Talk:Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester → Gerbod the Fleming – The current title is unncessarily long, especially for an 11th-century nobleman. "Gerbod the Fleming" is enough to identify him. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. Virtually all of the first 200 entries in Category:Earls in the Peerage of England have "[number] Earl of [place]" after their names, as do all of the earls in the Earls of Chester category.  Propose a change to the naming convention if you wish, but don't break the convention by moving just one page away from it.  Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You have this backwards. WP works bottom-up.  After you establish a change in consensus on several individual articles, then you have basis to update the guideline accordingly.  You can't change the guideline to say X when you have no evidence that consensus supports X.  An RFC/poll about that one question is one way to go, but it's inferior to having an actual series of independent examples.  See also: User:Born2cycle/FAQ.    --B2C 04:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom.  Current title is unnecessarily long.  No evidence that this is how this topic is referenced in reliable sources.  It's unnecessary disambiguation, really.  --B2C 04:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reasons are given below under Discussion. Bearpatch (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for consistency. I also agree with Nyttend that the MOS needs to discussed then changed rather than trying to move one article at a time. Zarcadia (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Bearpatch that the current form better meets WP:CRITERIA, and with Nyttend that the proposed alternative would create an odd and unnecessary inconsistency.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  10:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Strict application of the naming criteria might produce "Gerbod, Earl of Chester". To reply to Bearpatch below, "Gerbod the Fleming" already redirects here. PatGallacher (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Yes it is a somewhat longer name than average but is necessary on the basis there were several Gerbods of Oosterzele all from Flanders. This Gerbod had the same name as his father and grandfather, held the same lands of Oosterzele and he and his father (and possibly his grandfather, Gerbod) were advocates of the abbey of Saint-Bertin. His son Gerbod III, also an advocate of that abbey, was the 3rd to hold Oosterzele and Scheldewindeke, confusingly giving him the suffix "III" (Warlop) when in fact he was at least the fourth of that name. This Gerbod, however, was the only one titled Earl of Chester. As per WP:UCN the most common or frequently used name for a subject "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" (see the source list) should be used because it is recognizable and natural. In addition to the source list, a search in Google Books quickly picks up another dozen books not appearing in this source list all naming him “Gerbod the Fleming, Earl of Chester”. The title name meets all five of the recommended guidelines in the naming convention (see WP:CRITERIA) and as such is appropriately named; more so when you take into consideration the confusion shorting the name might cause. Review the sources if there are any lingering questions. Bearpatch (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.