Talk:Alfonso IV d'Este

Grammar

There are a few little issues with grammar, probably just typos, that need to be fixed in this article. Patrolmanno9 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

portrait double

Look at the portrait on Cesare d'Este and you'll see that it's the same picture. I do not know which one is the real picture of Cesare or Alfonso IV, but somebody else does? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.136.246 (talk) 07:08:34, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Birth date?

I was doing genealogy, and looking at the italian version of the national biography and their birth date is way off from the one we got. Anyone who can read Italian want to double check for us? (i had to use google translate) http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/alfonso-iv-d-este-duca-di-modena_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puidwen (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2023

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. All are moved in accordance with consensus established in the RM. Generally, supporting arguments were based on both precision and concision, while opposition focused on WP:NCROY and WP:NCPEER, both of which were heavily refuted by those in support of the move. Therefore I find that consensus exists to enact all moves as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• Alfonso IV d'Este, Duke of Modena → Alfonso IV d'Este
• Alfonso III d'Este, Duke of Modena → Alfonso III d'Este
• Alfonso II d'Este, Duke of Ferrara → Alfonso II d'Este
• Alfonso I d'Este, Duke of Ferrara → Alfonso I d'Este
• Cesare d'Este, Duke of Modena → Cesare d'Este
• Ercole I d'Este, Duke of Ferrara → Ercole I d'Este
• Ercole II d'Este, Duke of Ferrara → Ercole II d'Este
• Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena → Ercole III d'Este
• Francesco I d'Este, Duke of Modena → Francesco I d'Este
• Francesco II d'Este, Duke of Modena → Francesco II d'Este
• Francesco III d'Este, Duke of Modena → Francesco III d'Este
• Leonello d'Este, Marquis of Ferrara → Leonello d'Este

– A proposal to reduce title bloat. Each of these men has an unambiguous name that can, should, and on other Wikipedias does serve as a perfectly sufficient article title. We do not have Emmanuel Macron, President of France, and we should not have these either. WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE come to mind. Surtsicna (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support I cannot see any grounds for opposing this proposal. The names are unambiguous, so why make everything unnecessarily lengthy? Keivan.f^Talk 00:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• 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 "d'Este", but refer simply to Duke Alfonso IV of Modena, etc.. Walrasiad (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You spoke too soon, Keivan. Of course there is going to be someone "strong opposing" on the basis of an obscure guideline coined by three people back in 2006. In this case WP:NCPEER explicitly refers to British peers, not sovereign dukes, and thus WP:SOVEREIGN applies instead: "Use the most common, unambiguous name. Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." Surtsicna (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The rare form "Duke Alfonso IV of Modena" can serve as a redirect and does not make the title Alfonso IV d'Este any less appropriate; the fact that some sources may refer to Donald Trump as "President Trump of the United States" does not make Donald Trump, President of the United States preferable to just Donald Trump. Surtsicna (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Dukes of Modena & Ferrara are not sovereign, they are vassals of the Holy Roman Empire. Read down WP:NCPEER: "Treat other European nobility like British nobility above", etc.

Moreover, removing the ducal specification, I am not sure what your numerals refer to anymore. The Este family has a much longer existence and several branches, both in Italy and Germany. Francesco I is the first Duke of Modena called Francis, not the first member of the Este family called Francis.

These "obscure guidelines" exist for good reasons, and have worked well for nearly twenty years.

These are not household names in popular culture. Title improves recognizability.

"Donald Trump" is instantly recognizable. But these are not. These names are almost never given in texts without the specification that they are Dukes of Ferrara or Modena.

References to Dukes of Modena and Ferrara without the 'd'Este" are common enough (to say nothing of English language works that don't use the Italian names at all, but translate them to Duke Francis, etc.).

Readers should not be expected to know in advance that Duke Francis I of Modena is also sometimes called Francesco I d'Este in Italian, any more than they are expected to know the Duke of Wellington is also called Arthur Wellesley. The ducal title in the article title makes it immediately clear to readers who the article is about.

This proposal is unhelpful, reduces recognizability and is a disservice to our readers. Walrasiad (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

They were not vassals in any meaningful sense. They were de facto and de jure rulers of their duchies. All that is irrelevant since the guideline you cite refers to British peers.

You are promoting an incorrect understanding of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. It is not, and has never been, about defining the subject in the article title. It is about people who are already familiar with the subject recognizing that the article is about that subject by looking at the title. Everyone familiar with Alfonso IV d'Este will know that the article titled Alfonso IV d'Este is about Alfonso IV d'Este. Appending "Duke of Modena" is an overkill and does nothing for recognizability.

Is William Howard Taft a household name? Do a majority of English speakers know who William Howard Taft was? I strongly doubt that even a majority of US citizens do. So does that mean that the article about him should be titled William Howard Taft, President of the United States for recognizability? Should we have William Hall-Jones, Prime Minister of New Zealand or shall we pretend that William Hall-Jones is a household name?

Francesco I d'Este is not "sometimes called Francesco I d'Este in Italian". He is commonly called Francesco I d'Este in English, which is why that is the name we currently use to refer to him. Nobody calls him "Francis I of Modena";[1] and even if someone did, unusual names can and should redirect to the precise, concise and common name. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Duke of Modena is as much a vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor as the Duke of Normandy is a vassal of the King of France. They hold vicariates by imperial warrant, ducal judgments can be appealed to the higher court of the Emperor, etc.

