Talk:John III, Duke of Brittany

John IV, disputed duke of Brittany
Why is it necessary to call John IV disputed duke of Brittany on the line for the title earl of Richmond when it is established in the duke of Brittany line that John III was disputed by Joan and John IV. Unless Joan also disputed the title with John then the next Earl would be John IV not John IV, disputed duke of Brittany. We also don't put things like abdicated on this date under the title next to names of successors or predecessors or include regents. Only the names of actual sovereign rulers and their co-ruling dukes/duchess are listed as successors or predecessor. If a reader wants to know why Comstance' Duchess of Brittany's reign ended so soon they read the article to find out not look at the succession box, same goes for regents which are never ever included in succession boxes.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The necessity flows from two things. Firstly, the titles Earl of Richmond and Duke of Brittany while sometimes held by the same person were separable and were in fact separated. Thus, Joan and Charles of Blois never seemed to dispute Earl of Richmond, but did enter into the Breton War of Succession over the dukedom of Brittany. Secondly John of Montfort, or more correctly Jean de Montfort would have been known more broadly by that name than as Duke of Brittany. and his holding of the Earldom during this life took a different path than the holding of his ducal title, whether disputed or not. As proposed it is far more clear, and it is legally correct in following the actual events, and disputations of the time. And "we" do in fact add details to Successors and Predecessors. The articles in which I have added the details are not singular in this treatment. Ditto Regents. Such amplifications allow Succession Boxes to stand more on their own. And the treatment is growing more common as contributors are attempting to improve and perfect the form of wikipedia for all readers. Please do not delete work that is otherwise accurate as you have been doing. Please also engage in some TALK dialogue before doing deletions especially when you go in moments after someone has worked on a page. Finally wikipedia policies evolve making wikipedia both dynamic and useful to broader audiences. I am very concerned that you would announce policies as above that, even if they were held in the past, are obviously changing and no longer the standard. Please be flexible. 71.167.64.218 (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument doesn't stand. It doesn't explain why we should state John was the disputed duke of Brittany when listing him as Earl of Richmond. The fact his title Duke of Brittany is dispute is established in the line Duke of Brittany. It is like listing Queen Elizabeth II as successor to George VI but noting that she is the titular Duke of Normandy, totally irrelevant. The successors and predecessor and co-rulers are also listed by names alone without titles or else why would we need the title directly left of the successor area. And no the purpose of these succession boxes are to get the main points (reign dates, titles, successors, predecessors, co-ruler etc; not coat of arms, abdication date, regents, also there is no necessity) across, not to clutter the boxes with facts better left to be explained in the text. If the trend are changing as you have said, I have not seen any such changes in articles like Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, a monarch that abdicated, and many other articles on rulers I have on my watchlist. Only you have implement such edits which are against the overall accepted form. I will not accept edits that served to mainly clutter succession boxes with information other than the important facts, as I have seen on Constance's article and I will revert them as unconstructive edits which do nothing to improve the article.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are on the edge of Vandalism. Just because you disagree you have not won an argument. You again reverted text in the succession box that was relevant, and more accurate than the Succession Box becomes after your edits. Let me explain further the importance of separating Duke of Brittany from Earl of Richmond, by way of suggesting that as part of your edits you consider the factual history. Here are the facts: (1) John of Montfort's status as Duke of Brittany, and that of his disputant Joanna of Penthievre were not settled during the lifetime of John of Montfort;,they were settled later during the Breton War of Succession; therefore to some John of Montfort merely claimed to be John IV of Brittany and to others he never attained it; this remains critically different in the numbering of titles for the Duchy when one compares the French versus the English histories and continues through the subsequent Dukes who have the name John (or Jean); for example read their histories; (2) however as Earl of Richmond, John of Montfort's fate took a separate turn from that of his claims as Duke of Brittany; his Earldom was lost during the Breton conflicts; Joanna of Penthievre, as far as the histories I have found, was never able to assert a claim as Countess of Richmond because of the nature of her relationship with the English King during the Breton War of Succession. This is not about "Keeping it simple" as your most recent edit comment states. It is about keeping it accurate and complete and one or two other words surely do not add to complexity. I will let my comment rest for you to consider it for a day or two and then prepare the appropriate edits and reversions to this page if you do not. Once again, within the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia you discussion is welcome and then actions can follow but your unilateral actions without discussion are extreme and most unwelcome. Please be collaborative and flexible. Join me on my wikipedia page BREIZHTALK for more elaborative discussion. 71.167.64.218 (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)