Talk:List of monarchs of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia/Proposed naming convention

Princes[edit]

Kings[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Looks good. Thanks for the effort. The names look good except for two. Shouldn't Hetoum be Hethum? And is Smpad Sempad in English sources? Implied by WP:NCNT is that "king" and "queen" should not appear in the title but that lower titles like "prince" should. Therefore, Constantine I of Armenia but Ruben III, Prince of Armenia. One more case. Maybe these would work better with hatnotes at the top of both pages:

— AjaxSmack 01:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ignored WP:NCT for the "King" thing is the amount of ambiguity that would otherwise exist. You have Leos and Constantines that start numbering again and Thoroses and Rubens that don't. And "Isabella of Armenia" is hardly clear to the average Anglophone (and were there no other Isabellas of Armenia?). I don't care personally whether it's Hetoum or Hethum and I don't know if Smpad or Sempad is more common in English, since he's not a "common" guy. Srnec (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the addition of titles in order to eliminate ambiguity. From the name moves I only support moving Gosdantin to Constantine because it is fundamentally wrong. I would keep Levon and Zabel as their actual names.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain about Gosdantine being wrong? And why are Levon and Zabel right? They are no more Armenian than Constantine? Srnec (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a transliteration based on Western Armenian. The pronounciation in Armenian is no different than in other languages, so Constantine should stay. Zabel and Levon on the other are hand are unique Armenians forms of the names used at the time and I prefer using the contemporary names over the most common English names. Just don't think it's a good practice to name someone something else.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, it is standard practice to name medieval figures "something else". Nobody in 1100 called himself Henry, John, Edward, or Philip, but those are the names we use now. It's fine for you to think it is bad practice—as some scholars do—but until practice changes, I don't think our opinions are relevant. Srnec (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like separation of titles from names, but oppose changing names, except there is a mistake in writing. Names are what person is known for. F.e. King Levon you think is known in english literature as Leo? Unless evidence is supplied for that fact, I would oppose any consistency renaming from their original names. Steelmate (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that Leo is preferred over Levon, as revealed by Google: The Later Crusades by Norman Housley, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades by Peter Edbury, The Armenians by Anne Redgate, and The Hundred Years War by Robin Neillands. All of these books are recent (1991 or later) and deal directly with the topic save the last one. The first two are scholarly and footnoted, the last two are general. Srnec (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made search with exact parameters "Leo Of Armenia" - 123, "Levon OF Armenia" - 2. So I think you are right Leo is much more known. Same with "Isabella Of Armenia" - 6 vs "Zabel of Armenia" - 1. Steelmate (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a good draft. For naming of female "princesses", disambig trend actually seems to have gone towards adding a marital title. A medieval lady rarely was titled princess, anyway. Thus, we could have Isabella of Armenia, lady Lusignan or something like, if she even actually deserves an own article (looks to me it is just a genealogy list). The most correct rendition of first names should not be decided as this sort of lump, let individual names to be discussed then individually after a basic format gets agreed. As the kingly titling has been moving towards "X the Nth, King of Y" instead of "X Nth of Y", I would say it were good if these become good examples of that and of necessity of that. Marrtel (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the proposal to Princess Isabella of Armenia → Isabella of Armenia, Princess of Tyre. I will follow through on these proposals soon unless I get some more negative feedback. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless I get some more negative feedback." I like that — that's how things work around here. I have some feedback on the names. I urge you to use Sempad (Sempad[1] gets more Google Book hits than Smpad[2] and Wikipedia currently has an article for Sempad the Constable). As far as Hethum/Hethoum, it's all over the place (Hethum[3] vs Hethoum[4] vs Het'um[5] vs Hetum[but many false positives]). Hethum and Het'um seem a little less archaic from the book results (they drop the French-inspired "ou") but it's marginal. I'll let others argue about the royal titles. Thanks for your work on this. — AjaxSmack 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've already made the moves and done a lot of work, let me state this instead: do you object to my moving Smpad to Sempad? — AjaxSmack 00:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Smbat! It is by far the most popular hit.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right[6]. I didn't exactly forget. I was originally going with English names rather than transliterations. Though Het'um is precisely that. It's just that Smpad and Smbat could use another vowel or two. Oh, well. I won't lose too much sleep over it whatever is decided. — AjaxSmack 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]