Talk:François, Duke of Guise

Untitled

Should this be at François, Duke of Guise? What are our standards for anglicizing, here? john k 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

King Francis II?

Under Wars of Religion, end of first paragraph - is it meant to be King Henri II instead? The rest of the text seems to imply this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.60.87 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2024

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Francis, Duke of Guise → François, Duke of Guise
• Henry I, Duke of Guise → Henri I, Duke of Guise
• Henry II, Duke of Guise → Henri II, Duke of Guise

– Requesting move of these articles per WP:COMMONNAME. I will begin my argument with ngrams, even though I find them largely overcrowded by noise. Please see [1] [2] [3] [4]

Moving beyond ngrams, my argument revolves around the English literature that focuses on the family, the era of the Italian Wars, and the era French Wars of Religion, both areas of which they played a central role in and are therefore not an incidental mention in.

Stuart Carroll (2011) Martyr's and Murderers: The Guise Family and the Making of Europe, is the most recent English language biography of the family - it refers to the second duke of Guise as François, his son the third duke as Henri and the fifth duke of Guise as Henri II (also the seventh duke of Guise as François-Joseph though that Wikipedia article is already at François-Joseph, so does not require changing.) The other recent English book which discusses them in the title is Mark Konnert's (2006) Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion: The Towns of Champagne, the duc de Guise and the Catholic League (1560-1595) - it refers to François, and Henri.

I will now briefly survey English academics who have written on this area in the last couple of decades, and their various positions on the names. Gould (2006) = François; Roelker (1968) = François, Henri; Knecht (2014) = François, Henri; Diefendorf (1991) = François, Henri; Roberts (2013) = François, Henri; Sutherland (1962) = François, Henri; Tullchin (2012) = François, Henri; Roelker (1996) = François, Henri; Baumgartner (1986) = Henri; Harding (1978) = François, Henri; Heller (2003) = Henri; Potter (1997) = François, Henri; Carroll (2005) = François, Henri; Bernstein (2004) = Henri; Konnert (1997) = François, Henri; Benedict (2003) = François, Henri; Salmon (1979) = François, Henri; Shaw (2019) [only English language survey of the Italian Wars] = François; Pitts (2012) = François, Henri; Neuschel (1989) = François; Kingdon (1967) = François, Henri; Greengrass (1988) = François; Conner (2000) = François, Spangler (2016) = Henri

Tingle (2006) is a little unusual, refers to François, and Henry; likewise Shimizu (1970) refers to Francis, and Henri

Holt (2002) = Francis, Henry, he is the only French Wars of Religion era academic I am aware of who throughout all his works consistently calls them this way.

Wood (2002) never refers to either duke by their first name. sovietblobfish (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia is written for general readers, not academics. There is a recent fashion for academics to nativize all names, which may work for their specialized audiences in their narrower isolated context. But general works use their English names. If I enter "Duke of Guise" and "index" on Googlebooks, the overwhelming majority of results show up as anglicized Francis & Henry. e.g. [5],[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. Walrasiad (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Walrasiad,

  Of the examples you have provided, one of them is from an author I've already mentioned (Holt) 4 of them are from the early 20th century, two of them are from the 19th century, and the rest of them are from authors who are just as 'academic' as the authors I have provided though with more tangential relationships to the topic (academic works on English political and cultural history, including one about Shakespeare)

  Moreover, I have not provided only specialist academic work. Carroll's biography of the family is not academic literature, but rather a popular piece. Knecht likewise writes popularly published biographies. The Pitts book I have provided is a popularly published biography, Roelker 1968 is a popularly published biography. If I had cited Baumgartner 1988 instead of 1986 that would have been a popularly published biography that uses François. Regardless, the dukes of Guise are hardly a popular topic, the majority of discussion concerning them is going to be in academic works, or academic adjacent works, therefore it hardly seems right to me to throw all these out as being for 'specialised audiences'. Nor am I aware of that being policy to do so when assessing general usage. 19:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) sovietblobfish.

