Talk:Hugh II of Jaffa

rumoured or rumored
Webster 1913 has it as rumored as did my spell checker. --Stbalbach 03:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the American spelling... Adam Bishop 05:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah.. I just downloaded an English (England) dictionary for my forms window spell checker. Stbalbach 03:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ordinal
Someone has made a very unfortunate decision when titling this article as Hugh II of Le Puiset.

He shuld be either Hugh II of Jaffa or Hugh III of Le Puiset.

They did not themselves use ordinals, so that's nothing to be found in original sources.

Genealogist use of these artificial ordnals is for the sole purpose of keeping persons distinct ffrom each other.

Now, as someone has named this precisely the same as can be used about his own father, the very only reason for the ordinal is gravely compromised.

The outcome could be a confusion of facts who of these two did and was what.

Retitling is needed. 62.78.106.28 16:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was considering putting this under Hugh II of Jaffa instead. He's not Hugh III of Le Puiset, that's another person, so that's not going to work. As you say, his father was Hugh II of Le Puiset itself, but sources (secondary works of course) often number them as I and II in the sense that they are the "Le Puiset counts of Jaffa." I tried to explain this in the article. It is pretty likely that someone would search for "Hugh II of Le Puiset" when looking for this guy, because he is called that; on the other hand, there is a Wikipedia tradition to use the highest title, which is of course Jaffa. Adam Bishop 16:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)