Talk:Pellegrinus I of Aquileia

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Pellegrino I of Aquileia → Pellegrinus I of Aquileia – Pellegrinus was a German cleric active at the contact zone between the German-speaking and Italian-speaking area in what is today northeastern Italy (Friul). His German name is Pilgrim and his Italian Pellegrino. I propose to use his Latin name Pellegrinus because

• this is how Latin sources of his time used to refer to clerics and Latin dominates as medieval lingua franca the written record entirely
• WP:Commonname: medieval clerics generally go in the English WP by their Latin name wherever an English name does not exist, compare the List of popes: even though most were Italian nationals, their Latin names are preferred in WP.en unless an English name exists

The Latin form of the name is "Peregrinus". Aymatth2 (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• his Latin name corresponds best to WP:Neutrality by establishing an equidistance between the German and Italian side of his identity.

"Pellegrinus" is medieval Italian, not Latin. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Support. The Google Books search results are...

Search term	Unique results	English	German	Italian	Latin
"Pellegrino I" Aquileia	89	1	2	86
"Pilgrim I" Aquileia	2		2
"Peregrin I" Aquileia	30	3	27
"Pellegrinus I" Aquileia	7	4	2	1
"Peregrinus I" Aquileia	14	3	7	2	2
"Peregrine I" Aquileia	2	2

The Italians obviously favor Pellegrino, while the Germans less obviously favor Peregrin over Pilgrim. By a hair, the English favor Pellegrinus. This differs significantly from the results at Talk:Pellegrino II of Aquileia#Requested move, where the Germans favored Pilgrim and the English strongly favored Pellegrino. The typical reader will see the name in a guide book and look it up on their phone, so perhaps the more popular sources should get greater weight, but that seems too complicated. I see no reason for consistency between Pelegrinus I and Pelegrino II. The names are so close it makes no difference. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The benefits of consistency outweigh the benefits of being in line with the results of a Google Search. I am of the opinion that "Pilgrim" is best for both patriarchs, but I know this will get no support. Gun Powder Ma's arguments from "what is appropriate" has no truck with me: I think "Pilgrim", a good English word that is a direct translation, makes most sense. Srnec (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ease of access matters much more than consistency: what is the most likely term the user will enter when looking for the article? Presumably it is the term most often used by reliable English sources, hence WP:COMMONNAME. In this case I have voted "weak support" because we only have a very small sample of English sources, and Pellegrinus is used by just 4 out of 13. It is not dominant, as with Pellegrino II, but is marginally the most common in the sources we can see in Google Books. Pellegrino I is only used by one source. I checked Jstor and Google Scholar and got nothing useful. "Pilgrim" is not used by any English sources.

The results indicate this prelate was called "Peregrin" by Germans, not "Pilgrim". It is like "James" and "Jacob", both Iacobus in Latin but different names in English. "Peregrine" is the English equivalent, and is sometimes also spelled "Peregrin". A case could perhaps be made for "Peregrin I", since Peregrin and Peregrine get 5 English-language sources between them. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong about Pilgrim. It's both an English word and a contemporary Latin word (Pilgrimus) as well as a German word. I have already added a source to the article that uses Pilgrim. It is also not the case that the two patriarchs are the only individuals so named in history. Pilgrim (archbishop of Cologne) seems to always be called Pilgrim, and he was an important figure in Italian affairs also.

The German-language sources mostly use "Pelegrin" for Prelate I and "Pilgrim" for Prelate II. I suspect there is some difference in the vernacular names, perhaps a difference between Lombard and Austro-Bavarian forms. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this has anything to do with ease of access. With redirects it is all accessible. But why should we title these articles as if these guys had different names? Isn't that unnecessarily confusing to readers? Google searches are at their worst when dealing with relatively obscure figures that are more often found in non-English sources than English. Anyway, I'm comfortable with the current or proposed title, but I am uncomfortable with inconsistency in this case: the distinction in naming would be accidental and arbitrary. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Preferably readers are not jolted when they enter one term and are taken to page with a very different title. It is best if the title is the same as the most common name, hence the guideline. There would be minimal jolt between the Italian variants "Pellegrino" and "Pellegrinus". The Latin "Peregrinus" or English "Peregrine" would not be too bad, but there would be a significant jolt with "Pilgrim", even if it is a boldface on the first line. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Per table above, English hits (since we are in the English wikipedia), prefer the -us suffix.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why should we prefer Google Hits? Are the only sources those that come up on Google searches? Srnec (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Google hits (as Aymatth2's table shows), and especially google scholar and gbooks is a good indicator which name form is the most preferable in literature and research.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2013 (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.