Talk:Notker the Stammerer/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
What does it mean that "He completed Erchanbert's chronicle (816)"? Is that a year? It's well before his birth. It appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Rigadoun 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I presume it's probably the date of the original chronicle Fastifex 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Article name change?
I hope I'm not opening a can of Wurms here, but why did you rename the article, Fastifex? This is the English Wikipedia, and the convention in all of my music history texts is "St. Gall." I'd be less concerned if clicking on Notker Balbulus redirected automatically here, which it doesn't, at least not coming from the Sequence (poetry) page. --Peirigill 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Page and redirect links restored to "Notker of St Gall," per discussion w/Fastifex ("Sankt Gall" mixes languages). --Peirigill 04:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

renamed Notker the Stammerer. I'm taking it as read that Gene would prefer this even Use-English-er name to Notker Balbulus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Notker of St Gall → Notker Balbulus — "Notker Balbulus" is the most common form of name —Michael Sanders 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Google results: 1,390 results for "Notker of St Gall"; 3,760 results for "Notker the Stammerer"; 7,770 results for "Notker Balbulus". Google books: 300 results for "Notker of St Gall", 344 results for "Notker the Stammerer" and 808 results for "Notker Balbulus". "Notker Balbulus" is thus overwhelmingly most common; in accordance with Naming conventions (common names), "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Michael Sanders 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Including "Notker Balbulus" monk gets only 1,350 hits. Most of the results on which Michael Sanders relies are not English.
 * "Notker Balbulus" monk gets only 398. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 13 December 2007 (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 naming conventions.


 * Support as nominator. Michael Sanders 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support just so I don't have to look at a British English "St" in the name of an article which uses "St." in the text. Or move to Notker of Saint Gall or Notker of Sankt Gall or whatever other variants we can come up with .  Otherwise, no, a case has not been made making any move, no real evidence for "overwhelmingly most common", especially with no information on all the other variants including just Notker (we can, of course, use parenthetical disambiguation in that case if really necessary, or move the disambiguation page to Notker (disambiguation)). Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The two music history books on my shelf here, Richard Hoppin's Medieval Music and Grout and Palisca's A History of Western Music both use "Notker Balbulus." They're among the most widely-used textbooks of music history in the United States. The Harvard Dictionary of Music calls him "Notker (Balbulus)." The Catholic Encyclopedia uses "Blessed Notker Balbulus (Stammerer)." While I think he is probably the most commonly-cited Notker, since he is often listed with an epithet, I see no reason to move the disambiguation page. Rigadoun (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As regards changing the name to plain "Notker", the question we need to consider is, "Will more people search for plain 'Notker' than for 'Notker (insert epithet here)'?" Michael Sanders 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What you mean is, what fraction of people that do so are looking for this Notker. And it's probably high, though I'm not sure. But it seems less likely to cause confusion to have that be disambiguation, as he is usually mentioned (at least on first mention) with an epithet, and somebody looking up a different Notker may not realize they reached one of many (especially since there are many different epithets). Rigadoun (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it matters "what people search for". They should find the article whatever they search for, since alternative names should be in bold in the opening (if possible) and they ought to have redirects. Many persons exist at titles few would search for, like "William I of England" over "William the Conqueror" or "Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor" over "Otto of Brunswick". I doubt that this Notker is so overwhelmingly more famous than the other Notkers to warrant no disambiguation. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is based on dubious statistics. Crude google should be avoided; when used, it should be used with care and intelligence. Notker Balbulus, being Latin, will occur in several languages; including "monk", to force English results, reduces the returns by two-thirds.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 560 results for "Notker of St Gall" monk, 1,120 results for "Notker the Stammerer" monk, 1,320 results for "Notker Balbulus" monk. Google books: 72 results for "Notker of St Gall" monk, 112 results for "Notker the Stammerer" monk, and 389 results for "Notker Balbulus" monk. "Notker Balbulus" therefore still stands out clearly as most common name, making a move appropriate as per Most Common Name Policy. Michael Sanders 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, 1320 to 1120 does not "stand out" as anything, much less the most common name our guidelines envisage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When taken in conjunction with the google books result, it does. Certainly, the results invalidate the current title, since they indicate that most scholars and non-scholars do not use "Notker of St Gall". Michael Sanders 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those results are, as happens far too often, distorted by Wikipedia. Furthermore, the unconsidered "St. Gallen" is also a problem.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only result that could seriously be affected by wikipedia is the current title, "Notker of St Gall"; furthermore, "St Gallen" is not the accepted form of the monastery name in English usage (which commonly uses 'St Gall'), so I seriously doubt "Notker of St Gallen" could be regarded as at all common amongst English speakers. Michael Sanders 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I prefer "Notker the Stammerer" and believe that "Notker Balbulus" is only slightly more common in the literature if it is at all. The current title is not bad, but I don't like the "St Gall", which I suspect many of less pedantic readers would find annoying. I would support a move to "Notker of Saint Gall", though Srnec (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Current redirects here:
 * Notker of St. Gallen
 * Notker Balbulus
 * Notker the Stammerer
 * Notker of St. Gall
 * Notger the Stammerer
 * Blessed Notker Balbulus
 * Notker of Sankt Gallen
 * Notker of Sankt Gall
 * St. Notker Balbulus
 * Monachus Sangallensis
 * Blessed Notker
 * Notker of St. Gallen

Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should turn this move request into a discussion of what the best title from all the possibilities is? Srnec (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would seem the most sensible approach. We can begin by noting that we have an article on the Abbey of St. Gall. It is possible to move that, but, wherever it winds up, the text of this article (and the title, if we retain the present form) should be spelled the same way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy if we turn this into a discussion. Michael Sanders 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Should "Saint" ever be abbreviated in a title or article? If so, should "St" or "St." be used? What about the German word "Sankt"? Does this Notker require disambiguation? If so (and I believe so), then should his title be "Notker of Saint Gall", "Notker the Stammerer", or "Notker Balbulus", which seem to me to be the only real options, since they sidestep any disagreements concerning the first questions, Notger is a rare spelling, "Blessed" doesn't belong in titles by convention, and English should be preferred to German unless the latter preponderates in sources (it doesn't). I prefer Notker the Stammerer, probably because it was used in the only extensive treatment of Notker I ever read, but it is also commonplace and English (not Latin). Any of the titles is an improvement, though. Srnec (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't 'Saint' should be abbreviated to 'St/St.' in a title. It seems inappropriate, and practically speaking either abbreviation is capable of annoying those who use the alternate abbreviation. Certainly, the editor/translator of my copy of "Two lives of Charlemagne" consistently uses "Saint Gall" rather than "St Gall" (he also consistently refers to Notker as "Notker the Stammerer"). I agree entirely with you that "Notker of Saint Gall", "Notker the Stammerer" and "Notker Balbulus" are the only real options - whilst there's probably a case for this Notker being the most well known Notker, he certainly isn't the only well-known, and I've seen nothing to suggest that "Notker" alone is automatically taken to refer to the Stammerer. Personally, I'd favour a move to Notker the Stammerer. What do the rest of you think? Michael  Sanders 01:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems you and I actually agree! Should we change the move request and start over? How is this done? Srnec (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that simply changing the request here and on the requested moves page will work, since that is the consensus so far - and then, if anyone else disagrees, we can revert the changes. Michael Sanders 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . 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.

Strange ....
"Naples was destroyed by a volcano in 512 before Columba was born" 1 - Naples was not destroyed. Pompei and Herculanum were - Naples, never. 2 - The Vesuvius eruption that destroyed Pompei & Herculanum occurred in 79 AD. St Columba is supposed to have been born in 521 AD. 521 - 79 = 442 - not 512. 521 - 512 = 9 AD. There is no record of a destructive eruption of the Vesuvius in the year 9 AD --Alf.68 (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

In 512. Mount Vesuvius mentions 512 eruptions.