Talk:Priory of Douglas

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: moved to Prioress of Douglas. Favonian (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Baroness of Douglas → Prioress of Douglas –. I recently nominated this article for deletion (see AFD on this article), because of a lack of references in the article and the non-appearance of the title in Google Books and Google Scholar, which led me to question whether it was a hoax. The AFD discussion established that it was not a hoax, and was closed as "keep, at any rate not delete".
The AFD closer correctly noted that the discussion at AFD about rename or merger was inconclusive, so I am making the rename proposal separately here.
The sources produced in the discussion demonstrate that the primary title for this office-holder was "Prioress of Douglas", which should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

1. The title "Baroness" appears to have been an ex officio role of the Prioress ("The Prioress of Douglas was a baroness in right of her lands"). Most of the sources use the same phrase: "The prioress of Douglas was anciently a baroness of the isle" is used repeatedly in the Google Books hits for "Prioress of Douglas". To avoid content forking, these conjoined titles should be discussed in the same article, and Wikipedia's policy on article titles should be applied to determine which title to use.
2. There are no hits for "Baroness of Douglas" on Google Books or Google Scholar or Google News (including the archives).
3. The title "Prioress of Douglas" gets 72 hits on Google Books, and 14 hits on Google Scholar.
   The title "Prioress of Douglas" is used by most sources even when discussing her temporal powers as a Baroness. See for example [1], "These are not the very identical walls in which the venerable Prioress of Douglas used in the olden time to hold her baronial courts", "In 1422, the prioress of Douglas appears as one of the barons of Man called to do fealty", "Thus the prioress of Douglas flaunted it like a queen : she presided at her own baronial courts : exercised temporal as well as spiritual discipline"
4. Per the above, the most widely-used title in reliable sources for the holder of this office is "Prioress of Douglas". Per Wikipedia's naming policy at WP:COMMONNAME, that is the title which should be used if there is to be a standalone article on her.
5. As noted at the AFD, I would prefer that this article was merged with the article on the priory (currently titled The Nunnery, Douglas), so that history of the Priory and the temporal powers of its successive rulers can be discussed together rather than split over two pages. However, if this page is to be kept as a standalone article, then it should be renamed per WP:COMMONNAME. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out elsewhere, what is most notable about this title is that it was a separate title from her ecclesiastical duties. Since the title would have expired sometime in the 16th century, this is simply an issue of the need to find more sources to determine how this person was called by her contemporaries. In the meantime, we could perhaps call it "Prioress of Douglas, Baroness of the Isle" or something similar to ensure that we capture this unique and interesting title; "Baroness of the Isle" gets about 26 results in google books. --KarlB (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  That use of the word "separate" is a bit misleading. As noted in point 1 above, the title of Baroness was held as a consequence of the Prioress's role as head of a religious house which controlled lands ("The Prioress of Douglas was a baroness in right of her lands"); it was not separable from that office.

  Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Karl appears to be proposing to try to find the "official name", which is contrary to naming policy.

  Karl's further suggestion of "Prioress of Douglas, Baroness of the Isle" breaches WP:PRECISION, by being over-precise. It also appears to be a neologism (no hits in Google Books, and no hits in Google Scholar and no hits on JSTOR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Prioress's role role as a baron appears to have been, as BHG states, ex officio. The title, thus, appears to be more properly Prioress of Douglas. Worryingly, the only hit for "Baroness of Douglas" on Google Books is this article. --RA (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• keep It seems the current article title is best, until a more accurate title can be found.--KarlB (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support with ample evidence from nominator and RA. Karl.brown, what makes it seem that the current title is best? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2012 (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.