Talk:Ranuccio I Farnese

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

Requested move 16 December 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– These men have unambiguous names. Their names make quite sufficient article titles. We do not normally have titles such as Joe Biden, President of the United States, nor should we. See also WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE policy. Surtsicna (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose. per WP: NCPEER: ""Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title". It is not "Arthur Wellesley", it is "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington". No reason to eliminate titles of dukes. Besides, not all sources will use "Farnese", but refer simply to "Duke Ranuccio I of Parma", etc. Walrasiad (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCPEER explicitly refers to British peers, not sovereign dukes. These men were sovereign dukes. Therefore it is WP:SOVEREIGN that applies: "Use the most common, unambiguous name. Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." Surtsicna (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That some sources may refer to Ranuccio I Farnese as "Duke Ranuccio I of Parma" (extremely uncommon) does not make "Ranuccio I Farnese" an inappropriate title. Similarly, the fact that some sources may refer to "President Obama of the United States" does not make Barack Obama, President of the United States preferable to just Barack Obama. Surtsicna (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:NCPEER, direct your eyes a little downwards: "Treat other European nobility like British nobility above,".
Nobody refers to "Barack of United States", but enough sources refer to "Ranuccio I of Parma". This an inappropriate title, reduces recognizability, and is thus a disservice to our readers. Oppose strongly. Walrasiad (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were not merely European nobility. They were rulers. There are thousands of references to Barack Obama of the United States.
WP:Recognizability is not about defining the subject in the article title. Otherwise we would have titles such as Félix Faure, President of France instead of simply Félix Faure. WP:Recognizability is about people who have heard about Ranuccio I Farnese recognizing that the article is about Ranuccio I Farnese. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. A ducal title is not a job description. Why don't you use honest examples from actual articles on Dukes on Wikipedia?
Wellington was prime minister. Yet his article title is not "Arthur Wellesley, prime minister of Britain" (as you're insinuating), it is "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington". Their ducal title part of their name per WP:NCPEER and WP:COMMONNAME.
So too with all other prime ministers who were also dukes: "Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle", or "William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire" or "Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton", or "William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland", etc., etc. All of them use ducal titles, none use the job description. The ducal title is part of their common name, it is how they are known and recognized. Leave it alone. Walrasiad (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A British ducal title is not a job description. But here we're talking about Dukes who ruled over a sovereign Duchy, so WP:SOVEREIGN takes precedence over WP:NCPEER. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not sovereign, they are vassals of the emperor and later of the pope. Walrasiad (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also a reminder: The Duke Ranuccio I of Parma is not the first Ranuccio Farnese (as the shortening would imply). "Ranuccio Farnese" is a very common name used by many non-duke members of the family, any of which can (and often are) designated by numerals. including
  • the stem Ranuccio Farnese (of commune of Orvieto in the 12th C.),
  • Ranuccio Farnese (son of Pepo, present at peace of 1177)
  • Ranuccio Farnese (lord of Orvieto in 1226, often called Ranuccio I, general of Pope Urban IV who fought against Manfred of Sicily),
  • his son Ranuccio Farnese (famous Guelf general, dying at battle of Arezzo in 1288),
  • his cousin Ranuccio Farnese (son of Pepo, stem of lords of Sarsetta),
  • Ranuccio Farnese (lord of Montealto, who succeeded brother Pietro, as commander of Florentine army in 1363),
  • Ranuccio Farnese (senator and papal captain in 1442),
  • Ranuccio Farnese (captain at Fornovo in 1495),
  • his son Ranuccio Farnese (also condotierre),
  • Ranuccio Farnese (son of Pope Paul III),
  • the cardinal Ranuccio Farnese, etc.
and a myriad of other Farneses called Ranuccio related to these which I haven't bothered listing. So the shortening would be highly misleading, the numerals suggesting these are the first Ranuccio of the house of Farnese. They are not. They are the first Dukes of Parma called Ranuccio. The title "Duke of Parma" naturally disambiguates and is actually necessary.
