Talk:William I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William I of England article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article William I of England was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 9, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] To do list

To-do list for William I of England: edit · history · watch · refresh

Styles

Topics

[edit] Spotlight

Question: I have read his horse shied and caused him to come down hard on his pommel which resulted in his internal injuries, but I have not been able to read that he FELL from his horse but instead fell onto the pommel heavily. Can someone find a citation that actually states he FELL OFF his horse, as I think that it is stated incorrectly in the article. I have not found a reputable source that states he "fell off", only that his horse shied and on the horses descent he landed on the pommel of the saddle (which was still on the horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.176.220 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources for how many kids William had

I don't seem to see any secondary sources for this, unless you can count the last one as a secondary source. We need to find sources that discuss the problem of how many kids this guy had. They need to compare the number 9 and 10 kids. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Above references in the citation templates:
Sorry, made a mess of that. J Milburn 00:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gundred was not a daughter of William. See the extensive discussion in her article. That myth may explain the discrepancy. I'm removing her from the list of his children. Also, for a general discussion of his children, see Douglas, David C. (1964). William the Conqueror. ISBN 0300078846. pp. 393-395. Doubtless Bates' biography discusses the matter as well. Loren Rosen 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willy

i'm curious to learn when he switched his christian name from Guillaume to William... isn't a posthumous name by any chance? BTW does anyone knows his family name? Paris By Night 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the same name, Guillaume is the French equivilent to the English name William. As for the family name, he didn't really have a "last name" or surname as such. He was Duke of Normandy of the house of Rollo. That's about all you can say. Otheriwse he was known by his nicknames like "the Norman", "the Bastard" or "the Conqueror". Josh 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "He thereby became the first in line of English monarchs THAT CONTINUES UNBROKEN TO THIS DAY."

There was one mistake in this article that I noticed. Second paragraph, last sentence. 'He thereby became the first in a line of English monarchs that continues unbroken to this day. But the line of monarchs HAS been broken by Oliver Cromwell from 1649-1660 (11 years). 70.66.3.38 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT :) Wizardman 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

not to mention the fact that William's direct line died out after Henry Beauclerc. And that there were kings of England before William. Josh 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that there is a line through to Elizabeth II. The line does not necessarily mean that she is a direct descendant. Valiant Son (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Good spot that should not be there. Every King or Queen could be found to have some link with the current monarchy, but we don't say it on their page. We have a hereditary monarchy, so obviously the line should be unbroken. Anyway, Henry I of England's wife had Anglo Saxon heritage, so we could say that King Offa in the 700s started an unbroken line of English royals that continues to this day! regards --Tefalstar (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the removal, but I thought I'd explain that I added that sentence to add more context to the preamble following a discussion about adding it on Wikipedia:Spotlight.
I thought that it was significant to mention at the top the previously buried fact that the current monarchy are descended from him (and, for that matter, as part of a a series of lawful handovers). I mentioned on Spotlight that Cromwell might be seen to contradict my proposed statement, but I decided that, in the context of the concise preamble, mentioning Cromwell would be needlessly confusing, and technically one could argue I was correct in saying the line of English monarchs is unbroken because Cromwell never claimed to be a monarch.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So-called "indirect descent"

I believe that the terminology "direct descent" and "indirect descent" in Wikipedia biographies should be deprecated. The reasons for this are:

