This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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 debate 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.
Exactly. Recognizing someone's name as rendered in a foreign language is generally fine, but offices and titles are a seperate issue. Charles 14:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
My curiosity was piqued by this issue, so I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and was interested to see that despite the "Most general rule overall" (!) being to "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem", there were counter-examples within the page itself – unless, for example, Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou (not "duc"?), Henri, comte de Chambord, etc are commonly used in English (or I've missed one or more of the rules mentioned). (I also note, for example, threads such as this on the article's talk page.) A hybrid mix of translated titles and native names strikes me as odd, but I acknowledge (a) I can recall nothing particular about the issue outside Wikipedia, as (b) it's been a long time since I read the relevant kind of historical material; and (c) I'm assuming I'm querying this mixed approach because it's presumably at odds with what I previously read in historical books/articles. I also see there are differing approaches adopted by "Wikipediae" in other languages. Regards, David Kernow 00:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The use of "duc de" is common... "Duc de" is just incorrect. Louis Alphonse is at "Duke of", however ;-) If the use of French is common for certain subjects (it is) then it is to be used properly. French nobles are the exception rather than the rule. Charles 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Any insight as to why France and not Spain (or Germany, or ...) ...? Thanks for your input, David Kernow 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not quite sure... There just is more reference in English to, say, a duc de Saint-Simon than comparably to a Herzog von Bayern or a Duque de Lugo. It's just one of those quirks of linguistics. French was also the lingua franca for many, many years. Charles 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Lingua... franca. I guess it was! I'm inclined to oppose the move, but, as above, it'd only be on feeling rather than anything rational, so I'll abstain. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha, I realize how silly the "franca" is, but I am applying the term retroactively ;) Charles 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The Wikistyle says to use the form of name most commonly used in English-language works. "Conde de Floridablanca" is used by the Webster's Biographical Dictionary and by Who's Who in Spain. These are standard works of reference. What standard works of reference can be cited using the style "Count of Floridablanca"? I remind people (once again) of WP:NOR, one of the three Wiki content policies: no "unpublished theories ... or any new interpretation". Noel S McFerran 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No interpretation or theorization is needed. It is a clean and unambiguous translation. Charles 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) do NOT say to translate; they say "use the most common form of the name used in English". In the case of Moñino this appears to be Conde de Floridablanca (and I do mean with a capital C since that appears to be the most common form in English-language works). I say appears because, other than the sources I have cited, I haven't researched this in great depth. But Charles doesn't seem to be judging this according to Wiki-conventions; he seems to have other rules which are his own. I repeat my question, What standard works of reference can be cited in favour of using the style "Count of Floridablanca"? I'm not saying there aren't any; but, if there aren't, then there is no justification for moving this page (unless someone wants to try to change the naming conventions). Noel S McFerran 11:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you feel it necessary to act in an insufficiently courteous manner (but Charles doesn't seem to... I'm not the one who brought it up for a move so there isn't a need to single me out) I will pendantically state that the WP convention for using the most common form in English may apply for a form such as Zita of Bourbon-Parma vs Zita of Parma, since both forms are English and one is used erroneously but more frequently than the other. Conde de Floridablanca is not English at all. What a groundshaking interpretation of vague guidelines :-) Charles 12:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Conde de Floridablanca is how this man is referred to in other scholarly English-language works. So far those people who believe in "clean and unambiguous translation" have been unable to cite a single source in their favour (I'm not saying there aren't some out there; but I am saying that it should be proven). Translating titles contrary to the standard scholarly usage for that person is NOT a Wiki-convention. The reason I single out Charles is because he repeatedly advocates in favour of translating which is not a Wiki-convention. It is contrary to the scholarly record in English. An encyclopedia COLLECTS what has already been written; it does not CORRECT what has already been written. Please have the courtesy to listen to somebody who has been an academic librarian for almost twenty years. Noel S McFerran 02:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You are not an administrator, nor are you the WP police, nor can you assert that I must listen to you because you have been an librarian for two decades. That is just rude. If you have issue with me, utilise the email link on my page. It is not your place to repeatedly single me out. Count of Floridablanca has been used in published papers. I just don't have the resources to go, "Hmm, I'm going to check my enourmous collection of papers on the matter and check them". Charles 12:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I think Noel has made his point. But either way, please, guys, don't get personal. There is lots to do! One of my articles is right now in dire danger of deletion. These things happen! Andrewa 16:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.