Retaining "Duke of Parma" in the article title is simple, clear, straightforward and necessary. It improves WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and is helpful and useful to readers. Removing it is misleading, confusing and detrimental to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are inventing ambiguity when there is not any. The name Ranuccio I Farnese is used in reference to one man and one man only. Therefore appending "Duke of Parma" to his unambigious, common name is as helpful as having Keith Holyoake, Prime Minister of New Zealand instead of plain Keith Holyoake. It has nothing to do with recognizability but with a desire to make titles of articles about royals as grand and pompous as possible, which is explicitly against what WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says. Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, in line with WP:CONCISE and WP:NCROY. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are their common names. They are not like British peerage titles, where the title is usually better known than the name. In this instance, the name is far better known than the title, which is frequently not used at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unnecessary disambiguation that goes against WP:CONCISE. Keivan.fTalk 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary? How do you plan to differentiate Ranuccio I Farnese, Lord of Orvieto from Ranuccio I Farnese, Duke of Parma? Or the myriad of other notable Ranuccio Farnese listed above, who are often also referred to as Ranuccio I, II, etc.? This one has a clear disambiguating title already "Duke of Parma". Why remove it and cause ambiguity? Walrasiad (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary indeed, because the lord of Orvieto is not called Ranuccio I Farnese. He is called Ranuccio Farnese the Elder. It is perfectly clear which member of the Farnese family Ranuccio I Farnese is. Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. That's not even the Lord of Orvieto I am referring to! I am referring to the Orvieto lord of 1226, not the papal senator of 1446! But both of these are often also referred to as Ranuccio I Farnese in many sources. Evidently you got confused yourself! Just proves even more firmly that disambiguation is necessary. "Duke of Parma" is indeed necessary (and natural), or people will be as confused as you are. Walrasiad (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg you to forgive me for not understanding which men you mean when you claim that there are other men called Ranuccio I Farnese. In the real world, as is evident from the books shown above, it is perfectly clear who Ranuccio I Farnese is. That is why other Wikipedias call him simply Ranuccio I Farnese. Of course, you could cite those supposedly numerous sources that refer to other men as "Ranuccio I Farnese", but something tells me that you will not. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse your limited knowledge with the "real world". Evidently you are not familiar with Italian history, or at least don't do much reading. Because then you'd know there are Ranuccio Farneses all over the place (as my little list above illustrates), (earlier ones often given numerals, e.g. [1], [2], [3] [4], [5] etc.). Disambiguation is necessary and useful. Walrasiad (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you have to stoop to personal attacks and 18th-century genealogy book references to obscure, encyclopaedically non-notable people, none of whom is even called "Ranuccio I Farnese" in those same sources, says all one needs to know about the merit of that argument. Thank you.