  • It muddies the distinction between "descent" and "succession".
  • It is nonsensical, in that one is either descended from a person, or one is not. There is no such thing as "indirect descent", unless genetic engineering is involved.
  • A defense of this usage, urging that by "direct descent" the reader is to understand "patrilineal descent", and by "indirect descent" to understand "non-patrilineal" or "matrilineal" descent," is an anachronistic endorsement of sexist connotational defaults.
--Ziusudra 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right. And since there have been female English monarchs, the patrilineal concept doesn't work anyway. It is the case that while every English monarch is descended from William I, there is not a straight line running through all the monarchs. But there is no such thing as "indirect" descent. Even a laboratory-produced test-tube monarch made from the cells of a living (or dead) English monarch would still be a "direct" descendant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a chimera than a clone.
--Ziusudra 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the the terms used all have problems but the purpose of my edit was to correct the simplistic myth that Elizabeth II of England is a direct descendant of William I by any definition. She is a descendant and almost certainly is a genetic relative by many lines. However a huge portion of the British/English population is likely to have some relationship to him, more so the remaining aristocracy. To give a very truncated version of English royal history, the Plantagenet line (which included a number of Kings who usurped the throne)came to an end in 1485 and was replaced by the Tudors with a very weak claim by descent. They were to be followed by the Stuarts who had more linage from the Scottish Royal houses than the English, then an invasion throws out a Catholic Stuart to get a Protestant one in. Followed by Hannover which saw the 57 'rejets' passed over to obtain a protestant heir, George I. Add in the hardly royal Saxe-Coburg and Gotha link and the relationship between W I and E II is very thin by any measure. This notion that Elizabeth II is rightfully on the throne of England because she is the direct descendant of an 11th Century Norman feudal lord is nonsense. She is the Monarch today because a a very complex social and political history of the island of Britain and its European neighbours. Terms like "direct descendant' obscure this.

An indirect line implies the throne passing through cousins, second cousins and their decendants as it often was In the age of D.N.A. based anthropology it would be fascinating to know just how close the Windsors and William I are. Rpersse 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No question the issues are complex. Being a descendant of William I does not necessarily qualify someone to be the British monarch. But what about the reverse? Isn't it a requirement of the British monarchy? That is, if you're not descended from William I, then you're automatically out? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I am aware of to be descended from W I, its just assumed they all are! As I said you could safely assume that a huge number of the modern British (and therefore Canadian, Australian...) population is too, the Plantagenets were succssful and likely to have had many surviving children (unlike the Tudors). Interestingly they do have to be a Protestant to this day and the heir cannot marry an R.C. By any measure E II is far more German and Scottish than English. I believe that Diana was the first English woman in many centuries to have married an heir to the English throne (see Norman Davies in 'The Isles'), she may well have had more genes in common with W I (my speculation only) due to her aristocratic lineage. Perhaps someone could throw more light on it, most interesting. Rpersse 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpersse (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rework of lead section

The lead section seemed too long and seemed to lack focus, so I've cleaned it up. Hope I haven't stepped on any toes. Let me know what you think. Josh 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New ancestors section

Do people like the new ancestors section? It's the first article in Wikipedia to use the new functionality of the {{ahnentafel-compact5}} template (specifically to collapse missing branches of the tree), so any feedback, positive or negative, would be appreciated. — ras52 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It's easy to read and informative. My only complaints (and they are minor ones) are that the colors of the boxes are a bit weird for an article such as this one and it takes up a lot of space. Josh 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The amount of space it takes up will vary from browser to browser and depend on screen resolution, etc. On my computer it takes up about the same amount of space as the old version (the simple table). Re colours, I'm a little dubious too, but I followed the convention used in George VI's ancestors. (The big difference between this tree and George VI's is that there are missing ancestors on this one; I've been experimenting getting the template to support that cleanly.) If you want to change / remove the colours, that's as simple as changing / removing the five lines reading "|boxstyle_X=blackground-color: #XXX;". — ras52 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It is probably excessive for the article to have three different pedigrees of William, once in Ancestry, once in Descendants, and once at the bottom under Family Information. Agricolae (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review comments

It's been a while coming I know, but here are my initial comments when reviewing this article for GA status.

