Talk:Ventimiglia family

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Ventimiglia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516155835/http://www.centrostudiventimigliani.it/ to http://www.centrostudiventimigliani.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Article title

So, I see that a couple of years ago this page was moved by Domdeparis to Ventimiglia family with the rationale "In English "House of" is reserved for Royal dynasties see House of". The move was reverted by PBS with a rationale that started off "Revert move until there is a talk page discussion and consensus ...". This is that talk-page discussion, however belated. I agree with Domdeparis, this is not a noble or royal house, but rather an only moderately prominent Sicilian family which received some appointments and titles. Treccani covers it in a very brief paragraph, describing it as a "feudal Sicilian family descended from one Guglielmo, count of Ventimiglia (1242)". I suggest moving the page and removing the unsourced content. PBS, would you have any objection to that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"It ain't necessarily so": just because Domdeparis made a statement it does not mean that it is true. Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of. "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed" (WP:TITLECHANGES). Do you have any sources to state that the current article title is incorrect ie that the common recognisable name is Ventimiglia family? -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that WP:COMMONNAME applies here. What are the english language sources that support the use of House of? --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, but if the page is to be moved then as stated in WP:TITLECHANGES, the emphasis is on the person wishing to move it to show that the sources support such a change and as such a change has been shown to be controversial any propose move should use WP:RM#CM. Over to you User:Justlettersandnumbers -- PBS (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

84 hits on GBooks for "Ventimiglia family", of which about fifteen are immediately verifiable. 23 hits for "House of Ventimiglia", two of them verifiable. Perfectly happy to start an RM on this (and don't actually much care about the outcome); it just seems like a rather pointless waste of time that would better be spent on other things. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I agree this would be a bit of a waste of time as there are no sources in the article attesting to this being the common name. I would just make the point that the original article was called Ventimiglia (family) for around 2 years before being moved to the present name by a user without adding any sources to show this was the common name. The original move is in contradiction with WP:TITLECHANGES. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The original move was made over a decade ago (16:37, 6 April 2007‎) just six months after the article was created. So the current article title meets the requirement of being a stable article title. As to whether it broke WP:TITLECHANGES depends on whether at the time it was a controversial change. As there had been no discussion to show there was a general disagreement on this type of name ("house of" or "family"), making a bold move was something that could be done (someone could near the time of moved it back and there could have been a WP:RM it the mover so wished). Looking at WP:AT when the page was moved there is a section called "Controversial names" which gave guidance similar to today's. -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It was actually 18 months and not 6 but that is not very important. I really can't be bothered with this anymore to be perfectly honest. I have become very disillusioned with wikipedia recently and the mass of red tape surrounding it. There is nothing to show that a minor noble family should have a wikipedia title that gives it the impression that it is a royal house and common sense screams that this move should not be controversial but because it has flown under the radar for 10 years we have to keep it like this. Regardless of the fact that there are no sources to show this is the common name for the page I am sure there will be a sufficient number of editors to vote against the move (and I do not mean !vote). Maybe thanks to Game of Thrones "House of" has really come to change what people think the proper usage is so who am I to go against progress. Wikipedia is a reflection of society and if society is dumbing down then in all logic so will wikipedia. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2019

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.

Moved as proposed. There is much discussion, but there does not seem to be much in the way of opposition to the proposal; rather, the discussion appears to be about competing rationales for support. bd2412 T 21:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

