Talk:Philip Rubens
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 17 March 2017
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. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Philip I Rubens → Philip Rubens – Subject is not listed with a numeral in Biographie Nationale de Belgique or other reliable sources (e.g. Mark Morford, Stoics and Neostoics: Rubens and the Circle of Lipsius). Page titled Philip Rubens already exists as a redirect to this, necessitating admin intervention for move to take place. Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. Subject's native Dutch Wikipedia lists him as Philip Rubens. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do not agree: how can you make a difference between him and Philippe III Rubens: Alderman of Antwerp, Mayor of Antwerp in 1691. and Philip II Rubens : Secretary of Antwerp? The most easy way is to start numebring them, we are talking about a noble family, easy.--Carolus (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- They can be distinguished with numerals on the page about the family, but naming conventions for articles are very clear, and not every member of the family needs a stand-alone article – only those eminent or notable enough for there to be a published biography, or a scholarly article on them, or an entry in the national biography. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- You mean like in the first sentence? Or do i understand you wrong? --Carolus (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- The title of the article and the bolded headword in the lead should be "Philip Rubens". In a section or article on the "Rubens family", he can be distinguished from other Philips in the line by a numeral. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- You mean like in the first sentence? Or do i understand you wrong? --Carolus (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- They can be distinguished with numerals on the page about the family, but naming conventions for articles are very clear, and not every member of the family needs a stand-alone article – only those eminent or notable enough for there to be a published biography, or a scholarly article on them, or an entry in the national biography. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support. This is the only Philip Rubens with an article here yet, and if others are created it seems likely that he will be the primary topic, see Rubens family#Genealogy. So there is no need to disambiguate. Andrewa (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
"Flemish"
editWhile art historians writing in English do often (although not always) use "Flemish" for people, methods and styles from the Southern Netherlands (including Mons, Lille, etc.), it is not so much used in general history as it is rather inexact. These days its use is also complicated by the fact that "Flemish" often means "from or to do with the current Flemish Region", which is entirely anachronistic. It is also a magnet for ideologues of various stripes, while "Low Countries" is accurate and utterly uncontroversial. If there are reliable sources in English that call Philip Rubens "Flemish", please cite them. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)