To everyone else: disambiguation is as unnecessary here as it is on Italian Wikipedia; type in "Ranuccio I Farnese" on Google Books and see for yourself who pops up. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? How do I address that without making it personal? Some have interest in Medieval Italian history, some have not. Some of those you dismiss as "non-notables" already have Wikipedia pages. And it would take me all of a few minutes to make pages for the others (there's plenty of material). In all these cases, disambiguation is necessary. And we already have it - "Duke of Mantua". Your assumption that no one cares about them merely reveals your interests, not those of readers. And we work here for the benefit of readers, not for the benefit of editors. Walrasiad (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the notable ones is commonly known as Ranuccio I Farnese. Not one. You are reaching and misleading and that is to no one's benefit. And I cordially suggest that you learn to address an argument without making it personal if you intend to contribute to this project. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a list of a bunch of Ranuccio Farnese's above. I have shown you that sources often give them numerals. That demonstrates there is a need for disambiguation. So much so that you fell into confusion yourself. So I am waiting for you to address how to disambiguate. Your reply so far has been to assume or assert that nobody cares. That is not satisfactory. Walrasiad (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not shown that sources often give them numerals. You have not shown that there is a single man other than this man here who is commonly known as Ranuccio I Farnese. You had to reach for 18th-century genealogy books, which then do not even use the suggested name format. Forgive me, but that is absurd. That disproves your point. You are perfectly aware of that. You know that all references to "Ranuccio I Farnese" refer to this man, and so does everyone who looks up that name on Google Books. Surtsicna (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown you enough, into the late 19th Century. Unfortunately, Gbooks prevents me looking inside more recent books. That said, the point remains, there are many Ranuccio Farnese, and disambiguation is needed. You're removing context and asking people to guess who the article is referring to. Readers shouldn't have to engage in guessing games. "Duke of Parma" removes all doubt. It is always provided in all articles when this figure is introduced. Is is a natural disambiguator. Walrasiad (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have disambiguation. The ordinal is disambiguation. We do not need two forms of disambiguation. There is no guessing game here: it is perfectly clear who Ranuccio I Farnese is. Surtsicna (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly insufficient. I already provided evidence that ordinals are also sometimes used for the earlier Ranuccio Farnese. So that's not a satisfactory answer. Walrasiad (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Also sometimes used" does not mean anything, especially when your evidence is a handful of 300-year-old genealogy books. You have not provided any evidence that Ranuccio I Farnese commonly refers to any man other than the one known as Ranuccio I Farnese on every other Wikipedia and in every book that ever pops up on Google Books search. Surtsicna (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, but you have chosen to ignore it. I trust my written sources quite more than I trust Wikipedia. Walrasiad (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add: Yet Wikipedia itself acknowledges plenty of Ranuccio Farnese, both in English and even more in Italian, all these you have dismissed as "non-notables" (who, btw, are included in Britannica as well).
Now that we're on Encyclopedias, notable Italian ones put the Ducal title in their article title: "Ranuccio I Farnese, duca di Parma e Piacenza" (e.g. Encilopedia Italiana, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani).
And of course, we can go in the opposite direction: there's enough books don't use the ordinal but simply refer to "Ranuccio Farnese" for the Duke of Parma (e.g. old Britannica, Storia di Parma Durant, or if you prefer more modern general works, [6], [7], [8], [9] [10], [11] [12], [13], or tourist books like Fodor's. Indeed, if you enter merely "Ranuccio Farnese duke 1622" (without quotes), you'll get as many results for the Duke Ranuccio Farnese without the ordinal as for with it. So your assertion that the ordinal is "sufficient" to identify the Duke is patently false.
What is clear is that there no books nor articles will introduce you to "Ranuccio I Farnese" without his title "Duke of Parma", whether directly or in context,.
There are plenty of Ranuccio Farnese, with & without ordinals, in a variety of books people read. But one thing is mercifully consistent - the Dukes are always clearly identified as "Duke of Parma". Readers following it up on Wikipedia, looking for the Duke of Parma they just read about, shouldn't be forced to jump through hoops. They should be able to recognize the "Duke of Parma" in the article title, not have to go guessing and sorting through a myriad of other articles. That is imposing needless hurdles on our readers. Walrasiad (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is only natural that officeholders are associated with their offices. No prime minister of Australia is introduced without being identified as prime minister of Australia, yet it is not a needless hurdle on the reader not to include his office in the article title. It is not the job of the article title to define the subject.
The fact that Ranuccio I Farnese may be mentioned as Ranuccio Farnese, without the ordinal, does not make the name Ranuccio I Farnese ambiguous. Elizabeth II is frequently called simply Queen Elizabeth too. Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an office, it is a ducal title like all dukes, it is part of his WP:COMMONNAME. It is noted in WP:NCPEER. Again, you are using misleading analogies. In articles on dukes, we use ducal titles, not offices.
