Talk:Waleran I of Limburg

lengau?

As can be seen by clicking that link, there must be an error. Never heard of a Len gau in the Belgian area.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this person be split into two?

Jean-Louis Kupper (2007) Les origines du duché de Limbourg-sur-Vesdre", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire Année 85-3-4 pp. 609-637 [1]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Srnec I notice you made this article. What do you think of Kupper's proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added Kupper's proposal to the article, with some discussion of the reasons why there are different possibilities (also derived from Kupper).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

should this article be re-named "Waleran II of Arlon"?

Question is necessary because of the issues raised by Kupper, and now discussed in the article. Most importantly, Waleran was certainly count of Arlon, but maybe not count of Limburg.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me read Kupper. Srnec (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: I suppose the question is really whether this article should be split into 2 articles, given that there are two sets of records for men with different names and different counties, and only some historians have combined them.

FWIW Medieval genealogy has a lot of cases of people who we can say very little about, and who have been "merged" in different speculative ways by different historians. While I see an argument for not having short articles for each of them, the alternative is worse because it means Wikipedia structures its presentation around chosen hypotheses, making it very confusing. In a managed publication we could try to enforce a rule of only having articles about whole families, when those families are reconstructed in several ways, and not every individual, but that just can't work on Wikipedia as the articles will always come back, written based by different editors, based on different theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I leave this one to you. Coincidentally, I rewrote Vacis yesterday to be about three separately attested persons who may have been 1, 2 or 3 people. It's a bit awkward, but I'm not sure any one of them on his own deserves and article. Srnec (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: yes indeed making a composite article is also an option. An example we have looked at before is Rudolf, Count of Avernas. But probably such a strategy works best when there is one main anchor person, and then sub-sections about other records who might also be that person? Maybe this could be such a case. I will keep thinking a bit about it and not rush. Some more difficult ones I have been looking at are the supposed ancestors of Robert the Strong and the Capetians. Not sure if you have any opinions on those? One of the problems with such articles is that it is easy for people to make dozens of them and then they get left for years, often under strange names that seem to come more from genealogy websites than anything else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)