Talk:Siege of Thimert

Military history: European / French / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Which William?

@TWalker1993B: The first William who was duke of Normandy was William Longsword. The second was William the Conqueror. King William II of England was never duke of Normandy. "Duke William I of Normandy" was not alive in 1058. Are you even reading the text you are modifying? Srnec (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On William the Conqueror's wikipedia page it calls him William I. I thought you were saying William II (the Conqueror's son) was the one who besieged Thimert and not William I. TWalker1993B (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the text at William the Conqueror to clarify. William II of Normandy = William I of England, while William I of Normandy never ruled England and William II of England was never duke of Normandy. Srnec (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec You would have to change William II of England as well, as well as many wikipedia articles that call William the conqueror the I and not II. I will not revert it but I do wonder what you plan for. TWalker1993B (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec I will not revert again as I do not wish to cause an edit war. My main point is that all sources and wikipedia pages already refer to William the Conqueror as William I and William II is William the Conqueror's son. William Longsword is referred to by his epithet: "Longsword". TWalker1993B (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go for today, so have a nice rest of your day. But before I go I wanted to say one last thing: Your words (I presume, that's what's changed) "(as William I), reigning from 1066 until his death. A descendant of Rollo, he was Duke of Normandy (as William II)" Even by this logic it would make more sense to refer to him as William I since he was known better for being the first Norman King rather then the Duke of Normandy, as proven by virtually all sources calling him William I. Anyhow, Cheers. TWalker1993B (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was not king of England at the time of the siege. Why is "Duke William II of Normandy" unclear? There is not only one "William I" and "William II" in history. William the Conqueror was William I of England and William II of Normandy. At the time of the siege of Thimert he isn't William I of anything. Srnec (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was more referred to as William I or William the Bastard, not William II. All this does is confuse people who have a basic knowledge of who William II (the real one) was. Harald Sigurdsson's page refers to him as Harald Hardrada, an epithet that was not given to him until a few decades after his death, but we call him that anyway because that's what he was known as best, everyone recognizes it, as well as all the sources calling him that. Calling him William II will only cause confusion since that was what his son was referred to as. We could change it to William the Bastard to keep the contemporary title as well as avoiding the confusion. However I am against the notion that calling him William II makes more sense. Also, when I read through his Wikipedia page, not once does it refer to him as William II (in the version before you edited it), it only ever refers to him as William I, the only times William II comes up is when referring to his son, two were in the sources section which were both referring to his son. Not once does it refer to him as William II so i wonder what source you are using to justify this change. TWalker1993B (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source for "William II" to the William the Conqueror page. You can call him William I of England, but that makes no sense here. You cannot call him William I of Normandy, for that is wrong. Yes, William the Bastard would work, but you'd still have to say that he was duke of Normandy. Srnec (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the history of this page I have seen that this misunderstanding has happened before, perhaps we call him "Duke William the Bastard of Normandy" (Perhaps even adding the II numeral somewhere)? Calling him only William II confuses some people, and calling him William I would be inconsistent. I will change it to that and you edit the numeral into it where you see it, or just leave it as Duke William the Bastard. TWalker1993B (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]