You want to talk prime ministers? Very well, We say Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, not "Arthur Wellesley (prime minister of England)". His ducal title (not his job) is in his article title. That is his common name. Similarly for other prime ministers who were dukes like, "Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle", or "William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire" or "Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton", or "William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland", etc., etc. Duke is part of their common name. Like in our cases.
Italian dukes should use the same format as English dukes. As WP:NCPEER emphasizes, it is " "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title" And "Treat other European nobility like British nobility above, adapting for local circumstances; thus Philippe II, Duke of Orléans." That is the norm here. You continue to evade that with unrelated examples. Your arguments are basically reducible to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Walrasiad (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There we have it. "Italian dukes should use the same format as English dukes." That is the sole reason you oppose this proposal and your sole argument, the idea that Englishmen should be the measure and model for everything. Well, they are not, and if your interpretation of the obscure guideline you cite is even correct, it contradicts policy and thus needs to be changed. That will be dealt with next now that Alfonso IV d'Este, Duke of Modena→Alfonso IV d'Este and Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany→Cosimo III de' Medici move requests have gone through. Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to treat them differently - WP:NCPEER emphasizes they should be treated the same. I have provided many reasons. WP:NCPEER is one, WP:COMMONNAME is another, recognizability, disambiguation from others, etc. To add, these pages have been stable for nearly twenty years, until your recent strange campaign to attack Italian dukes. Walrasiad (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of your reasons are based in fact. "Recognizability" is especially egregious because all can read what WP:RECOGNIZABILITY means. Your WP:NCPEER is an obscure guideline crafted by two guys 15 years ago without any community input and in contravention of policy. It means nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Given that you yourself didn't recognize the difference between Ranuccio Farneses above, I'd say you showed the need for it yourself. But you dismiss Ranuccio Farnese as "non-notables", dismiss guidelines as "obscure", dismiss RS evidence as "old", or ignore them altogether, dismiss concerns about ambiguity by wanton misreading, dismiss concerns about readers, etc. You're not addressing any of these points honestly. You seem to be on a strange campaign that seems to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Walrasiad (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are not any other men commonly known as Ranuccio I Farnese. Sorry. Surtsicna (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either your memory or your reading comprehension must be rusty. There are several. I provided some links above showing that. Walrasiad (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not. There is not a single other man commonly known as Ranuccio I Farnese. We can all see that. What you showed is that one has to reach for 18th-century genealogy books to find a single reference to another "Ranuccio I". That, in case you honestly do not see it, is a point in favor of the proposed title(s). Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you multiple references of Ranuccio I. And that was only with three minutes of searching. And even more references (many very modern) that don't use the numeral to identify this Duke. So no, it is not sufficient.
By contrast, you have not shown your case with any evidence at all, from whatever century. You have not provided sources that refer only to "Ranuccio I Farnese" without using "Duke of Parma" as identifier, directly or in context.
You claim they are recognizable without their title? Then it is incumbent on you to prove it. Walrasiad (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is frequently referenced without the title in the books shown in the link I provided. Just click it. I will provide a sample because it also refers to Cosimo II de' Medici without his title. Hehe. Then, of course, you also have the published articles about Ranuccio I Farnese, dozens and dozens of them, both in English and Italian, which call him simply Ranuccio I Farnese. I can list them all if you'd like. It might be fun! Surtsicna (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is mentioned in the context of the Duchy of Parma, and the vast majority with "Duke/Duca" of Parma by the name. So no, that's not acceptable. Article titles have to stand alone and be recognizable without context. And, of course, preferably in works of general reference (the Wikipedia standard), not specialized texts, because that is our audience. So please get cracking. (And, btw, your very book gives "Cosimo II of Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany" p.265, so hehe indeed). Walrasiad (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk tsk tsk. Nobody likes to play with boys who move goal posts all the time. I think I am done here <3 Surtsicna (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is your proposal. You need to provide evidence for for it.
An article title has to stand by itself, without context. You can't rest on a false crutch when "Duke of Parma" is used in the same phrase or already mentioned in the text.