  • Physical appearance section is out of place - you're talking about him being muscular then balding and fat but we haven't even discussed his birth etc. This probably doesn't need a unique section.
  • Perhaps use something different for subsequent in the lead, it's used in two consecutive sentences so makes for awkward reading.
  • I can't be sure but I would think WP:LEAD would suggest just two paragraphs for an article of this length.
  • "...Herleva (among other names),..." - not sure I like that, can it be expanded and cited?
  • "...young age..." - point-of-view, just stick with the facts.
  • "Plots to usurp his place cost William three guardians, though not Count Alan of Brittany, who was a later guardian." - this needs expansion for the non-expert, and possibly citation as well.
  • "consanguine marriage (as in "same blood")" - don't like that - either wiktionary link to consanguine if a definition exists there, or just leave without the (as in..) bit.
  • "...played significant roles in his life." - not sure you can just state that and leave it hanging... even just a summary would be useful.
  • "...and openly began assembling an army ..." - who did, William or the Pope? It's unclear.
  • "..it looked as if he might fair little better than Tostig." - a little colloquial and point-of-view. I know it has a citation so perhaps look for a quote or something, or reword.
  • "channel" should probably always be "Channel".
  • "13 of October" - see WP:DATE - make it a full wikilinked date in the correct format.
  • Either Christmas day or 25 December, no real need for both (unless this is particularly significant).
  • Last para of Conquest of England has no citation.
  • Shouldn't "...harrying of the North..." be capitlalised and in quotes?
  • "maximize" - please stick with British English, so "maximise". Ditto for "rumors" = "rumours".
  • The image is of the Accord of Winchester but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article. What is its context? Is it just an image for an image's sake?
  • "Whether or not it burst after some unsuccessful prodding by the assembled bishops, filling the chapel with a foul smell and dispersing the mourners is a matter of some speculation. [9]"
    • Move the citation per WP:CITE i.e. remove the space between it and the full stop.
    • I'd like a rephrase, not sure how yet, but it doesn't quite read encylopaedic to me...
  • Last two paragraphs of "Death, burial, and succession" section uncited.
  • Ancestors section could do with a brief introduction so it's not just a picture.
  • Not sure of the use of the Family tree here, it doesn't show all his offspring. Plus it repeats information in the ancestory image in the preceding section.
  • Check page ranges use the en-dash, not the hyphen, as per WP:DASH.

I'll put the article on hold and gladly discuss any of the above points. All the best! The Rambling Man 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

These comments understate the work to be done. The coverage of William's two decades as king is very sketchy. The referencing is simply not up to scratch. Given the vast array of reliable material on the subject - see the further reading section - there is no need to reference self-made history websites, unsigned web "magazine" articles, and random genealogy websites. For example, William of Malmesbury's history is available on Google books and can be cited directly. Finally, why does the article include his name in modern French? I'm quite sure that nobody in 1066 called him [gi'jom]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree absolutely; under no circumstances should the article be promoted in its current state. The two main problems are the balance of the coverage of various topics - too much on the Battle of Hastings, too little on the reign - and the lack of reliable citations. Bates and Douglas should be used extensively (I can also recommend Bates' article in the Oxford DNB, a shorter but comprehensive summary). Lampman 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well fine! I was reviewing the article on its current merits. Anyway, no stress. The Rambling Man 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has done some recent work on the article I would agree that it is not anywhere near the "good article" category yet. I have been rather lacking in boldness for fear of getting my head bitten off, as I have when been bold in the past, but when I get time to edit this article again, I'll ramp up the boldness. thanks for the critiques. Josh 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please fix the birth year in the side bar. "10|14 - 28" is not a year. 157.174.221.167 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good article. My only 'gripe' would be that the family tree part seemed to put forth as fact that there was no illegitimate children, despite there being evidence to suggest that there were. I edited the article only to add that at least one man is still widely accepted as being the illegitimate son, I would hope the wording I used wouldn't lead to a dispute. Ophaniel (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse of parentheses

Please try to avoid using parentheses all over the article, it makes the reading difficult and certainly unsuitable for GA or FA. The Rambling Man 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree (with reservations) that (under most circumstances) paraentheses (or brackets) should be used conservatively (i.e. sparingly).67.38.27.118 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style of written English

I find it astonishing that this article is published in wikipedia when the stlye of English used is appalling. It appears to be have been written by by a schoolchild. It is incredibly difficult to read - and a lot of it does not make sense.

