hesitations about the initial move request. If the name you are requesting was truly the common name, I feel like it would have appeared long before your recent addition (which again--good job making the addition. I feel that you have improved the article considerably and I commend you for that). I reiterate that all the RM initially included was "hey look, here's this book title--not even a quote, or a link, just a title--now make an informed decision on whether or not this book supports a title that has not even appeared in the text of the article since its creation until the edit I just made." I do not at all mean to demean you, as I know that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia and generally do excellent work towards that, but do you see how I am unconvinced by the request? I only have your word that the book even supports the requested title and no real reason to believe that it is sufficient even if it does. The underlying principle--can a title ever be NPOV if it has the word "saint" in it?--seems to be appearing a lot. I'd kinda like an RfC to see if your assertion (that basically any title saying "saint" is POV) has the support of the community. If the community says it is POV, then obviously this article needs to be moved ASAP. Otherwise, there's no compelling reason to move and a couple of good reasons to keep it here. RedSlash 03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Red Slash"I only have your word that the book even supports the requested title"? - charming. You were given the search link (above).
Several links have been posted now, but none were posted with the nomination. And I still don't see the link for that book and no evidence that it's a solid book. You've now posted that assertion, and I didn't realize that your link you posted included text from the book in question--I support your claim that the books contains that term, okay. But my question is still unanswered--why did the title not even appear in the article prior to your edits? How are we supposed to support a claim like that?
I oppose your assertion that MOS:SAINTS means that WP:UCN is invalid for saints. To the extent that MOS:SAINTS conflicts with WP:UCN I would follow UCN. But that is emphatically an issue for a large group to decide. You propose as per MOS:SAINTS, I oppose as per WP:UCN, and you think that's not okay, and I guess we agree to disagree until a large consensus decides it. RedSlash 23:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Evidently the current title is not WP:COMMONNAME. Your proposed alternative move is 24 sources rather than 23 and counter MOS:SAINTS. So isn't the RM an improvement? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I can support this proposal now. It would be nice to know if "Calabrian" was a Greek synechdoche, because it hardly makes sense in Latin sources. Srnec (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Weak support I guess those Google Books results are good enough to go by. --BDD (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
After sorting through the gobbledegook and jargon, I believe this discussion is properly closed in favor of moving.--Tznkai (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I've been asked to justify my decision, so I will do so. Firstly, I mostly discounted dueling citations/abbreviations, but examined the underlying rationale by each person, in an attempt to discover the concerns of each editor. The overall thrust of the editors' discussion was a two concerns about neutrality. The first being "Saint" as a non-neutral title and the other being the the non-neutrality of using an uncommon name (compare with Jesus Christ versus Jesus of Nazareth versus Jesus). I discounted the procedural objection that the move rationale was poorly stated, because this is not a court, and even if it was, we're long past the days where improperly wording your writ request got you thrown out. Google book searches did not show a name that was obviously more popular than the other, but rather a mixed result susceptible to artful framing. That is to say, evidence showed that neither Saint Berthold nor Berthold of Calabria are uncommon appellations, leaving the only sustained concern that of title non-neutrality. Enough users indicated that the Berthold of Calabria name was well sourced and properly referenced in the article to overcome any status-quo bias. Consensus was found, not in the stated preferences, but the logical contingents of each editor's (well founded) concerns. --Tznkai (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)