| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert of Berghes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Name edit
There's not a lot on him in English at all, but with the exception of Hans Cools using "de Glymes-Berghes" everything there is calls him "Robert of Berghes". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Page move edit
Since the user making the page move knew it would be controversial (see above, stupid etc.), and made no attempt to justify it or reach consensus, I have reverted it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is no consistancy in naming this family, rediculous? De van Of Berghes??? De van of Grimberghen?? This geleanlogy is worth nothing. It is confusing for all readers what the family name is??? IOf you want to anglicanise the family name it should be Robert of Bergen, and not half French and half English logic.--Carolus (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a question of what anybody wants, it's a question of what our sources say. There's no need to shoehorn them into an anachronistically modern sense of consistency. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes there is; wikipedia is rediculous if everyone of the same family has a different surname. Sources are not sacred.--Carolus (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Surnames are not sacred. It's common for people to have a different surname from their mother; there's no need to freak out or take remedial action if they have a different surname from their father. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes there is; wikipedia is rediculous if everyone of the same family has a different surname. Sources are not sacred.--Carolus (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a question of what anybody wants, it's a question of what our sources say. There's no need to shoehorn them into an anachronistically modern sense of consistency. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
They should be in nobility, there is nothing more sacred than the name of the house!--Carolus (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's not our concern though, however sacred it might be (or have been) to the subjects! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)