Talk:Ferdinand van Boisschot

Title
, why the title in the title? (And why the move without discussion?) As a diplomat and patron of the arts the subject of this entry appears in English-language works of History and Art History as "Ferdinand de Boisschot", occasionally as "Ferdinand de Boisschot, Baron of Saventhem" but never as "Ferdinand de Boisschot, Marquess of Groot-Bijgaarden" (a title he acquired only towards the end of his active life). Nor is there a more famous "Ferdinand de Boisschot" to disambiguate this from. Accordingly, in line with WP:COMMONNAME, this should not be where it currently is. Moving it back to the appropriate title, which thanks to this move has become a redirect, will now take the intervention of an admin. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He is known as such in official Papers, see here. If you want you can change it to Ferdinand de Boisschot, Baron of Saventhem, but Ferdinand de Boisschot alone, whitout titles is not complete. --Carolus (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Also maybe take a look at Queen Victoria, and consider why it fails to mention "Empress of India" in the pagename.
 * WP:OFFICIAL would also be relevant. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, then please explain Mary Villiers, Countess of Buckingham. Perhaps i am stupid? Is see no difference. --Carolus (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably that is to distinguish her from the Duchess of Richmond who was also a Mary Villiers. In this case we have no such necessity to deviate from Wikipedia's policy on article titles. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

So there is a General rule and always exeptions in the UK, wel then there is no rule in the end if in practice there are only exeptions. Simple. please see: Belgian_nobility --Carolus (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to get Mary Villiers in line with policy, by all means go and do so. To use it as justification for not following policy here amounts to saying "He didn't so why should I?" --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:COMMONNAME. DrKay (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ferdinand de Boisschot, Baron of Saventhem → Ferdinand de Boisschot – This article was already at the pagename that best conforms to WP:COMMONNAME. It has been moved by twice in the last two hours to what he regards as a superior "official" name (showing the deference due to noble titles but contravening WP:OFFICIAL). TO conform to the policy on article titles, it should be moved back to the previous name. Doing so now requires an admin's intervention since the moves have rendered the original name a double redirect Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Source of the official name is given twice. --Carolus (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To the extent that this is relevant it only goes to show that you are repeatedly ignoring WP:OFFICIAL. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. His common name appears to be that without the title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.