The primary WP:CRITERIA for Wikipedia article titles is recognizability. Article titles should be able to stand alone, without subtitles or context.

Ducal titles are not job descriptions, but part of the name by which they are generally known. These figures are always, or almost always, when introduced, referred to as "Duke of Modena" or "Duke of Ferrara", and hardly ever (or never) as "Francesco I d'Este" by itself. It is their WP:COMMONNAME, it is how they are known.

Yes, William Howard Taft is a household name by comparison. Obscure Medieval European dukes with their myriad of similar names and unmemorable numbers, and various foreign language spellings are not. Your shortened title names are a needless obstacle to readers. You are abusing the meaning of "familiar". I am an expert, and I don't have the names of Medieval Italian noble families memorized, or remember who owned which duchy or fief. Wikipedians are not experts, they are people searching for further information about Duke Francis I of Modena they might come across in, say, an art history book. Your proposal makes it needlessly murky - I don't know if it refers to a movie, or to a ship, or to some grandson of Welf of Bavaria.

Noble titles are not an artificial or gratuitous disambiguator we're adding (like your examples do). Arthur Wellesley is generally known and referred to as the Duke of Wellington. And these guys are generally known and referred to as the Duke of Ferrara or the Duke of Modena. It is part of their common name.

It unambiguously improves recognizability, the primary WP:CRITERIA. Your proposal is not only wrongheaded, it is unhelpful and a detriment to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Post-Westphalia Modena and Normandy are absolutely not in the same boat, and whether they are vassals or sovereigns is of no consequence anyway when it comes to the application of Wikipedia's article titling policy. If the guideline you are citing calls for contradicting WP:AT, and I do not believe it does anymore, then the policy takes precedence anyway.

Whether one knows the names of all Italian nobles or which family ruled which duchy is likewise not relevant. It is not the purpose of an article title to define the subject. That I do not know which country William Hall-Jones was prime minister of does not mean that the article about him should be titled William Hall-Jones, prime minister of New Zealand. It is quite clear what "familiar" means here and it is explicitly said in WP:RECOGNIZABILITY that it does not mean being an expert.

Lastly, the suggestion that these titles are part of their names is proven wrong by the myriad of biographies and histories calling them simply "Francesco I d'Este", etc, which is not true for the likes of Arthur Wellesley. It is also quite telling that all other Wikipedias omit the "duke of Modena" appositive. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of those above are pre-Westphalia. And HRE continued until 1806, with the Duchy of Modena was a part of it. Indeed, the aforementioned Duke Francis I of Modena was threatened by Emperor Ferdinand III with the revocation of his ducal title in 1656. These are imperial fiefs and the Emperor was sovereign.

Why do you keep insisting on temporary job descriptions of modern politicians for your examples? Ducal titles are not jobs nor temporary. It is apples and oranges. Why don't you use honest examples of actual articles on Dukes we have on Wikipedia?

The Duke of Wellington also had jobs, he was the British prime minister, but his article is not titled "Arthur Wellesley (prime minister of Great Britain)" (as you're insinuating). His article is titled "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington". 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. These are their common names. Like in our cases.

As for familiarity, well, I am looking for Duke Francis I of Modena. I don't know (or remember) if he is an Obertenghi, Este, Grasulfi or Rangoni or Aigoni (all of which were ruling families of Modena at some point). And "Francesco I d'Este" is insufficient, for there are also other nobles that have been called that - e.g. Francesco d'Este (son of Obizzo II), or his cousin Francesco d'Este (son of Bertoldo), or Francesco d'Este (son of Alfonso I), etc.

There are no works of general reference which introduce "Francesco I d'Este" by itself, out of context, without noting that he is also "Duke of Modena". You claim that is common, then it is incumbent on you to prove it.

Conversely, there are enough sources that don't mention "d'Este" at all, even post-Westphalia (e.g. Hanlon, p.202). Many merely use "Francis I of Modena" or "Francis I, Duke of Modena" or "Francesco I of Modena", or "Francesco I, Duke of Modena. If I want to follow up, I will search for article on the Duke Francis I of Modena, and I expect "Duke of Modena" to be in the title somewhere, much as I would expect to find it in articles on any other dukes. If I want to find articles on the Duke of Wellington or the Duke of Newcastle or some other British prime minister commonly referred to as Duke, I expect and should find articles with "Duke" in the title. I should not have to struggle to discover and remember instead whether his family name is Wellesley, Pelham, Pelham-Holles, Cavendish or Bentinck-Cavendish. Just because some editor on Wikipedia boldly decided to drop the "Duke" title and make it less recognizable and needlessly more complicated to find? That is detrimental to Wikipedia readers.

"Francesco I d'Este, Duke of Modena" is simple, clear, unambiguous and recognizable. It is how he is referred to, it is his WP:COMMONAME. It is consistent with how we treat article titles for all other dukes as per WP:NCPEER. It is useful and helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, in line with WP:CONCISE and WP:NCROY. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• 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) 14:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NCROY. What's next, should Albert II, Prince of Monaco be moved to Albert Grimaldi? estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

No, because he's not known as Albert Grimaldi. Utterly different situation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. no need to have overly complicated titles, per WP:CONCISE; WP:NCPEER is in any case strongly biased towards the UK—an entire section for Britain, and the rest of Europe? Oh, basically the same, with some exceptions. And the rest of the world? No, not worth discussing at the page titled "Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)"... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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.