Talk:Gilbert, Duke of Lorraine
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Andrew Lancaster in topic article name
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gilbert, Duke of Lorraine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
article name
editWould Lotharingia not be a less ambiguous name for this man's jurisdiction?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- No objection, but we should also then move Otto, Duke of Lorraine and Conrad, Duke of Lorraine. Srnec (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and no doubt there are more. I think many more articles on related topics already have Lotharingia also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- These are the only dukes of Lotharingia so named. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- I was just referring to any articles which mention Lotharingia in any way. I think it is the normal term used in this period in English, at least by recent historians, but we do have Lorraine here and there. I've not done any big survey though. In French they also seem to avoid the modern French term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Srnec, like Waleran, Duke of Lower Lorraine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have posted a few similar notes on some of these articles. Not sure if discussion needs to be centralized or anything. Probably this is not really a big controversial issue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Srnec, like Waleran, Duke of Lower Lorraine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I was just referring to any articles which mention Lotharingia in any way. I think it is the normal term used in this period in English, at least by recent historians, but we do have Lorraine here and there. I've not done any big survey though. In French they also seem to avoid the modern French term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- But why move Waleran? Your "less ambiguous" rationale wouldn't apply there. I was assuming you were referring to the ambiguity between Lorraine=Lotharingia and Lorraine=Upper Lotharingia. Srnec (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Seems worth discussing. Maybe it is indeed a less concerning case where there is a "Lower" because it is less ambiguous, but in those cases I would still suggest we are probably not using the most common term in 21st century historiography, and the words "Lower Lorraine" still logically imply a part of the French region (which is also much smaller than Upper Lotharingia) if the reader is not already well-informed before they start reading. Lorraine is a common English and French term for a part of France. It does not normally mean Lotharingia (or Upper Lotharingia) anymore, even if it evolved from it. Historians who use the term Lorraine to mean Lotharingia can at least be internally consistent, but I think overall our writers and editors have to be getting confused when you look at articles like "Duchy of Lorraine", which has a section on Duchy of Upper Lorraine, but also says that Lotharingia was the name of Lorraine's predecessor. Possibly Upper Lorraine is more confusing than Lower Lorraine, because Lower Lorraine can't mean many different things. The normal dictionary "Lorraine" being something smaller than Upper Lorraine (which included Luxembourg, and a big chunk of modern Germany) is confusing IMHO.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)