Talk:Leopold (given name)

Merging List of rulers named Leopold here

List of rulers named Leopold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page List of rulers named Leopold is a non-encyclopedic list per WP:NOTDIR#Cross and thus its contents need to be moved. It is not a disambiguation page according to MOS:DABSUR and thus needs to be merged into this page - alternatively the page could be renamed to something like Leopold (given name of rulers), categorised appropriately and linked from here (as the current page is now) if it is thought that would make this page too long. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Even if the proposed merge ends up being agreed upon, it needs to be said that the proposal just made contains no valid argument:

1. To cite "Cross-Category", you can't just say (explicitly or not) that "ruler" and "named Leopold" are "categorizations" in the sense WP:NOTDIR#Cross uses it (i can't see reason to doubt they are), you need to say why the corresponding "cross-category" is not a case of what the policy's clause "unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" is trying to retain. I admit to not (in my first batch of 4 edits) exhaustively fixing an article/dab hybrid (proving again the value of many eyes), when i moved the whole of this former 1st graph to the accompanying given-name page:

   Leopold is an originally Germanic name composed of two stems, common to Germanic names. The first part is related to the Latin word "Leo", meaning lion (Although some say the first part is related to Old High German "liut" meaning "people"). The Germanic peoples had no word for "lion" as they weren't aware of their existence until they established contacts with the Romans. The second part is of Germanic origin and means "brave", compare "bold". The name hence originally meant something close to "as brave as a lion". The name has been observed since the 5th century, including by the Frank Gregory of Tours, and the name gradually spread across Western Europe and during the 16th century it became popular in the southern Holy Roman Empire, due to the influence of the Margraves of Austria from the Babenberg dynasty.[1]

   I was focused on satisfying the Dab-cleanup request, e.g. getting rid of prose (which belongs only on a Dab whose title has the "(disambiguation)" suffix, and is limited to a sentence making clear what topic is covered by the corresponding un-suffixed-title article). If i'd thot that far, i'd have dup'd in the list the originator's prose (paraphrasing as here, by my first 3 words)

   [The name Leopold] became popular in the southern Holy Roman Empire, due to the influence of the Margraves of Austria from the Babenberg dynasty.[2]

   and maybe added the obvious, with a {{fact}} tag that might produce a citation and perhaps a more specific mechanism (imitation by other big shots, or carrying the name on when royal houses intermarried):

   The name later was given to future rulers in northwestern Europe.

   It's also worth hoping that researching might also produce historians who validate my speculation that using other houses' traditional given names is an established psychological measure for strengthening ties between houses, and that the spread of "Leopold" is a good example.
   There is room for differing opinions about what those guideline sentences intend by "culturally significant phenomenon", and about how well the spread fits, but whether or not prose bearing on why it should fit, the question has to be addressed.

2. While the page is indeed not a Dab page (the passage i moved had been keeping it from being one, and the new prose i later added on a grandson of the current grand duke now does; the inclusion of blue-link free entries also does), MOS:DABSUR does not keep it from being one: all hereditary rulers are widely recognized, in their respective appropriate contexts, by a single given name, so that provision is completely inapplicable.
3. The cross-category provisions are about what is

   not considered sufficient basis to create an article

   so if the article were proscribed with one title, changing the title could not fix it.

(BTW, i think a baseless concern has been raised: i doubt anyone would think the 1/3 increase in length, to about 4 kB, resulting from merging the two main namespace articles, would make the accompanying given-name page too long.)
On the merge question, i may comment on further arguments made here, but i think the process is more of a problem than either merging or not merging would be, and i doubt i will be persuaded to either oppose or support.
As to a Dab in this area, IMO the tendency to combine Dab functions and list or article function in a single page creates a lot of unnecessary confusion, and the existence of a clearly compliant Dab page can help clarify what should be done with other pages that might be seen as needed for Dab'n. I have used data from List of rulers named Leopold to create a Dab Leopold (ruler), and lk'd it from Leopold where the entry for the "List of rulers named Leopold" was, which i consider a worthwhile improvement of the Leopold Dab, and especially so if the merger is effected. (I'll also Rdr to Leopold (ruler), from Leopold (king) and so on.)
--Jerzy•t 06:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my proposal was not intended as a personal criticism of anyone, nor of any particular set of edits, but an attempt to improve Wikipedia while assuming good faith on the part of everyone. This response is offered similarly.

I thought that "rulers named Leopold" was plainly as much of a cross-categorisation as "musicians named Fred" or "scientists named Barry", and didn't need any further justification. However, if you feel it's required: The article gives no justification as to how the naming rulers Leopold is in any way a cultural phenomenon, nor is this obvious in my opinion; thus this article appears unencyclopedic per WP:NOTDIR. If you think that editing/reverting content on List of rulers named Leopold will clarify the case for retaining it, please be bold and make the change.

Your point that a name change can't fix things is a good one. My thinking was that the given name pages are DAB-like pages with their own set of rules; renaming the page appropriately may make it valid by allowing the application of those rules. You're also right it's really a non-issue in this case.

Re. MOS:DABSUR, in my opinion, the context required in allowing "Leopold" to unambiguously refer to a single ruler is more than say, the scientist Einstein or the popular musician Elvis; in general "Leopold" would need to be qualified by the name of the place he was ruler of, and possibly a numeral or similar to distinguish him from other similarly-named rulers of that place. However, on reflection, such qualifications are not given names or surnames so this guideline probably doesn't apply on that basis. Your DAB page seems like a good idea therefore, although it might be better merged with Leopold - I note many disambiguation pages have a "royalty" section, which would seem appropriate.

--Rogerb67 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology is wrong. This etymology does not even make sense. "Bold People"? The first name element is "*Hlut", like in "Ludwig". It means "famous". So the meaning is "Famously Bold". 79.106.203.13 (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)