*shrug* it's just a sample of what showed up in Googlebooks. I could find more if you want. Biographies of the family are still specialized works for isolated audiences narrowly interested in them. But the Guises show up in wide variety of works that are not focused on them, e.g. assorted general histories of Scotland, bios of Elizabethan courtiers, histories of Protestantism, the papacy, art history, Restoration literature, etc. Readers who come across these names unexpectedly in random spots are the ones most likely to come to Wikipedia to learn more about who they are. They need to be able to recognize the name that they're searching for. Those who already have focused family bios or academic papers in hand don't need to come here, and certainly won't be confused. The benefit of the doubt should always go to more general works. Walrasiad (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of the books (and they are books in almost all cases, not journal articles) I have provided are not exclusively about them either. We have general histories of the French Wars of Religion, a general history of the Italian Wars (which are weirdly rare in English, not sure why), we have biographies of the famous French figures (Henri II (Baumgartner 1988), Jeanne d'Albret (Roelker 1968), Catherine de Medici (Knecht 2014), Henri III (not used in my examples, but Knechts recent biography follows the pattern), Henri IV (Pitts 2012)) we have regional histories of various French provinces, towns, and institutions during this era. The notion that readers of these would not wish to follow up their reading with a perusal of his Wikipedia page feels like it is asserting too much to me.

Let us look at google scholar more statistically (though of course, I have already done ngram searches that support my position) for François, to see what name for the duke the general reader will be coming from in recent years. I want the results to reflect a roughly modern consensus, so will only be considering works published in the last 25 years.

François, Duke of Guise - 75 results

François, Duc de Guise - 156 results

François de Lorraine, Duke of Guise - 20 results

François de Guise, Duke of Guise - 0 results

François de Lorraine, Duc de Guise - 231 results

François de Guise, Duc de Guise - 1 result

Francis, Duke of Guise - 104 results

Francis, Duc de Guise - 5 results

Francis of Lorraine, Duke of Guise - 8 result

Francis of Guise, Duke of Guise - 0 results

Francis of Lorraine, Duc de Guise - 0 results

Francis of Guise, Duc de Guise - 0 results

Total for François = 483; Total for Francis = 117. I could illustrate the same for Henri. I understand your concern about some readers navigating to the article. But it would still be a redirect that allows them to find it via the search function, and moreover could be in brackets as an 'also known as' in the bold text at the front of the articles so google searches would also deliver it quite easily. Moreover for a majority of those reading contemporary English works, it is the present situation which presents more difficulty. sovietblobfish (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd toss out any that refer to "Duc de Guise" as effectively non-English. Proving once more that those articles are not for general readers. That leaves Francis in a majority. And with Henry even more starkly so. I'm sorry, but this is English-language Wikipedia, and its purpose is to communicate to general readers, and that is done far more effectively. We should not expect readers to understand foreign language terms, nor are we here to show off or test their pronunciations. I write a lot of history articles, but what I write for a specialized audience is not what I write for a general one. Sometimes I am forced to use native terms because English ones simply don't exist. But English ones clearly exist for this case and are commonly used. I will stick with my opposition to the proposal. Francis & Henry are perfectly fine and fit WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH better. Walrasiad (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well yes. if we toss out the majority of English texts that use François, on the (in my opinion) very bold assertion that they must not be for general readers because they have non English words in them, then we are left with Francis as a majority (though even then its a slim majority of 112-95). I don't personally think we can just dismiss all English texts that happen to have some other French vocabulary in them.

There is no 'showing off' or 'pronunciation testing', I am simply trying to bring these articles into line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH by establishing their names as they are in the majority of contemporary English texts.

Our positions are not going to converge but that is life. Have a good week :) sovietblobfish (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Currently, there is no consensus. I’m relisting to gain further input from other editors. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• support WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ESTABLISHED—blindlynx 21:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support On the basis of a very well-researched nomination. I don't find the argument opposing the move very convincing - suggesting we simply disregard sources that actually use the proposed names and dismissing academic work. The suggestion that Henri is too confusing for English-speaking readers is also very unconvincing. The usage in modern English-language sources is quite clear and we should follow the usage. AusLondonder (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Lean oppose. Compare Google Scholar results restricted to English:
  • 210 results for "Francis, Duke of Guise"
  • 88 results for "François, Duke of Guise"
  • 125 results for "François, Duc de Guise"

The combination of French name and English title is least popular. So long as our title includes "Duke of", we should not look at the given name in isolation. Srnec (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see the google scholar results I did limited to the past 25 years in my discussion with Walrasiad. François is the most popular in recent years meeting WP:COMMONNAME, but we will avoid using 'duc de Guise' in the article title per WP:USEENGLISH. The two don't have to be tied to one another. sovietblobfish (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. If recent English RS use 'duc', why wouldn't we? If UE applies to 'duc', why not to 'François'? If we should ignore recent English RS usage because of UE in the case of the title, we can certainly do so in the case of the name. Srnec (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There are two separate elements to this article title in my opinion. His name, and his title. As these are separate we can consider them separately.

