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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
William de Croÿ (bishop) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
@Andreas Philopater: FWIW, in the sources I read for this article, Croÿ was only ever referred to as an Archbishop, never a cardinal. Even if he technically was a Cardinal, he was still called "Archbishop Croÿ" (or William de Croÿ, or Guillame de Croÿ, for before his appointment). Looking at the source - I don't read anything more than tourist French, but is that really saying he became a Cardinal? It says he took the "Purple Roman" in 1517 from Leo which is maybe an oblique reference to Cardinals wearing purple, but maybe isn't. Can you find any confirmation this really happened? And again, even if it did, I don't think he should be addressed as a Cardinal throughout - it was an irrelevant position he held briefly then had to give up in order to become Archbishop of Toledo, which Really Was A Big Deal. SnowFire (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire. Yes, he was a cardinal (look at the caption to the image); and he did not stop being a cardinal when he was named Archbishop of Toledo. Had he lived a year longer, he would have been voting on Leo X's successor as pope. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the detail that he was made a cardinal seems to have been added by you over a decade ago (see here); only that link went dead so I added a little more detail and a sounder source. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I have no memory of that edit. I can say that the books cited do refer to him as an "Archbishop" so I'd still want that title to be used fairly prominently, since that was his title in Spain and his notoriety mostly comes from the Castilians disliking him from afar. (Still a fan of the anglicized "William" though, since he was notable in multiple domains in both French & Spanish - so best to pick none-of-the-above, and since people of this era routinely did translate their own name into the local language's version.) SnowFire (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources use William we should too, certainly. He's best known as Charles V's appointee to Toledo in Spanish history (which the two sources you used are about), but he had a career in what are now France, Belgium and Germany too, where he wasn't so much the "unknown foreign boy" as "bright young man from a very famous family". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
