Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed move (1)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassel is in France. Kassel is the actually Hessian area the article is about. If the Editor who moved it was so concern, why leave Kassel used throughout the article and only change the title? Request to move it to the orignal Kassel. Since there wasn't much in the way of discussion expect for a few "not really sure about Cassel" and with User:Charles semi-retired (really?) maybe finally get it moved back to be in with the rest of Kassel line. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a little more complicated than that. If Kassel was written Cassel (even in German) up to 1926, and Hesse-Cassel gets more ghits than Hesse-Kassel, then it starts to look as if the Landgraviate (1567-1803/1866) was more HC than HK. Many more articles were at Hesse-Cassel before you moved them today. --Rumping (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, it is Cassel in English, because it always has been; the English language is not determined by the Weimar Republic, especially for states which ceased to exist in 1866. These unilateral moves should be reversed. The articles should also be copy-edited; it's not just Kassel that fails to be English; ruler of Hessen-Kassel and William had married in 1717 with Dorothea Wilhelmina are equally unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If district as ruled by William is referred to in English as Cassel when scholars and reliable sources are talking about it now, then it should certainly be titled Cassel in wikipedia. I'm not to impressed by the argument that this will require lots of edits...following the rules of grammar requires lots of edits, maintaining accuracy requires lots of edits, hey, making this encyclopedia requires lots of edits.Erudy (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of this disscussion should also be applied to Landgrave Charles of Hesse-Kassel, where Cladeal has overwritten the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the two opinions, but as far as it Wikipedia goes, Hesse-Kassel is used universally expect for these few articles and also even articles relating a 3 generations of landgraves that one User switched to Hesse-Cassel don't borther changing it in the articles where Kassel is used throughout. No respectfully disagree that "it's finished" and since Hesse-Kassel and Kassel, the one relating to this, are used by Wikipedia standards, it ought be back to Kassel. Even with the point against how there "used to be more" until I switched them back, look Category:House of Hesse-Kassel and see that the A) there are still more using Kassel and B) Hesse-Kassel is used more overall Cladeal832 (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there should be a general fix to remove all these embarrassing Germanicisms; but it can wait until publication. In the meantime, we should adopt the result of this discussion, whatever it may turn out to be, at Landgrave Charles of Hesse-Kassel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The implicit argument here is that Wikipedia's usage should itself be a test of what English does. It should not: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and these pages (certainly this page) have been produced by editors with a limited command of English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That arguement only stands up to this one article and you just pointed it out without fixing it. A few minor edits and those mistakes you pointed out are gone for the benefit of the reader. Google search engine does the same thing. Read the guidelines on geographic name dispute and see that rarely if ever are they universally solved because truly Cassel can have just a strong rational to it as Kassel. Now you idea of doing hundred of thousands of minor edit from Hesse-Kassel, overwhelming used more often, as opposed to changing this one article's title and just five others. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-anglophone German nationalists have two strong reasons to write of Hesse-Kassel; but most instances are, like this page and its errata, the result of the forgivable one: knowing no better. (The thousands of small edits will be required in either case; but we're a wiki; we have time.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson


