Talk:Álvaro de Figueroa, 1st Count of Romanones

Requested move 11 August 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to move. BD2412 T 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Álvaro de Figueroa, 1st Count of Romanones → Count of Romanones – As one of the obvious exceptions under WP:OBE, of application in equal terms to other European nobility (When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known), to the point that he is even referred under the shortened "Romanones" nickname. The proposed title has been a redirect to the main article since 2007, so there's quite a lot of stability in the in-wiki use of the title as well. Impru20^talk 16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Romanones is a place of course. Count of Romanones is WP:COMMONNAME and the current title is the correct nobility project title. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. See Wellington. Srnec (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Srnec: There is also Lord Byron on this issue. And a really big difference here when compared to both Byron and Wellington (I dunno why they are named differently, considering that OBE should apply equally to both of them) is that, in the case of the Count of Romanones, all subsequent holders of the title are not even notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia (not even in the Spanish wiki). As said, he is referred to under both "Count of Romanones" or simply as "Romanones" even in English-language works ([1]). I think that if there's a textbook example of the OBE exception of "When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known" being of application, it's this one. Otherwise, when should that exception be enforceable? Impru20^talk 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

OBE doesn't apply here; it's for British peerage. Srnec (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: See the "Other cases" section: Treat other European nobility like British nobility above.

For example, the most extreme case of this I can think of would be Cardinal Richelieu (not "Armand Jean du Plessis, 1st Duke of Richelieu"), which is a case of a non-British peer who goes by the exceptions of not one but two naming conventions: OBE (for his nobility title "Richelieu" rather than his full name) and WP:NCCL (for "Cardinal", despite the convention explicitly calling for it to not be used unless COMMONNAME applies). Impru20^talk 09:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The one I can think of in "continental peerage" is Antoine(-Amédée-Marie-Vincent) Manca Amat de Vallombrosa, Marquis de Morès et de Montemaggiore going by Marquis de Morès against the most rigid interpretation of OBE and against proper English language with the de connector. As per Wellington, there are 9 Dukes of Wellington (4 of them Arthur Wellesley) with Wikipedia article, the latest one having plenty of visits comparable to the first one (suggesting the rationality of the guideline as in going in line with practicality and common sense in the case of English peerage, yet the same concerns of practicality may not necessarily appear elsewhere, other different rationales of "practicality" may be more salient as it is the case here!).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to Count of Romanones or Count Romanones. Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE. (Count) Romanones is the primary way par excellence to address to this man in the relevant English-language sources dealing with Spanish politics (the primary reason for which the individual is relevant). To be fair OBE mentions adapting to local circumstances. Some of that circumstances popping up from my mind are the use of Count rather than Earl, Marquis rather than Marquess, the availability of a (not necessarily obscure) second surname in some circumstances, the inconsistency in the use of the nobiliary titles, and in a pragmatic sense the absence of a continuity of the peerage line in most cases in Wikipedia to justify the numeral as a sort of disambiguator (a numeral that in some cases is either unnecessary, obscure or even disputed by sources—the titles of Wikipedia articles are not expected to serve any educational purpose whatsoever in any case—). Not to say that Romanones (a true kingpin of Restoration politics) is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (I'd venture to say that even vis-à-vis the municipality).--Asqueladd (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC) PS: Regarding the notion of a correct "nobility project title" Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility states: "Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects." and this man is not precisely here because of a nobiliary title. Article titles of politicians from Spain have been terrorised for too long by blocked SPAs wanting to "educate" us about nobility "titles", "numerals", "obscure translations to English", "title pre-eminences" et. al. in the most rigid fashion imaginable all going against usage, concision and common sense.
• Oppose. You could say this about hundreds of British peers, but we still use their name as well as their title (e.g. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington). No need to make an exception here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Lord Byron, anyone? Also, the case of Wellington is not necessarily a good example: Duke of Wellington already redirects to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington rather than to the disambiguation page, and the current name does not seem to be a result of any explicit consensus on it. Factually, the "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington" name seems to be a result of the "Duke of Wellington" formerly pertaining to the title rather than to the person, but it was then turned into a redirect for the best-known holder of the title as a result of a consensus in May 2011. This means that "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington" is an example of an article that could (and likely should) be moved under the WP:OBE exceptions and as per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, not the other way around. Impru20^talk 12:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, there are literally hundreds of articles on British peers that should be moved if this was adhered to. Best to leave the status quo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Other stuff existing does not seem like a convincing reason not to move an article if the move is right and convenient for that article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otherwise, the WP:RM procedure wouldn't exist. The pages for other hundreds of articles on British peers may have their own, particular reasons in favour or against moving, but those should be addressed in each of them under their own circumstances, not here. They could be all right or wrong, but that is independent of the case presented here. WP:OBE explicitly outlines the naming convention on exceptions like this one when one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known (which would also conform with WP:CONCISE), so this is being addressed based on this case's particular circumstances. Plus, it's worth noting that in many cases (such as this one), the "status quo" is a result of unilateral decisions from some editors going against WP guidelines and a lack of a proper review on the merits of the title, more than anything else. Impru20^talk 13:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bear WP:CONSISTENT in mind as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:OBE already suggests dropping the rigidness of the Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title "When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known" to begin with. And that's the case, both in English and Spanish language sources. WP:OBE also states that the use of 1st, 2nd, 3rd... (...) is a matter of convenience" Which more conveniences for removing the cruftesque "1st" numeral do you want? The ordinal is not appropriate at all. " there are literally hundreds of articles on British peers that should be moved" If British peerage articles do not even follow WP:OBE, because someone thought the nuances of policies and guidelines on titles need to be overruled because of a foolish notion of consistency, that's a problem for those articles. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Let's not transplant that here, slippery slope fallacy notwithstanding. "Best to leave the status quo" A status quo reached through multiples moves and no rationale provided in any of them is worth nothing (the worth of a salted redirect).--Asqueladd (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a wrong interpretation of how WP:CONSISTENT works. Naming conventions are the result of CONSISTENT. Every name change accomplished in accordance to a naming convention is obviously consistent with all other articles covering that topic field. And that is so even if the proposed title does not follow the general scheme of the NC, because in many cases those explicitly allow for exceptions, outlined in such a way that they are kept consistent with the general spirit of titling within that topic field. See one recent successful move at Talk:Amadeo I of Spain#Requested move 20 August 2020 to see how the enforcement of exceptions within naming conventions work.