House of Ventimiglia → Ventimiglia family – Per WP:COMMONNAME – 84 hits on GBooks for "Ventimiglia family", of which about fifteen are immediately verifiable. 23 hits for "House of Ventimiglia", two of them verifiable. This is not a royal or noble house, but one of many hundreds of families in Italy that obtained some titles and positions in the Middle Ages and later. Discussion here has not led to consensus, although no evidence has been presented that the present title is either accurate or supported by reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per User:Justlettersandnumbers.Like User:DomdeParis above, I find the stubbornly bureaucratic mindset that has forced this to an RM a sign, if more were needed, of the accelerating decline of Wikipedia.Ingratis (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of. This is a contriversial issue so an RM is appropriate for such moves. -- PBS (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I read it at the time but have re-read it. Clearly, if disappointingly, the subject is no less controversial now than then so have struck my comment about bureaucracy as unfair to you (although I still think that Wikipedia is in decline).Ingratis (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. The common name is clearly Ventimiglia family. House of is traditionally used to describe royal dynasites and not noble families. This usage is backed up by Library of Congress Classification guidelines here (my bolding in the quote) "The terminology used in reference sources usually determines which of the two types of headings to use. The heading [ . . . ] dynasty is generally used for non-European royal houses; [ . . . ], House of for European royal houses. The heading [ . . . ], House of is used for an individual royal house, that is, a ruling family of a monarchy. Works that discuss several royal houses of a region or country are assigned the heading for the region or country in question with the free-floating subdivision BKings and rulers. Individual aristocratic or noble families are established as [ . . . ] family, for example, Malatesta family; Tokugawa family. For guidelines concerning establishing family names, see H 1631.. So in summary common name is family and house of is not an established use for idividual noble families making this article title ambiguous. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  As you are well aware from the discussion "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of" your oppinion on the usefulness of the Library of Congress Classification was questioned by othe editors. Those who opposed your rule based aproach to naming dynastic articles, argued that the title of such articles on Wikipedia should be based on usage in WP:SOURCEs as User:Justlettersandnumbers is proposing here. -- PBS (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I am but that does not mean that I have to agree with them. There are no sources to show that House of is the common name for this page but the use of my source backs up my argument that "House of" should not be used in the absence of sources as per 2 of the other cirteria in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA namely Precision and Consistency. Also please remember that House of redirects to Dynasty that specifically deals with ruling houses. When you look at the list in this article of ruling houses we do not find minor or middling noble families. This family's highest title from what I can gather from the article was Count which is a middle ranking title and not what I would describe as a ruler. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment (following from Support above): The evidence is that "Ventimiglia family" is commoner than "House of Ventimiglia", which IMO also fails the Naturalness criterion, (a) because this is not one of the great noble families, and certainly not Royal, and (b) because "House of..." in UK English suggests House of Elliott more often than House of Windsor.

For the rest, obvs nothing much has changed since August 2017. Unless I've misunderstood, there is apparently general agreement that Royal houses are "House of...", and that at the other end of the scale, minor nobility and gentry are "...family". The disagreement is about the middle range: the exact definition of "Royal", and major (mostly European) non-Royal families (and wherever the lower border of that group lies). That each one of those needs to be analysed individually and linked back to "reliable sources" to see which term should be used, seems to me a pointless exercise because the "reliable sources" in English for the middle range are themselves pretty arbitrary - "house" or "family" will depend on what was used in the original language, which is usually random, and the personal preference of the Eng lang author or academic. I see no reason why there should not be an across-the-board consistency within Wikipedia regardless of external usage: on other subjects WP has not hesitated to do this, e.g., as in the formula Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and the rest of them, which is mandatory on WP but entirely wrong. (Two further stray thoughts: (a) popular love of the wording "House of..." probably goes back to "Dune"; (b) English dislike of "House of.." sub-royalty is based in part on its common use for fashion shops, bakeries, ice cream parlours and so on, so it sounds comic and pretentious for non-Royals).

In short, "... family" works as the non-Royal standard: "...family" is never going to be wrong, whereas "House of..." will constantly be challenged, and it's a great and avoidable waste of time to have to go over the same ground over and over again - unless of course people enjoy the repetition. (I realise this doesn't address the question of European families on the royalty border, but whatever).Ingratis (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• @User:Justlettersandnumbers I did not mention it in the previous discussion because it was not pertinent, but please check your second search as it seems to me that the current link is a duplicate of the first and not the search you intended. If it is i correct please fix it. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2019 (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.