Don't understand how somebody would continue promoting a policy that he or she does not want to bother fixing himself or herself. Typed of Heses-Cassel in the Wikipedia search and got 86 entries, the majority did not relate to the Kassel or royals under discussion, but did check all 86 article and switch the few times from Cassel to Kassel. Now type of Hesse-Kassel and comes up with 977 and it's simple to tell that more then 86. Now sure you'll make that arguement "someone will do it at some point" but that's pretty weak. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether is ought to be Cassel or Kassel, since there is not real solution to that one and you keep going with either side until one is blue in the face. Just because there is all of problems with Wikipedia articles (bad grammar and what-not) doesn't mean this one issue, with less then 10 article titles, not even the content which is more important, to switch to have consistancy, which is also a rational according the Wikipedia guidelines. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've done searches in google scholar for "Hesse-Cassel" (1660 hits,[1] all in english) and "Hesse-Kassel" (746 hits, [2] many of which are in foreign languages). Hesse-Cassel would appear to the more accepted spelling. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you volunteering to check all 988 articles and do the required edits? Plus, from experience after actually looking at each article in Wikipedia with Hesse-Cassel, a lot were just the surname Cassel or Cassell being used. You might imagine that wouldn't be that much, but I've done it and it was. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Kiernan doesn't have to volunteer to disagree with you; cleanup any time before our publication deadline will be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Wikipedia doesn't have an actual publication date and since nobody is offering to make the edits now, why would do it then? Since each is valid, consistancy is the trump card that makes changing these few article titles as opposed to the thousands of minor edits that which apparently will happen in theory but not practice since I've so many of these naming conventions are only done on select number of pages and then forgotten about on other articles, big and small. At least somebody has bothered to look it up and find that if Hesse-Kassel is used, it will be universal on Wikipedia. MeanLevels (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose as elsewhere. This is nationalist bad faith, and the reopening is sheer abuse of process. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move (2)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move as before. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cladeal832. JPG-GR (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an actual arguement. Britannica Encyclopedia and Columbia Encyclopedia use Hesse-Kassel as well many other reference source. Google Scholar in the Recent Articles option, Hesse-Cassel get 183 hits, which is less then Hesse-Kassel which get 209 hits. and if Editors check Catherine of Aragon#Spelling of her name, while during her lifetime Katherine was used, the fact that most modern scholars use Catherine trumps that. Kassel is the proper name in English today and Cassel has been used offically since 1926 so pretty sure that's a sign it's out-of-date. Also the Move Request guideline state that wider consensus is better then one for a few articles. Quote "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale" Since all but 6 articles use Hesse-Kassel is clear sign of wider consensus then this article to be moved then just this one discussion. Also refer to Talk:Hesse-Kassel#Requested move and see that although consensus is apparently not being reached on this page for the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, it already has been for the Hesse-Cassel vs. Hesse-Kassel question. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That implies that I either send it out to multiple users, which I didn't, or that I tried to influence them, which I didn't. I send a message to one user who came to this discussion on his or her own and ask that since you stated that I was the only one interest in moving, thought he or she would like to know about User:PMAnderson skewing the discussion and leaving that User out. I notice again that User:PMAnderson is making me the issue and still won't argue Kassel issue beyond overblown statements. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So appealling to the only comment on one side with Noticed that you made points in favour of the move and yet still won't happen. Would you mind putting your two cents in? is not "trying to influence" them? To use a genuine English idiom: "and then you wake up." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree the vast majority of other related articles use Hesse-Kassel JLIBPB (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First contributions from this editor after a six-plus month break. JPG-GR (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Kassel is the name use in English for the city. Disagree with silly prejudice against non-Anglophones. Think there have been many more good reasons for Kassel compared with CasselTodkvi5832 (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has "voted" twice and has not edited in the last six months outside of this topic. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Kassel is the name use in English for the city. Disagree with silly prejudice against non-Anglophones. Think there have been many more good reasons for Kassel compared with CasselTodkvi5832 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has "voted" twice and has not edited in the last six months outside of this topic. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that I really hope is that instead of making this a Wikipedia bureaucratic thing or personal about me, just deal with the arguement at hand. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that, in the Google Scholar search, the Journal of Modern History, the leading journal of European history, uses "Hesse-Kassel". So, among my books, do John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, a standard textbook; James Sheehan's German History 1770-1866, the standard English-language work on that period of German history; McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815, a standard work on early modern diplomatic history; and various others. That is also the name used by Encyclopedia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia. It is also essentially true that while the translated name "Hesse" remains in general use in English for the region, the anglicized "Cassel" is very rarely used, and the city is normally called "Kassel." It is not wikipedia's job to create uniformity when the usage itself is not uniform. And the standard usage at the beginning of the 21st century is, indeed, "Hesse-Kassel," and not either "Hesse-Cassel" or "Hessen-Kassel." john k 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: looking at JSTOR searches, the American Historical Review (the main American historical journal), as well as the Sixteenth Century Journal and the German Studies Review use "Hesse-Kassel", all in recent articles. The only title match for "Hesse-Cassel" is from the Journal of Economic History. Also note that many of the results for "Hesse-Cassel" in the Google Scholar search come from older sources - one is from 1912. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For the same reasons as before, but this time with the additional reason that the proposer of the move is a vote canvasser, who may be employing either sockpuppets or meatpuppets in an attempt to vote-stack. The subject of this article was never known as "Hesse-Kassel" and was always known as "Hesse-Cassel". I see no reason to alter their surname to a modern neologism, when the spelling that they used themselves is perfectly consistent with an accepted norm. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another personal attack. I don't use sock-puppets, and no I don't canvass for votes. Just that you stated you were a librarian and use that creditial to state that Hesse-Cassel is used more often, but solely for an FYI thing, just wanted to let you know about this other information that know realize you must have already ready and ignored from the Talk:Hesse-Kassel. I didn't even ask for you to vote, let alone which way to vote, which is requirement of canvassing. Show that other editors make actual notice that one the "more coherant" arguement requirement for a move, the points I have brought up are actual better. This exactly why Britannica is not affair of Wikipedia. They would never spelt Cassel for one article and use Kassel for the same person's sibling. Of the nearly 50 article titles and over one thousand articles that use it, only 7 use Hesse-Cassel in just the title so pretty sign of wider consensus including Category:House of Hesse-Kassel. Also note that 1911 edition Britannica gives "Hesse-Cassel" while the current one uses "Hesse-Kassel". If Britannica is able to update, surely Wikipedia will too. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just asked for my opinion, similar to what the accussing editor did, see User talk:Robert A West#Hesse-Kassel MeanLevels (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False. I asked for an opinion; I did not suggest one; and I asked a third party, not someone whose opinion I already knew. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, getting off topic. It's mute. I didn't state "write this" and you know it. Believe it, I see all the names on the Talk:Hesse-Kassel (notice User:PMAnderson and User:DrKiernan on there too and it would help the case although already have a few users in that argue. But, and type this only to prevent it from coming up, wanting to it and doing are not same and haven't, check their Talk Pages. Now back on the Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel stuff, do you User:PMAnderson still keeping up the debate? Guessing you're not a Nabokov fan (again not on topic but just messing to lighten what seems a lot for tense then really ought to be)Cladeal832 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Agree think new admins ought to be used to objectively look over this. Hesse-Kassel ought to link up with Hesse-Kassel. JLIBPB (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


