Talk:William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Biography / Military / Peerage and Baronetage (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject England (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Herefordshire (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Herefordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Herefordshire 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
MonmouthpediA project (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to MonmouthpediA and to Monmouth - the World's first Wikipedia town. As of May 2012, we have 1,000 QRpedia codes displayed in the town. See what we are doing, See a bit of what we've done and help us!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Name?[edit]

Wasn't it Fitz Osbern, with a space? I am learning this at school and am sure it had a space... LucarioAuraSphere (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, guys.... Mediaeval spelling varied a lot. You could probably find Fitz Osbern, Fitz Osborn, fitzOsbern, fitz Osbern, and all manner of permutations. The spelling "fitz Osbern", with or without a space, was perfectly normal - it was not what we now call a "surname", it simply said that he was the son ("fitz" in Norman French) of Osbern. Capitalising it and running it together as "FitzOsbern" is simply a modern variant that more closely accords with how we now spell surnames. If this tedious edit war is to continue, can it please be based on the preponderance of view in reliable sources (I have no idea what it is, and don't care), rather than on someone's misguided idea of what is "correct". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Very sensible observation, if I may say so. I'd suggest that the modern variant spelling is the appropriate one to use. A diverse range of mediaeval throwback usages is merely distracting, even if such spelling would have been recognised by medieval readers as correct (or, more likely, as being among a number of acceptable usages). Regards Ironman1104 (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)