Talk:Albert of Louvain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge[edit]

Why an undiscussed merge from English title to French title on English Wikipedia? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And to the wrong title, apparently. Good question. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved. History swap performed to preserve attribution. Jenks24 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)



Albert de LouvainAlbert of Louvain – Articles and books written in English (including the academic article cited in the article itself) use "Albert of Leuven" or "Albert of Louvain" (with a slight majority for the latter). These include Laura Napran's 2005 translation of Gilbert of Mons's Chronicle of Hainaut, modern editions of Butler's Lives of the Saints, Luc Duerloo's Dynasty and Piety (2016), and Jasper van der Steen, Memory Wars in the Low Countries (2015) Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't see any need to change the page's name. While it is true that it is "of" in some texts (from English texts, to be exact), the original version of the name would suffice since it serves exactly the same point. Besides, what is the point of changing the name of the page, if only to solely change "de" into "of" when the two are exactly the same thing?Lord Sidious 82 (talk)
Academicoffee71 If you support "consistency" why did you argue at Talk:Grand Duchy of Kraków#Requested move 3 September 2017 that consistency with Kraków didn't matter? AusLondonder (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Because I thought that it should be consistent with the way similar naming differences are handled in historical contexts (i.e. Duchy of Brunswick, Battle of Corunna, Free City of Danzig, and because I think the article on the modern city belongs at "Cracow" as well. Nice attempt to trip me up, though. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:UE which, despite the above vote, actually states "It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage...If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian municipalities etc.)." AusLondonder (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • So far both arguments for using French assume that French is the "original" language or the language "most often" used. Latin or Dutch would be at least as good candidates on these grounds. In fact, despite AusLondoner's assumption to the contrary, there is a substantial literature on saints, Butler's being only one of the most encyclopedic of such works of reference. A&C Black's Book of Saints, to give one more example, uses "of Louvain". Half a dozen reputable sources in English cited here to show consistent use of "of" rather than "de" and no examples given to the contrary, and it's seriously being suggested there is insufficient material on which to base a judgement? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It is far more natural to read "Albert" like English and then say "of" rather than "de". Srnec (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. There are plenty of English sources, so the appeal to WP:UE based on the assumption that there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage is rather bizarre. Note that we need to preserve the edit history following the merge, see #Merge above. Andrewa (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2017 (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.