66.185.217.73 (talk): This anonymous user is an IP in Ontario, Canada and shows a distinctive editing pattern of no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel.

User:Cladeal832 shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They also edit from Ontario IP addresses[3].

User:MeanLevels shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They are also interested in Ontario related subject matter[4].

User:JLIBPB shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They are also interested in Ontario-related subject matter[5].

User:Todkvi5832 shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. The username ends in the same three numerals as Cladeal832.

All five have "!voted" at least once in related move debates and occasionally edit each others' comments: Talk:Princess Louise Caroline of Hesse-Cassel [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move (3)[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus for move. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are six articles using the spelling Cassel, with a C:

Now I realise I'm re-opening a whole can of worms here, but it bothers my sense of order that, while the territory and all the other people related to it use the spelling with a K, that these six members of the landgravial family are spelled differently. As has been (somewhat copiously) discussed above, there do appear to be more references elsewhere on the Web to the K-form; indeed, other than in my copy of The Earth and its inhabitants (leather-bound and older than my great-grandparents), I'm not sure I've seen the C-form more than two or three times.

I know there there is no deadline, but I don't believe we should use that as a reason to eschew convention and consistency when discussing a single entity (the landgraviate). To me, this is a relatively obvious change to make, particularly given that (a) most sources use the K spelling and (b) changing articles to be consistent with a K involves only six articles.

I think it's also worth noting that WP:NCGN recommends that we search other resources, such as Encyclopædia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia, which both use the K form. Encarta uses the untranslated Hessen-Kassel, so we can ignore that in the context of this discussion, as we're already agreed that the untranslated form would be inappropriate here. Whilst Google Scholar shows 930 Ks and 3500 Cs, it's previously been pointed out that many of the C forms are from sources nearly a century old; the primary journal in the area uses the K form, as commented by "john k 21:45, 13 March 2006" above.

I note that WP:NCGN suggests taking note of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions for German placenames, but the "historical usage" section there is unclear as to whether it would prefer the C or K form. Note too that two move requests in the other direction have failed at Talk:Hesse-Kassel. Obviously all the articles on the subject should make mention of the archæic C form (as many of the K form articles already do), but it seems most odd that we have these half-dozen articles spelled with a C, when the rest of the Wikipedia uses the modern form.