You're the one proposing to remove any reference to "Duke of Parma" in the article title, arguing the name & numeral is sufficiently recognizable by itself to Wikipedia readers. So it is incumbent on you to provide evidence of that. Walrasiad (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and we can go in circles all you like. Article titles are not supposed to define their subject. We do not have Keith Holyoake, Prime Minister of New Zealand instead of plain Keith Holyoake. Similarly, Ranuccio I Farnese is perfectly recognizable by itself to everyone who is familiar with the subject because only he is commonly called that. Your opposition is all about anglocentrism and royal grandeur. Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you need to put a little more effort. "Everybody knows" is not an answer and is certainly not evidence. Why not examine inside? In particular, make sure to examine works of general reference (the Wikipedia standard).
  • e.g. Britannica,
  • e.g. Treccani:
Pretty straightforward identifiers in titles, helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica has its own style. What you see in those brackets is what Wikipedia uses as short descriptions. On Wikipedia, it appears under the title when you type the name in the search box. On Britannica, you will see that all topics have those descriptions in the brackets, e.g.:
Wikipedia does not, per its own policy, have these "straightforward identifiers" in article titles. That is why we do not have Zachary Taylor, President of the United States or Elephant (animal), and that is why we should not have Ranuccio I Farnese, Duke of Parma.
As for Treccani, it will also show you entries without the ducal title, i.e. with the title as proposed here (and as used on Italian Wikipedia), e.g. Ranuccio I Farnese. Surtsicna (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need evidence for this proposed move for these pages, not for other pages.
The more substantial Treccani articles are better: Ranuccio I Farnese, duca di Parma e Piacenza.
Indexes of general works are also informative, since they usually have to hold up without context. For from what I find, the vast majority don't list merely "Ranuccio I Farnese" but include "Duke of Parma" (e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] [21], [22] etc.) Some are even overkill!
This is one is instructive, a major reference work (Grove Dictionary of Art), the entry title is "Ranuccio I, 4th Duke of Parma". No Farnese in title. But you can look up the redirect in the index: "Farnese, Ranuccio I, 4th Duke of Parma - see Ranuccio I, 4th Duke of Parma". So for this work of general reference, "Duke of Parma" is more recognizable than Farnese.
So get back to work. You do have to come up with evidence of WP:COMMONNAME for your proposal, not merely rhetoric. Walrasiad (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not care one bit about WP:COMMONNAME. You have literally argued for a title that gets the subject's given name factually wrong for the explicitly stated reason of retaining the ducal title in the article title. This is all about your stated "Italian dukes should use the same format as English dukes" belief. I am not doing any more work for nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, my dispute with this is that it reduces recognizability, which is the fundamental part of WP:COMMONNAME, and makes it more difficult for Wikipedia readers (our audience). At every step, I have been producing evidence of those concerns. You have not produced evidence to back up the proposal, you have not addressed these concerns, you have been just summarily dismissing them and throwing up nothing but rhetoric. If you refuse to produce evidence, then I can only conclude your proposal is based on nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This obsession you seem to have with eliminating titles everywhere seems to be merely a question of personal stylistic taste for you, and not actually based on evidence. My interest is in ensuring article titles are useful and helpful to Wikipedia readers. I guess we have different goals here. Walrasiad (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all see what WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says, and I have quoted it multiple times. You continue to peddle a false interpretation of recognizability. All I can do about that is point it out each time. Everything you have asked for has been produced, including both biographies and passing references to Ranuccio I Farnese without the ducal title that prove both precision and common name, yet you continue to claim that I have not produced anything. You will not be convinced because your stated "Italian dukes should use the same format as English dukes" belief is the only thing you mentioned in your first comment and all you truly care about. Therefore I will not try to convince you anymore. The links are there for others to see. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you spent less time on rhetoric, and more on producing evidence, it might be more helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ranuccio_I_Farnese&oldid=1201926604"