This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
How should the articles on the rulers of Montferrat be titled? An editor has recently moved all the articles, which were of the form "[Name] [Ordina] of Montferrat", to titles of the form "[Name] [Ordinal], Marquess of Montferrat", as well as moving Conrad of Montferrat to Conrad I of Jerusalem, all citing the MoS. I argued that this "slavish adherence" to the MoS could be "ruinous" and that the moves were illogical because "marquess" is far from the most common term to describe these fellows: "marquis" and "margrave" are more common in English (and Google backs this up) as translations of marchio/marchese. Any opinions? Srnec (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marquis is the spelling I have seen most often. I suppose it is useful since they became Dukes later, and there are a whole bunch of relatives in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries who have the same name but who were not all marquises. But I moved Conrad back because he is never called "Conrad I of Jerusalem", that is a very silly title. If User:Silverwhistle is still around, she's an expert on the Montferrats, so her input would be useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did leave a message on her talkpage, but she does appear to be inactive. So would you prefer the current forms with "marquis" instead of "marquess"? I thought the ordinals would be enough to distinguish the rulers from other "of Montferrat"s. Srnec (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the original titles were confusing, and I agree that the Manual of Style is not to be followed slavishly...but including "marquis" doesn't really do any harm here. Moving them back, though, would avoid the argument about what spelling of "marquis" to use (although "marquis" is correct here). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles section 5: "European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g., Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg." Adherence to that isn't 'slavish' or 'ruinous', it's just common sense. MichaelSanders16:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adherence to the MoS is ultimately optional. I would be less opposed to these moves if the word chosen wasn't "marquess", which I believe is rarely seen. Further, articles like Conrad of Montferrat simply should not be moved. The only problematic article I can see is Rainier of Montferrat, which currently has a dab note. But if the later Renier of Montferrat is called Renier II (and I don't know if he is), that problem would easily be solved. Furthermore, your interpretation of the MoS is odd, why are the rulers of Montferrat called "monarchs" and Montferrat a "country"? I don't think it is typical to regard fief-holding lords monarchs and fiefdoms countries. Srnec (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's definitely not common sense to call them "marquess of Montferrat", or to call the article "Conrad I of Jerusalem". And it does say "should", not "must". Adam Bishop (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) I'd have said Conrad was well known as "Conrad of Montferrat". Perhaps that's just me and the pernicious influence of the Ladybird book on Richard the Lionheart (or wherever I actually read about him; perhaps it was Runciman, although I'm sure it was long before I ever read his books that I came across Conrad and Guy). I'm sorely inclined to put everything back the way it was. Controversial moves need to be discussed. WP:BRD. I suppose I really ought to put them back and point you all to WP:RM. Let's see how I feel tomorrow. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article say "Margaret of Montferrat, daughter of William IX and Anne of Alençon, and Marchioness of Montferrat in her own right" - if she was that, then she was a ruler, and should be in this list herself, but she is still just referred to as a wife? I would place her there myself, but they years of her reign seem unclear?--Aciram (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