Here, the naming convention of application is WP:OBE, which sets out that the nobiliary title is to be used as the article's title When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known. This is indeed done on other articles such as Lord Byron, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Marquis de Morès or Cardinal Richelieu, among others. CONSISTENT is not in question here, and it'd be wrong for you to assume that it means some sort of prohibition to keep improving Wikipedia just because some other stuff may exist which somehow "hinders" it. Impru20^talk 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Comparisons to Lord Byron or Cardinal Richelieu are not really applicable. Lord Byron is his name as a famous celebrity poet, Cardinal Richelieu is a celebrity in his own right in popular culture. This guy is just another nobleman-politician among a gazillion everywhere, and not sufficiently notable in himself. If the Count-Duke of Olivares or the Duke of Lerma, who are a lot more famous, have their name in full, I don't see why this fellow deserves special treatment. Walrasiad (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Another nobleman-politician among a gazillion everywhere" has nothing to do with WP:OBE. Dropping the Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title format "When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known", has. Sources have been provided showing that this guy is actually the overwhelmingly-best known holder of this title. Can you prove otherwise?

No one prevents the articles for the Count-Duke of Olivares or the Duke of Lerma to be moved if those would also abide to the WP:OBE exceptions (specially the first one, which is named like that even in the Spanish wiki itself). There doesn't seem to be any current consensus in either case for the current titles to stand, so that's not an argument for opposing, really. Impru20^talk 21:06, 6 September 2020 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.