Talk:Rudolf, Count of Avernas

Article name
I think Count of Hesbaye is very speculative and represents no consensus or even a tradition. In publications he is typically just called Count Rudolf. To distinguish him from his nephew, who I think is the main person he could be confused with, maybe he could be called "Count Rudolf the Regnarid"? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

History of article
I have moved the article using simple cut and paste. The only talk page entry on the previously titled version was my proposal to do so. The anchor point for this Rudolf is unfortunately only his family position. All the rest is speculation. His notability is partly because of all the publications that try to fit him various places and events and so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is an acceptable procedure. You should have moved Rudolf, Count of Hesbaye to your preferred title. I, for one, object to the present title on the grounds of WP:HONORIFIC. (And shouldn't it be Reginar III?) The primary sources in the article indicate that he was count of Avernas, so why not "Rudolf, Count of Avernas"? Or "Rudolf (count in Hesbaye)"? Srnec (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Good to see you are watching more articles in this area. I am working generally on Hesbaye-connected people and basically looking for ways to clean up a lot of articles with really unacceptable names, and difficulty finding better ones. (Using the move propose method clearly does not work well for this type of article, as we saw. But partly that was because no one was active with me.) Suggestions welcome, but WP:IAR is relevant when standard rules don't work. Anyway I am sure whatever damage I have done can be fixed! Getting to your points:
 * Yes, you might be right about Reginar III. Oops.
 * The word Count in this period is different to other periods, so there is an argument for a special approach. In other periods we might call a Count of Loon, "of Loon", but in this period people could just be Count Reginar. It was at least partly a way of identifying people, and for some of these people we don't have many better ones than the ones people used in this period?
 * Having banged my head on it, I have doubts about calling him Count of Avernas. I see that as reporting a notable and common hypothesis, and I guess we should not call him "probable Count of Avernas". I wouldn't fight too hard though! At least in this generation there is some real evidence and secondary sourcing to back us up on a regional title. The next Rudolf is harder!
 * Possibly (even sticking to the standard theories) Avernas was not his main thing at all. So should we say Count of Huste and Avernas, or Count of Avernas and in Huste, or Count in Hesbaye and in Maasland? And then of course there is the question of what Huste even was. Many people just correct it to "Hocht", but after reading around I do not think this is a consensus. Some people of course claim his highest title was Count of Haspinga, with only very indirect evidence, but this is indeed the hypothesis being presented as almost the only one over many articles now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, after editing it a bit more I can accept Rudolf, Count of Avernas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)