Talk:Ottokar Czernin

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Ottokar Czernin. Consensus that this is the most common name. Jenks24 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Count Ottokar von Czernin → Ottokar Czernin – titles not in name unless for disambiguation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support obviously In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Where did the von come from? Shouldn't it just be Ottokar Czernin? —  AjaxSmack  00:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Good catch, VIAF has 11 variations of his name, we should just use what Encyclopedia Britannica uses which is "Ottokar Czernin". I changed it in the request to your suggestion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    • In that case,...

• Support per nom and User:In ictu oculi. —  AjaxSmack  16:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds of accuracy. His Czech name is correctly given in the article as Otakar Theobald Otto Maria hrabě Černín z Chudenic which, in English, is invariably translated as "Ottokar Theobald Otto Maria, Count Czernin von Chudenitz". Two authoritative texts on genealogical titulature, in French and German respectively, concur: L'Allemagne Dynastique, Tome VI, 1991 by Huberty, Giraud and Magdelaine on page 348 states that this family (known since 1358 and made Imperial Counts in 1627) is named "Czernin von Chudenitz" or "Czernin von und zu Chudenitz" ("zu" being borne by the branch retaining the eponymous family seat: Ottokar belonged to a different branch). And Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser A, Band XVI, 2001 on page 250 confirms that Ottokar was Count Czernin von Chudenitz. NCRAN, the applicable guideline, does not call for omission of titles such as count, earl or prince "unless for disambiguation". FactStraight (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

We do have Count Chocula. Since there are eleven variations of his name used for authority control, the best answer is to use what EB uses. We tend to use encyclopedic naming conventions, since we are an encyclopedia, over genealogical naming conventions. The rules are here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support a move to Ottokar Czernin, Oppose one to Ottokar von Czernin. Given that he was a native German speaker, from what was, at the time, a bilingual province, and who lived his later life in Austria, I'm not sure why his Czech name is particularly relevant. At any rate, "Ottokar von Czernin" seems clearly wrong. In general, I think full titles for members of central European nobility are not necessarily necessary. For some comparable examples, see Otto von Bismarck, Bernhard von Bülow, Klemens von Metternich, Gyula Andrássy. I suppose Count Ottokar Czernin would also be appropriate, but the current title seems clearly wrong, and I'm not sure there's any need for the noble title in the article title. This is rather a different case from the British or western European nobility, who frequently have surnames that are distinct from their noble titles, and who have noble titles inherited by primogeniture. john k (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ottokar Czernin. 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/20101222022855/http://tornai.com/rendtagok.htm to http://tornai.com/rendtagok.htm

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) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)