As far as his name is concerned we have a clear majority in favour of François in the recent English literature.

As far as his title is concerned, we have a majority in favour of 'duc' also however I think one could argue that 'duc' is not immediately apparent to an English reader without a grounding in French without a bracket following the first use of the term explaining what it means. Therefore as I see it UE applies to it in a way it would not to François, which is just a name that no English reader is going to be confused by.

I think a separate discussion could also be had to adopt duc into the article title, but I'd like to establish the simple matter of his name for now and then move from there. sovietblobfish (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The general trend, in both academic and general works, away from translating proper names is sufficiently well established that we should clearly be following it in this case, as shown by the well-researched nomination. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2024 (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.

Scarface

Hello all (pinging @SafariScribe @Sovietblobfish @Srnec @Rosbif73 @AusLondonder) -- I noticed a confusing discrepancy about the nickname for Francis/Henry. The first paragraph in the Henry I article says, "sometimes called Le Balafré ('Scarface')" (with no reference). But this Francis article says, "The scar would earn him the nickname 'Le Balafré' ('The Scarred One')" (with a reference). I don't think they were both called Scarface.

I did a quick Google search and I found a little support for each:

• British museum saying Henry was Scarface
• Britannica saying Francis was Scarface

What do you all think? I think it was Francis because of the reference, and because there is actually a sensible story of him getting serious scars. Cloud atlas (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No its correct, both of them had that nickname.

I believe Henri gained it after the battle of Dormans in 1575

I can't remember what battle François got the nickname from off the top of my head.

sovietblobfish (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was the siege of Boulogne in 1545 that gained the nickname for François. I remember now.sovietblobfish (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for François "Il hérite d'une balafre entre l'œil et le nez à Boulogne, lors du blocus la cité en 1545" Durot (2012) pg 45

Sourcing for Henri "As he pursued his fleeing enemy, a German pistolier, whom the duke had struck twice with his sword, replied with two pistol shots, grazing Guise's thigh and taking away part of his cheek and left ear. The wound was serious but after six weeks of convalescence he was left with a scar to rival his father's and a nickname to match - le balafré" - Carroll (2011) pp 222-223

) sovietblobfish (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2024

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• Francis, Duke of Guise → François, Duke of Guise
• Henry I, Duke of Guise → Henri I, Duke of Guise
• Henry II, Duke of Guise → Henri II, Duke of Guise

– This is my second attempt at this move request. The first was closed to no-consensus with a 3 support 2 oppose back in March. I am going to attempt to address some of the criticisms of the move raised in that move request and just more fully flesh out the reason this article should be moved.

As before the grounds for the move are WP:COMMONNAME.

In this ngram you will see a comparison of the relative popularities of Henri de Guise, Henry de Guise, François de Lorraine and Francis de Lorraine [16]

Ngrams are not my favourite method of determining popularity as they tend to be crowded by noise, therefore I will primarily be using google scholar results, restricted to results in English publications since 2000 for a better understanding of the modern usage.

Francis of Guise = 53 results Francis of Lorraine = 199 results Francis de Guise = 7 results Francis de Lorraine = 6 results Francis, Duke of Guise = 98 results Francis, Duke de Guise = 1 result Francis, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis, duc de Guise = 4 results Francis of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 9 results Francis of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Francis of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results Francis de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 1 result Francis de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 1 result Francis de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results

Total for Francis = 379 (give or take, there will be some noise in Francis of Lorraine/Henry of Lorraine and François de Lorraine/Henri de Lorraine due to other people of the same name)

François of Guise = 11 results François of Lorraine = 20 results François de Guise = 230 results François de Lorraine = 210 results François, Duke of Guise = 76 results François, Duke de Guise = 5 results François, duc of Guise = 0 results François, duc de Guise = 83 results François of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 1 results François of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results François of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results François of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 3 results François de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 18 results François de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results François de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results François de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 59 results

Total for François = 716 (same disclaimed as above for Francis). 716 vs 379: a decisive majority of scholarly usage for the name François.

Henry of Guise = 105 results Henry of Lorraine = 52 results Henry de Guise = 31 results Henry de Lorraine = 24 results Henry, Duke of Guise = 115 results Henry, Duke de Guise = 6 results Henry, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry, duc de Guise = 13 results Henry of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 11 results Henry of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 1 result Henry of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 2 results Henry de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 3 results

Total for Henry = 363.