Could it be re-written in a user-friendly way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zatsoblue (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry you don't like it. feel free to rewrite it to your liking. Josh (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled "style" as "stlye". People who live in glass houses probably shouldn't throw stones. Rather than criticize in a hypocritical manner, go ahead and fix the problems you see. Just watch your spelling. And please sign your comments. RockStarSheister (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bad things about harold godwinson

hi ppl do u know any bad things about harold godwinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.117.169 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A guy who had less than a year to establish himself as King but still held off an entire invasion from the North and nearly succeeded in holding back the full might of the Norman army. A man from one of the most noble families of the Saxon era. No not really. Look on google for your homework anyway mate
--Tefalstar (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
His father Godwin always struck me as kind of a jerk, though I didn't know the man personally. That's the best I can do. They have these new things called books you might want to check out. Good luck with your paper, sonny. Josh (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

William I of England → William the Conqueror — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCNT says this only applies if the sources present a consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, as with Charlemagne or Edward the Confessor.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
As this is the case as far I can see. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
See also Talk:William I of England/Archive 1#Requested move

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, common names are preferable. Kbthompson (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak support It is possible that this move comes under the condition I quote above, and also possible the guideline should be changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I always hear of this king as William the Conqueror. Charles 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose All post-Norman Conquest monarchs should be 'regnal name (name & numeral) of England'. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Gwinva (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Certainly the most common name; I would suggest most people will not even know the ordinal. Intuitive and conforms to Wikipedia policy to choose the most common name when nameing an article.
  • Oppose I want to support this, I acctually really /really/ want to support this, its what I think he should be named. However, it states in the naming convention that But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England;. I was checking google books for a quick check and William I was not appreciably behind William The Conqueror. If someone can correct me, I'd love that so I can support it. Narson (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This is in part a test to see whether the convention should be changed; it would have been nice if Deacon had admitted this and quoted the convention in full. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I just go by encyclopedias, which tend to have post-Norman Conquest monarchs as 'Name numeral of England' or 'Name numeral'. I shudder to think of how changes will be decided at William III of England. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I think guidelines/conventions/policies should be hashed out on the policy pages, PMA. We shouldn't crap where we eat, so to speak, by trying to make up precedents on article space on such a wide front, though, I think I can see Deacon's point. And, well, if he proposed the move of William III to William of Orange, I would definatly support that one based on what I know. Certainly a well known cognomen. I've been trying to think about it, in my mind, I think I decided that cognomens are likely appropiate in the ones where you have to think for a moment for the regnal order. I do think that if we go down this route we need some better guidelines to decide between nicknames and real cognomens are just daft little nicknames. I wouldn't propose we move Robert I to Braveheart, I would however support moving him to Robert the Bruce (Speaking of, why /isn't/ he there?) Narson (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I agree with much of what Septentrionalis has said. I support changing this, but only as part of a broader revision of naming conventions. GoodDay - I don't think anyone has proposed moving William III to William of Orange, so why do you keep bringing this up? john k (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I keep bringing it up as an example of why I prefer 'numerals' over 'nicknames' for monarch article titles; nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: There is no doubt that in Britain/the English-speaking world he was known as William the Conqueror (or even William of Normandy). Few references refer to him as William I. But changing this article's title should not be a pretext for changing other monarch's article pages where, say, as in the case of Polish or French monarchs the average English-speaker has barely heard of the king (as in, say, a Louis) let alone heard that his own people called him 'The Bold' or 'The Fat'. So changing the obvious here should not be a pretext for changing the obscure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely, for the "support" reasons given above. In future, I might be induced to consider "William I the Conqueror," as perhaps the best of both worlds. Nihil novi (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I prefer either William the Conqueror, or William I, King of England. William I of England is just ... messy to my mind. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the ordinal is well-established, see WP guidelines. Besides, "William of Normandy", "William the Bastard", and simply "the Conqueror" are as likely to appear in prose as either William I or Wm the Conqueror. Srnec (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Every schoolchild knows of William the Conqueror, 1066, and all that, but many would have no idea whether he was the first, second or seventeenth. Andrewa (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I've given reasons elsewhere & long before (e.g. Talk:William I of England/Archive/1#Requested move). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I've just finished reading David Bates's book, William I of England. Err, no, actually it's called William the Conqueror, just as this article should be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Redirect from the needlessly pedantic old title, the way Alexander III of Macedon redirects to Alexander the Great. --Ziusudra (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pedantic? Old? Just like Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta. Besides, few even know that Alexander was king of Macedon or that there was a Macedonian succession, but the English throne and William's holding of it are very well-known. Invalid comparison. Srnec (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Howso? He was the first William who ruled England. Seems pretty accurate to me. "the Conqueror", with all its implications of martial glory, may be misleading: William's generalship post-Hastings is not, to my knowledge, much above average. Srnec (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he is commonly known as William I of England. Anyone who doesn't know that he was William I will find out when they look for him under William the Conqueror and are redirected. If we want to use a nickname, why not "William the Bastard" by which he was known in his time? Deb (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is 2008, not his time in 1066, that's why. Charles 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Srnec. per consistency. And, per Deb, 'cause he certainly is called 'The Bastard' in 2008, especially when i'm particularly annoyed with what he did to certain Anglo-Saxons he ran across. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a nickname. Use redirects to direct alternative namings to the page and name the article according to the system of post Norman monarchs. See Richard the Lionheart and William Rufus Lumos3 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support Everyone of England knows who the Conqueror is. William I is very ambiguous, william the conquerer is not, there are few williams who conquered as he did. Tourskin (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyone else calls him William the Conqueror; so should we. I think that our existing naming system for monarchs borders on original research and is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. We should use the names people actually expect to find. *** Crotalus *** 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"William I of England" is not OR; and Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia all use some form of William I with ref. to England in the title of their articles. Srnec (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"William I of England" is also unambiguous. Srnec (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Current title is common scholarly use, unambiguous, logical, and consistent. Target title is a redirect anyway † DBD 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nicknames could be POV, as in this case they are. Systematics is better for systematical reasons, and for preserving NPOV. Shilkanni (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Numerals are more consistent and less likely to be POV. I don't see anyone wanting to call him "William the Bastard" which is also common for him. Dimadick (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose EB and Encarta use William I, so I feel we ought to as well. Tim! (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GoodDay. Nicknames inevitably inject POV and lead to arguments as to which ones to use. Current title puts the subject in historical context. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Moderate oppose Although I agree that he is far more often known as William the Conqueror than William I of England, I'm not persuaded that, to quote the appropriate policy at WP:NCNT#Monarchical titles (which, indeed, uses this article's current title as an example of good practice), that the "consensus [is] so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet" as is the case with Alfred the Great.
Whatsmore, I think virtually everyone who has heard of William also knows that he is an English monarch formally referred to as William I—unlike Alfred the Great who many don't know was King of Wessex.
Most importantly, there are obviously some serious issues of a non-NPOV (i.e.: AFAICC he believed he was the lawful heir rather than a conqueror when he invaded), Anglocentrism and Recentism (the epithet was born centuries after William's death) with the proposed name—as well as the previously mentioned consistency. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 18:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Every other British/English king is known by their regnal number. Every serious historian knows him as William I. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    But surely Wikipedia is not designed for "serious historians" who presumably know all about him and don't need to look here!. It is a general encyclopaedia for all comers, and it is slightly crazy to suggest that he is better known as William I when every schoolboy knows him as William The Conqueror. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia. It's not designed to make schoolboys happy! Use common name is indeed our policy, but there are limits. How about renaming the Elizabeth I article to "Good Queen Bess"? Or Margaret Thatcher to "Maggie Thatcher". We only use nicknames when that really is the commonest name used. "William the Conqueror" is indeed common, but anyone making a serious study of the subject would use "William I" and we are not aiming at the lowest common denominator. A redirect is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country". As William the Conqueror redirects to William I of England, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I believe that surely many monarchs that have had a great effect on history go by some epithet, William the Conqueror and "Longshanks" are somewhat non-encyclopaedic. Especially when there is a perfectly good name, number, and country that is still quite prevalent in the vernacular. Parable1991 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose No change in the guidelines over this since the last time this requested move was rejected in August 2005 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
Disingenuous. WP:NCNT says this only applies if the sources present a consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, as with Charlemagne or Edward the Confessor.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I find your interpretation of the above very odd, but please Assume good faith. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I was part of the consensus which came up with the present phrasing; and it has always been so read; please note that it includes Richard I of England as an example of what we ought to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It reads as it stands. And stop placing your comments below the nomination. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The high burden for use of nickname was in great part to pre-empt national and other warfare over what nickname to use. Here, there are the options of "the Bastard" and "the Conqueror". Either of them would support one POV. The standard format without nicknames avoids such battles, which usually is better for maintaining NPOV. Shilkanni (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If the guideline says that we should use Richard I of England instead of Richard the Lionheart, then the guideline is stupid and should be changed or gotten rid of. *** Crotalus *** 01:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, everyone, surely there's no need to change: look at this link, then click it William the Conqueror. Where's the problem? † DBD 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
And, if this move goes ahead, there will then be a similar redirect from William I of England to William the Conqueror. The question still is, which is the preferred title for the article? Agree it's no big deal, but if there's a consensus that the better title is William the Conqueror, then it should be moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You're assuming that it's only an indexing issue, such as in a book where the author writes the work and then someone else indexes it. Here, however, we have a body of opinion that holds that if X is indexed as X, then X must always be referred to as X in the article and redirects or piped links may not be used from article Y to article X. Therefore, experience tells me that it does matter. An article called "William I of England" seemingly requires that the subject is called "William I" and nothing else. To do otherwise produces, or so I heard, shoddy, amateurish material which looks like it's been vandalised. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what Angus is getting at. But should that really be a constraint? Why cannot we just right a section to the style guideline whereby the title of an article is not to be its preferred usage in all instances in article texts? I find it incredible (though I do believe it) that some would feel like the Conqueror must always be referred to as "William I of England"! Is there a phobia of piped links and redirects? I prefer the current nomenclature of titles b/c it is consistent w/ room for exceptions, but I would hate to see any style guideline brought into existence that tells us how to refer to figures in article bodies. If Angus fears that the current guidelines are misinterpreted that way by a strong "body of opinion", I can see his concern, but I would rather counteract it without creating a "hodgepodge" of titles. Srnec (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Illigitimate