For what it's worth, I've never even been to Ontario and I'm a native British English speaker so, if anything, I'd be more likely to prefer the C-form, I guess. (Though looking at WP:NCGN, I don't believe any Brits still refer to Lyons with an S!) ;o) My motive here is merely to improve the quality and consistency of articles pertaining to Former Countries, as a member of WikiProject Former countries. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • With regard to Charlotte Amalie, the current convention is to drop "Princess" from the article titles of queen consorts. DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake; I'd assumed that was just an error. I've amended the proposal appropriately. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose for now. I doubt that most sources use the K spelling; certainly contemporary sources will not. Cassell was so spelled in German and in English until 1926; using Kassell for an eighteenth-century prince is a pointless anachronism, whatever we do for the modern city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose per Septentrionalis. These folk were known in contemporaneous English predominantly as "Hesse-Cassel" (just as the dynasty of "Hannover" was then predominantly known in English as "Hanover" -- whatever the defunct country is called today). If there were a significant amount written about the landgraviate in English since then using "K", I might re-consider. But contemporaneous references in English mostly refer to the dynasty and its members (unsurprising given their connections to the British dynasty) rather than to the former nation, whose current name may retroactively have become "Hesse-Kassel", but was not, in English, when these folk lived. Horledi (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree with move for all the reasons I mentioned before. Honestly it's taking me a minute to remember them all, but still think they're all still valid. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - My experience is that the preponderance of recent sources in English use "Hesse-Kassel" rather than "Hesse-Cassel". Looking quickly at Google Books, there are considerably more hits for "Hesse-Cassel," but a very high percentage of these go to books that are more than 80 years old. Google Scholar seems to give better results for Hesse-Cassel. Looking through sources available to me, I get the following results:
    • Hesse-Kassel - James J. Sheehan's German History 1770-1866 (1989); John A. Lynn The Wars of Louis XIV (1999); M.S. Anderson The Ascendancy of Europe 1815-1914, 2nd ed. (1985); Norman Rich Great Power Diplomacy, 1814-1914 (1992); David G. Williamson Germany since 1815 (2005), John Merriman A History of Modern Europe, Volume Two: From the French Revolution to the Present (1996)
    • Hesse-Cassel - F.R. Bridge and Roger Bullen, The Great Powers and the European States System 1814-1914, 2nd ed. (2005); the only other sources I could find which use this form were over 40 years old.
    • Hessen-Kassel - Michael Hochedlinger, Austria's Wars of Emergence 1683-1797 (2003); Tim Blanning, The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648-1815 (2007)
  • There's also some sources on the nineteenth century which refer merely to "Electoral Hesse," but obviously we shouldn't use that title for the article. Looking at this, that looks like a fairly solid preponderance for "Hesse-Kassel," and "Hessen-Kassel" looks to be about as strong an alternative as "Hesse-Cassel." Even putting this aside, the article on the state is at Hesse-Kassel. There is absolutely no reason not to be consistent between the various entities, and as such, we should move these articles to the "K" form pending a consensus to move Hesse-Kassel to Hesse-Cassel. john k (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ETA: I notice that I made quite similar arguments, using some of the same sources, 3½ years ago at Talk:Hesse-Kassel during a move discussion. There are certainly some sources which use other forms, but most of the ones I've found using "Hesse-Cassel" are quite old. john k (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further: Looking at JSTOR and searching in journals of history, I get 159 results for "Hesse-Kassel." Some noteworthy results: Holger Thomas Graf, "The Collegium Mauritanium in Hesse-Kassel and the Making of Calvinist Diplomacy", The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Winter, 1997); John C. Theibault, German Villages in Crisis: Rural Life in Hesse-Kassel and the Thirty Years' War, 1580-1720 (1995); A review by Hermann Beck of Stefan Brakensiek's Fürstdiener, Staatsbeamte, Bürger: Amtsführung und Lebenswelt der Ortsbeamten in niederhessischen Kleinstädten, 1750-1830 (Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 2 (June, 2001)); a review by John W. Cranston of Nichoolas Martin Hope's The Alternative to German Unification: The Anti-Prussian Party, Frankfurt, Nassau, and the Two Hessen, 1859-1867 (American Historical Review, Vol. 80, No. 2, April 1975). There's a number of other such results, but you get the idea. On the other side, there are 329 results for "Hesse-Cassel." Notable examples: Peter K. Taylor, "Military System and Rural Social Change in Eighteenth-Century Hesse-Cassel", Journal of Social History, Vol. 25, No.3 (Spring, 1992); Simone A. Wegge, "Chain Migration and Information Networks: Evidence from Nineteenth Century Hesse-Cassel," The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Dec. 1998). Note, though, that if I limit myself to results since 1980, I get 139 for "Hesse-Kassel," and only 106 for "Hesse-Cassel." If I limit myself to post-1990, I get 114 for "Hesse-Kassel," and only 79 for "Hesse-Cassel." If I limit to past 1995, I get 83 for "Hesse-Kassel," and 55 for "Hesse-Cassel". Since 2000, 28 for "Hesse-Kassel," 18 for "Hesse-Cassel." So, basically, overall "Hesse-Cassel is about twice as common. For articles in the last 30 years, Hesse-Kassel is slightly more common, and becomes increasingly common the more recently you restrict the search to. Hesse-Kassel has become the most common form, and Hesse-Cassel is approaching obsolescence, although it is not there yet. john k (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think anybody who uses Hessen in his title, singular or plural, has absorbed non-English idioms from his sources, like the biography of Gustavus Adolphus titled Gustaf Adolf the Great; we are writing English, not German (or Swedish). A hazard fpr scholars, which we should not follow them into. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? Obviously use of "Hessen" is based on deciding to abandon the traditional English form and go with the untranslated form. But I don't see that we should ignore it and "not follow them" into it. In the case of "Hessen-Kassel," I think the issue is that such a usage is still by a considerable margin a minority one. But English used to refer to German cities as Treves, Mayence, Coblence, Ratisbon, Aix-la-Chapelle. It has stopped doing so. There is nothing inherent in the English language which says that we need to translate the German Hessen as Hesse. It is simply what is (still) generally done. If it were clear that English usage has shifted in another direction, then we should change it. In the case of Hesse vs. Hessen, it seems fairly clear that standard usage has not shifted, although some scholars appear to be making an effort to change it. Between Kassel and Cassel, however, it seems to me that standard usage has changed - In the last 30 years, "Hesse-Kassel" has been more common than "Hesse-Cassel," and has been becoming increasingly more predominant. "Hesse-Cassel" is still in use, but less and less. john k (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to add a stronger argument in favor of uniformity - it seems obvious that this is a case where it is somewhat difficult to determine what the "most common name" is. Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Kassel are both, pace Septentrionalis, very frequently used in English. Older sources will mostly use the former, but the latter is increasingly preferred. How exactly we weigh the different merits of each name can be a difficult question, and I don't think there's a correct answer - it's a matter of personal preference. As such, ultimately our decision will be, to a greater or lesser extent, arbitrary. There is not really any "right" or "wrong" answer here, because we have two forms which are commonly used, and both have a claim to be the most commonly used. That being said, the fact that we ultimately have to make a basically arbitrary decision between two commonly used English forms does not give much of an argument for making that arbitrary decision different ways in different articles. Why should one landgrave be at "Hesse-Cassel" and his father at "Hesse-Kassel"? This is potentially misleading to our readers, and serves no useful purpose. The question of which is "right" is almost secondary to the fact that we should choose one way of doing it. I'd suggest that we have some sort of discussion at Hesse-Kassel, and possibly a vote, to determine usage Wikipedia wide. I'd be happy to go with whichever name consensus fixed upon, but the current situation is intolerabl. My top preference would be for it all to be at Hesse-Kassel, because I think Hesse-Cassel is old fashioned, but I'd much prefer to have it all at Hesse-Cassel to the current mishmash. john k (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trust this appeal to uniformity does not extend to changing Brunswick, everywhere it appears, to Braunschweig, on the grounds that the city is so spelled. I would be surprised if John Kenney were so unreasonable, but some editors are.
Uniformity in references to the historic Landgraviate may well be worthwhile; when there is such a discussion, let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that references to the historical state should be uniform, but they do not need to be uniform with references to the city. In this case, even if we decided to move the landgraviate to Hesse-Cassel, we should leave the city at Kassel, and so we should keep "Brunswick" in references to the state even though the city is at Braunschweig. Similarly, we should always refer to the treaty which ended the War of the Austrian Succession as the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, even though we normally call the city "Aachen" now. Uniformity needs to be for commensurate subjects. All references to the state are clearly commensurate, and so we should be uniform. john k (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this up at Talk:Hesse-Kassel, btw, for anyone interested. john k (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with john k — uniformity within the context of one entity, but there's no reason we can't consolidate everything to Hesse-Cassel if we decided. Personally, I prefer the K form, but I don't see that the article for the modern city needs to force the name of the Landgraviate article. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_VIII,_Landgrave_of_Hesse-Kassel&oldid=1207492438"