This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary 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 Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
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 move. Cúchullaint/c 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
House of Árpád → Árpád dynasty — I don't see the dynasties of China, Ancient Egypt, early Germanic Europe and the Byzantine Empire having a problem with using the term "dynasty" to refer to other members of the family other than the main line of ruling kings. Dynasty like house refers to a ruling family/line. It is only wikipeida that stress the use of "House of ..." on every European ruling family. The title Árpád dynasty hasn't been changed since it was created and throughout the article the term dynasty is used more often than House. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC) --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose because this article is about a royal house ("monarchs who are related to one another, as well as their non-reigning descendants and spouses"), not about a dynasty ("sequence of rulers considered members of the same family"). It is quite clear what a dynasty is and what a royal house is. The article, for example, mentions saints Emeric, Elizabeth, Kinga and Margaret of Hungary, Blessed Elizabeth and Yolanda, Stephen the Posthumous, and many other non-reigning members of the House of Arpad. Why should we then ignore the meaning of the word dynasty? Besides, if other articles are incorrect (and perhaps they are not), it does not mean this one should be too. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The terms are used interchangably and their definition are not as set in stone as you have defined them as. The daughter of monarch or the granddaughter of a monarch that never ruled can be considered a member of a dynasty. The article on dynasty mentions the Bourbons, the Habsburgs, the Stuarts, the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs to say a few, yet they are all under the term House of... in their article space. Let me bring your attention to Template:Nemanjić dynasty a field you seem to be interested in. Notice the four sections after "Other ruling members".--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
They are used interchangably because people can't get them right. "Heir presumptive" and "heir apparent" are used interchangably, much like "queen regnant" and "queen regent", because people do not understand the difference (which is huge). You are free to say that a daughter or a granddaughter of a monarch can be considered a member of the dynasty, but your saying it does not make it true. There is an established dictionary definition of the word dynasty - as simple as that. It is not our job to reinvent words and their meanings. Even if the definition were not set in stone, as you claim (and with which I disagree), why should we opt for a more ambigious term instead of a precise one? Of course the article on dynasty would mention the Bourbons, the Habsburgs, the Stuarts and others, as those are the names of dynasties and royal houses alike; the Stuart dynasty, for example, includes only English monarchs from James I to Anne, while the House of Stuart includes also Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, etc. I believe you do understand the difference. And what about the template? Inaccuracies such as those found in it should be corrected rather than cited as reason to spread more inaccuracies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. I was going to wait for a third opinion but you gave me a good argument. As your link suggest, dynasty can also mean "A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state". The matter by which the family maintains powers does not exclusively include holding the office of monarch. Dynasty, family, royal house are used interchangably to refer to the a powerful family, period. Even the Bush and Kennedy's are referred as political dynasties.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur: The fact that a "dynasty" includes a "sequence" of rulers does not mean that is all that it contains. While "House" is used more broadly than dynasty in some contexts, it is used more restrictedly in others (a family of mobsters is often described as a "dynasty", but seldom as a "house"). Until there is more reliably sourced information distinguishing between a house and a dynasty that is relevant to this article, my experience entirely accords with the usage of "dynasty" to embrace non-reigning members of a ruling family. This is especially so in the case of an article title, where we are less concerned with what is precise and more with what is widely used. That said, I don't see why "House of" should be replaced with "dynasty": there is not enough consistency in our article names on ruling families to insist that a pattern exists which we should follow here. FactStraight (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
House of Árpád is also a much more common name than Árpád dynasty. For example, there are c. 19,000 hits for House of Árpád and c. 9,000 hits for Árpád dynasty. Furthermore, if the title of this article should be consistent with any other (and I suppose it should), isn't it much more natural to have it consistent with, say, Capetian House of Anjou and House of Luxembourg than with Qin Dynasty? I remain convinced that the current title is better than the proposed one, being obviously more common in English language sources and consistent with relevant articles, if nothing else. Surtsicna (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
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.