Henri of Guise = 23 results Henri of Lorraine = 21 results Henri de Guise = 225 results Henri de Lorraine = 129 results Henri, Duke of Guise = 64 results Henri, Duke de Guise = 2 results Henri, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri, duc de Guise = 87 results Henri of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 2 results Henri of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henri of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 1 result Henri de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 7 results Henri de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henri de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 27 results

Total for Henri = 588. 588 vs 363 another decisive margin.

The google scholar searches for Henri function as evidence for both Henry/Henri I, and Henry/Henri II, as using the numerals would massively depreciate the numbers returned. In addressing the point raised by Srnec in the prior move, we have a majority in English scholarship for the names François and Henri, we do not have a majority for duc de Guise over duke of Guise for the article title (131 duc vs 209 duke for Henri and 149 duc vs 205 duke for François).

Beyond the statistical evidence in support of its common usage, I would like to also draw on particular scholarship as I did for my first move request. This will be based on English language scholarship covering the periods of the Italian Wars and the French Wars of Religion covering the life span of François and Henri I, I have less specific scholarship examples for Henri II, however he is covered in a couple of these and the statistical evidence.

The first and most important work is the recent (2011) biography of the Guise family 'Martyrs and Murderers: the Guise family and the making of Europe' written by the historian Stuart Carroll. This biography refers to the dukes as follows: François, Henri, Henri. There is also the recent work by the historian Mark Konnert in which they are a title feature (Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion: The Towns of Champagne, the duc de Guise and the Catholic League (1560-1595)) which likewise uses François and Henri.

I will include the survey of academic English literature I included in my first move request, with slight additions for academics I have since become aware of.

Gould [history of the French Wars of Religion in the south of the kingdom] (2006) = François; Roelker [biography of Jeanne d'Albret] (1968) = François, Henri; Knecht [biography of Catherine de' Medici] (2014) = François, Henri; Diefendorf [history of Paris in the prelude to the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre] (1991) = François, Henri; Roberts [history of the peace making efforts during the wars] (2013) = François, Henri; Sutherland [history of the secretaries of state in the era of Catherine] (1962) = François, Henri; Tullchin (2012) = François, Henri;; Baumgartner (1986) = Henri; Harding (1978) = François, Henri; Heller (2003) = Henri; Potter (1997) = François, Henri; Carroll (2005) = François, Henri; Bernstein (2004) = Henri; Konnert (1997) = François, Henri; Benedict (2003) = François, Henri; Salmon [introduction to French sixteenth century history] (1979) = François, Henri; Shaw (2019) [only English language survey of the Italian Wars] = François; Pitts [biography of Henri IV of France] (2012) = François, Henri; Neuschel (1989) = François; Kingdon (1967) = François, Henri; Greengrass (1988) = François; Conner (2000) = François; Spangler [chief historian of the Guise family in the 17th century, i.e. Henri II] (2016) = Henri, Heap (2019) = François, Henri.

Tingle [history of Nantes during the French Wars of Religion] (2006) is a little unusual, refers to François, and Henry; likewise Shimizu [dissertation on Gaspard de Coligny] (1970) refers to Francis, and Henri

Holt [biography of the duc d'Anjou] (2002) = Francis, Henry, he is the only French Wars of Religion era academic I am aware of who throughout all his works consistently calls them this way. Wood [military history of the early French Wars of Religion] (2002) never refers to either duke by their first name

In some of the above I have detailed the nature of the book in square brackets to indicate the mixture of popular biographies, introductory surveys and more focused studies of various institutions and regions that build this picture.

In addition to my common move argument, it is also of note that the article for the seventh duke of Guise is at François Joseph, Duke of Guise so the present state of affairs in addition to violating common usage, also creates a weird discordance in the line of dukes. sovietblobfish (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• (1) We just did the exact same move request. I see no reason to do it again so soon. (2) You'll have to provide some links because I cannot replicte some of you numbers. When I hear "Francis/François of/de Lorraine", I think of this guy. (3) Fundamentally, there is not doubt that both forms are used in reliable English-language sources, so why is it a big deal that we figure out the most common one as of 2024? I'm not terribly sympathetic to this quest. They're both fine. Srnec (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Srnec: The move request was closed as no consensus with 3 votes in favour 2 votes opposed. If it had been closed as opposition to the move I would not be re-opening it now. I looked up the guidelines for the respectable time pass for having another go at a no consensus move request and it was apparently three months which has more than passed. Further I have integrated critiques to the move made by both yourself and Walrasiad into the initial proposal. I feel it important to make the move as in reliable sources we're looking at nearly 2:1 in favour of François/Henri. It is also irritating as someone who almost exclusively writes Wikipedia articles about this period of French history to have different names on Wikipedia to the ones all the English historians (with only a couple exceptions) are using.

