Talk:Hugh I, Viscount of Châteaudun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 11 April 2016[edit]

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  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The numbering was odd. Some sources do indeed number them this way (possibly in error), but the more consistent numbering can be found (see this French source). I'm also proposing using the English form of the name, since that is what we use for other viscounts, e.g. Geoffrey. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – think you ought to take up the numbering and the English name separately, and present more evidence. Most editors don't know enough to comment. Or just do it, since nobody seems to care. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - unfortunately the link you have provided is not to a page or section within a book but a book in its entirety, which, when combined with the limited access on Google books, means that it is impossible to confirm or deny your claims. Please provide an alternative source or a lot more clarity about the current source. Furthermore, for what it’s worth, a brief flick around the internet suggests that the current formulation is correct, however none of the sources I came across struck as particularly reliable so anything substantial which you can provide would be very useful. Ebonelm (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link I provided should take you to page 381, which is the start of section in which covers the seals of the successive viscounts. As an exmaple, on p. 382, it says that Hugh, the third viscount, was the second of the name and the archbishop of Tours. That is our Hugh I. It gives all the viscounts named Hugh by my proposed numbering. Another sources is this. Both of these are old, so there is possibly a modern reconstruction that would change the family tree and the numbering. But our articles are not based on any such reconstruction. Srnec (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: still had trouble with the first link (maybe it's because I'm trying to look at it from the United Kingdom rather than Canada) but the second source provided checks out. Ebonelm (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Hildegarde: mother, wife or daughter?[edit]

I don't know which numerals are correct, but I do see a mismatch between various articles on English and French Wikipedia regarding their familial ties to other people. It seems to me that Hugh I, Viscount of Châteaudun didn't exist as a separate person, but has been mixed up with either his purported father Geoffrey I, Viscount of Châteaudun or his purported son Hugh II, Viscount of Châteaudun.

I give up. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugh_I,_Viscount_of_Châteaudun&oldid=1202832468"