Talk:Luis Enríquez de Guzmán, 9th Count of Alba de Liste

Untitled
Apparently an English version of his name and titles exist, plus he was the 9th count, therefore request to move. Gryffindor 07:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the English; that would bring it into the same form as most of the other viceroys and other nobles on English Wikipedia. But this is already a very long article title and I don't see any need to include the number. Few if any of the other viceroys have the number included in the article title. Ideally, the name of an article should be short enough to be both remembered and typed in the search box. Rbraunwa 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but peerage has their number included if there were multiple ones. See Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba or Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart, 18th Duchess of Alba or George Gordon, 5th Duke of Gordon for reference sake. Gryffindor  15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Some article titles include the numbers, but many, perhaps most, don't. I would argue that they should be removed from the ones that do rather than added to the ones that don't. (But I have a high degree of tolerance for variation, and I'm not seriously arguing that position.) My feeling is that anything that can be left out of the article title should be left out. Titles should be succinct, and easy to remember and type. Their only purpose is to uniquely specify someone or something. The place for details is in the body of the article, not in its title. The proposed title here would have 76 characters, and would be untypeable. I realize there are other ways to get to the article, but still we should aim to be as succinct as possible.
 * Rbraunwa 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are both of these titles common for the marquis/count or is one used more than the other? Charles 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is what my two sources have: García Puron entitles his article "Luis Enríquez de Guzmán" and mentions in the body of the article that he was "conde de Alba de Liste". "Marqués" is not mentioned. In the alphabetical index he is "Enríquez de Guzmán, Luis". In Orozco Linares, the title of his article is "Luis Enríquez de Guzmán, conde Alba de Liste". (There is often some variation in the particles in Spanish names and titles of the period.) Again, there is no mention of "marqués". There is no alphabetical index. My other source, Enciclopedia de México, doesn't have an article on every viceroy, and he is one they skip. However all that are included are alphabetized under their names (not titles) and their titles appear in the body of the article, but never in the title of the article. Many web sources (not Wikipedia mirrors) de-emphasize the title as well, as for example this one:.
 * The second title probably came from World Statesmen, but I don't remember for sure. I never intended it to appear outside the body of the article. It would be a big improvement to omit y marqués de Villaflor / and Marquis of Villaflor from the article title (not from the body of the article, of course).
 * The problem with Spanish names and titles of the period is that in some cases there is virtually no end to them. Spaniards generally have two apellidos (surnames), one from the father and one from the mother. But they are not restricted to two. A Spaniard with a lot of illustrious ancestors can include all of their apellidos in his own. And many nobles had many titles. I'll bet with some further research I could suggest an article title for at least one of these viceroys that would be 400 characters long, counting names, ordinals and titles, and not completely unreasonable. The question is not whether they have to be trimmed &mdash; they do. The question is where they have to be trimmed.
 * --Rbraunwa 01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (The next viceroy I worked on after posting this message had a name + title of 341 characters, and I'm not sure it was complete.) Rbraunwa 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Both the existing title and the target title seem pretty ridiculous to me. Would a move back to Luis Enríquez de Guzmán be seen as a crass concession to common sense? Flowerparty ☀ 03:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because nobles are listed with their titles on Wikipedia, see the examples given above. The question is not if, but which one. Gryffindor  21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the move tag here since there doesn't seem to be consensus and because it's not an obstructed move anyway. Feel free to continue discussing and let me know if a clear consensus is reached eventually. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You left out the best part - where he ordered the illegal lima mint operation of 1659. It's gotta take guts to take the King's (King Phillip IV) bullion and order an unauthorized mint operation! He created 8, 4, 2, and 1 Reale pieces. The coins were called Lima Stars or 'Estrella de Lima.' These are the rarest of coins - only 40 known in existence, although it is believed 2.1 million were struck. MphsBlues 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about that. I found one source on line and added a brief paragraph. Feel free to expand on it. What was the king's reaction? --Rbraunwa 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luis Enríquez de Guzmán, 9th Count of Alba de Liste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701125107/http://museobcr.perucultural.org.pe/fundacion.htm to http://museobcr.perucultural.org.pe/fundacion.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)