  Which numbers are you struggling to replicate? Possible I made a mistake somewhere as I initially forgot to restrict the scholar searches to English only and had to re-do the figures. If so I apologise and will edit my initial request.

  sovietblobfish (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  The last RM was closed on 19 May. I can replicate your numbers now, so I must have been doing something wrong. I do not understand your irritation, however, since you can certainly use François and Henri in articles you write. Wikipedia does not demand consistency across all articles, mostly just within them. I noticed that you like to write 'España' rather than 'Spain'. Likewise, the failure of the French kings' RMs has not stopped you from using 'Henri III'. And 'Felipe II'. This is in Pierre de Ségusson. Srnec (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  It was indeed, and if I have therefore raised this new move too early I apologise. I will note however that the first RM was dead in the water for many weeks before it was finally closed with the final contribution being during mid April.

  As you say, consistency in articles doesn't have to be applied between them. As a rule when writing articles I use the naming conventions my sources use, when I use an unfamiliar term I endeavour to explain it though I admit I have been poor at this in the past. I sense though we are moving here from the discussion at hand into another discussion about my editing practices, which feels tangential to the RM. sovietblobfish (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject France, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Biography have been notified of this discussion. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Why does it matter? Maybe there is more in Google scholar for François than Francis. But really...with redirects, is it really worth the effort of the opening post. I can't help but feel that it's sad that that level of effort isn't being put into improving the article instead. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is my intention to improve the article proper at some point (though I have other articles that are my priority at the minute), but that will be a leviathan project of 6-12+ months writing. Producing this move request took me about an hour which is frankly nothing. sovietblobfish (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  As for why it matters, why does any move request on Wikipedia matter! We want our article titles to accord with the majority reliable English usage. sovietblobfish (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think many move requests on WP don't matter. They're often a waste of kb's. This one seems particularly trivial though. DeCausa (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. If RMs don't matter, why bother having a titling policy at all? Just create zillions of redirects for every article and you can be sure one of them will be what somebody is looking for! Rosbif73 (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Excellent proposal. Support. lol DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per well-researched nomination. Recent sources, and academic ones in particular, no longer tend to "translate" proper names. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Nom makes a valid point; however this is a slippery slope that could leak into high-profile articles so I recommended exercising caution going forward. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, placing excessive weight on specialist academic sources and insufficient weight on works for general readers. Academic specialists don't read Wikipedia article on their topics - they don't need to, they have read the specialist texts already. General readers read Wikipedia articles. They're the ones who come across names in general works, and come here to find out more details. So how the name is given in general works carries greater weight by the Wikipedia criteria. And in general works, it is Francis & Henry.

I understand you want to invest your time on a specialty of interest to you, and I understand the temptation. But remember you're writing for Malaysian High School students, not for specialist academic audiences. So tailor it accordingly. It is for their benefit, not for yours. Walrasiad (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Walrasiad,

I understand your desire to see our articles as accessible as possible. However I don't think you have demonstrated your point, quite the opposite I think you have demonstrated mine. I have not provided exclusively specialist texts (though some of them certainly are) I have provided a numerical look at the totality of texts google scholar turns up for English usage. Google scholar is a source of all reliable texts, those for general readers and those for specialists, it contains general popular surveys, popularly written biographies etc. The majority of these texts are using François and Henri.

Similarly in the specific texts I provided in the final part of the RM outline we have many popular texts. Knecht is probably the most popular English writer on this period of French history, you can find his biographies in normal bookshops, he uses François and Henri. Similarly we have popular biographies of Henri IV and Henri II, Jeanne d'Albret, the only recent general survey of the period for the Italian Wars, a popularly written survey of Elizabeth foreign policy in France during the latter sixteenth century etc.

You asserted in the last RM, I think a little boldly, that someone who has read a biography of Catherine de Medici or the Guise family would have no cause to read a Wikipedia article on the dukes as they are 'specialist academics'. A claim like this requires evidence I feel which was not provided. Having read these books I find my conclusion quite the contrary, they are introductions to these figures for a popular reader that inspired my curiosity towards Wikipedia for further understanding.