How did William become the Duke of Normandy if he was born illigitimate? I thought that illigitimate children were always disinherited, even if the parents got married (which William's didn't). Emperor001 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

William was named 'heir-apparent' in his father's will (it's all there in the article). GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William the Bastard?

This is real?--78.180.6.33 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That he was a bastard? Or that he was called that? Both are true. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protect this article.

It's being defaced about 5 times a day by unregistered users. Yes, I understand the irony of saying that as an unregistered user, but check the edit history. --70.131.249.172 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And being caught and reverted that many times a day, too. Protection is for times that the vandalism either can't be kept up with, or is positively malignant (i.e. WP:BLP violations, or some such); that's my understanding, anyway. Cheers, Lindsay 17:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well,...It seems many anti-vandal patrollers find their avocation diverting and rewarding. Perhaps it is only a matter of perceptions. Alas, I do not find it so.
Also, many Wikipedians seem to interpret the dictum "anyone can edit" to be the equivalent of a First Amendment right, and they resist on principle any constraints, even though there are many obvious limitations (sock puppets, libel--the list goes on).
It has been further argued that the aggregate contribution of constructive IP editors outweighs the contribution of vandalistic IP editors, but I find such statistics misleading. The case of reverting bald obscenities is simple.
How then does one quantify the effort required to identify and re-verify the multiple factual changes of a serial vandal, especially when the changes are often interleaved with well-meaning, but incomplete reversions? I have on occasion run across (and fixed) little coprolites of vandalism which had lain undetected in an article for half a year.
Finally, it is important to consider Wikipedia from the point of view of the user, especially the new one, and not just from the point of view of editors. If this article is vandalized five times a day, or even every other day, this means that the probability that a new user looking up this page for the first time will find it in a vandalized state is very high. I personally have had the experience of encouraging someone to look up something in Wikipedia, telling them what a wealth of knowledge there is to be found, only to have them encounter some preposterous vandalism, slam their browser shut, and vow never to use WP again (since it is obviously ugly and unreliable).
Just my two bits worth of dogmeat, but I think Wikipedia has far more to gain by semiprotecting articles such as this than by leaving them fully open to the forces of chaos.
—Ziusudra (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos?

Are there any photos of Willian the Conquer anywhere?

--Skunk-Fu! (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Photography was invented in the mid 1800's. William died in 1087. I'm thinking no photos. There may be some portraits, but few are going to be accurate likenesses. I believe his tomb is still extant, so it's possible a photo of the tomb might be available. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the best king william

he was a googd persom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.146.205 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)