A specialist academic work would be something like Carrolls' 'Noble Power during the French Wars of Religion: The Guise Affinity and the Catholic Cause in Normandie' not a popular work like 'Martyrs and Murderers: The Guise Family and the Making of Europe' by the same author.

I would further argue that the Guise family is largely not a family that penetrates towards works of general readership. Our Malaysian high school student in this analogy (and indeed the majority of the readers of the articles for these ducs) is is either not going to have read any works about the family before encountering them through the French Wars of Religion/Massacre of Wassy article or if they have read popular works it will have been those such as Knecht, Salmon, Sutherland, Baumgartner, Holt, etc, (Knecht, Holt, Baumgartner and Salmon have all made works that are the standard introductions to students of late 16th Century France at school and undergraduate level) the majority of whom use François and Henri. The title of the article is determined by what the authors we have use, not the ones we wish they had used.

sovietblobfish (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I actually didn't pull the example out of thin air. Over twenty years ago (2003), I got an inquiry from a Malaysian student asking me who the Dukes of Guise was. He hadn't been reading the books you cite. Instead, he apparently had been playing a historical strategy computer game, and a faction called the "French Catholics" emerged in the game, led by Duke Francis of Guise, and he wondered who they were. So I quickly wrote him a synopsis of the French Wars of Religion, focusing on the role of the Guises (about eight-nine paragraphs or so). I'd be happy to reproduce the exchange, if you're curious. Of course this was long before Wikipedia existed. He wouldn't have bothered writing a stranger half a world away if Wikipedia had been at hand and he could look up the information himself. Walrasiad (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Walrasiad,

Sounds like an interesting game :) sovietblobfish (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It was called "Europa Universalis II". The company that made it (Paradox Interactive) apparently still exists and has put out more recent versions of the game. I haven't played them, but it seems to be historically very rich. I just answered the query.

This happens to be a fortuitous example. But illustrates the general rule for any Wikipedia article: you don't know where your audience comes from, or what brings them here. But it is a good assumption that they are general audiences, who come to Wikipedia to follow up on references in general works (or in his case, computer games), and not readers of specialist works.

I don't know your background or profession. But I do urge you to put on a different cap when writing articles for Wikipedia than when writing articles for specialist audiences. Walrasiad (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah nice, I've played Europa Universalis IV myself. I am not a professional historian, nor is my job in anyway related to history, this is just something I contribute to in my spare time around my job. :)

I don't think the example you have provided is particularly relevant to this particular RM. A single instance of someone contacting you with a name they've derived from a video game does not have much bearing on WP:COMMONNAME

from Wikipedia:Official names "(WP:COMMONNAME)...instead it is a shorthand for the commonly recognizable name as shown by the prevalence of the name in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (emphases mine)

A video game is not a reliable source, and I have demonstrated it is not a majority in reliable sources.

I have also, factoring in your reasonable concern about where our lay readers are most likely to come to these article from (obviously there will be people who come via other more unique roots also) provided the most commonly used introductory texts and authors for readers unfamiliar with this period.

In addition to that I have argued that the majority of arrivals at this article will likely come from inside Wikipedia. I don't know of any method to empirically support this point. Though given the article for the French Wars of Religion gets 5x the daily page views of this article and that of Henri, duke of Guise and the explosion in interests in this article on the days the Massacre of Wassy is on the front page of Wikipedia for its anniversary 'OTD's' (500/100 up to 8000/3000) I think I could make a strong guess to that effect.

Anyway, much like last time I do not believe I will sway you on this RM. The main purpose of my replies is to provide information to others interested in this RM who may be passing by . Have a good week.

13:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC) sovietblobfish (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am a professional historian, and have been a teacher for 30+ years. And it is with the mindset of a teacher that I approach Wikipedia articles. My interest is in communicating information effectively to readers from the general public, and not showing off that I've read something. (I actually refuse to write Wikipedia articles on my specialty, precisely because of the dangers).

Sure, computer games are exceptions. But general works aren't. And that's where Wikipedia readers are coming from. Which is why they are given greater weight.

My own Google searches above show that the Anglicized names are more common than the nativized French ones across the board, and especially so in general works. You have not provided evidence contrary to that, but continue to focus on specialist works, and continue to cite works that use non-English titles like "Duc de Guise" into your totals. This is no different than your prior RM.

I can appreciate you have a deep interest in this topic, and you read a lot of specialized works in it. But I would urge you to remember our readers don't. Walrasiad (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2024 (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.