Talk:William II of Holland

Untitled

Does this move follow the naming convention? Rmhermen 15:36, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

I believe so. And it's better than the old name "William of Holland". There have been 6 counts of Holland named William. There have also been 5 stadtholders of Holland named William, and 3 kings of the Netherlands. Eugene van der Pijll 15:56, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I checked. I think naming conventions says it should be at William II, Count of Holland. But the naming conventions page deals mostly with British names. Is there a reason this wouldn't be a good title? Rmhermen 19:21, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

Hmmm. I reread the naming conventions, and it does seem to say that. However, I think the "X, Count of Y" style sounds awkward with only a first name and an ordinal number. "William II, Count of Holland" sounds like he could be called just "William II", but the number II is connected to the title, if you know what I mean. He is not the second William; he is the second William of Holland.

Just plain "William II of Holland" would be best, except for possible confusion with the other William II's, and that is why he needs the "count" somewhere, IMHO. But my instinct could be wrong here; I'm not a native English speaker, and this is after all an English encyclopedia. If the name "William II, Count of Holland" sounds good to you, and complies with the naming convention, who am I to disagree... Eugene van der Pijll 17:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am willing to leave it here, especially as William I of Holland and William II don't seem to be closely related. Do you know what the standard formal usage in the Dutch language would have been? Not a large number of modern Dutch counts to ask. (Are there any non-royal Dutch nobility at all?) Rmhermen 18:37, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know it there's a standard formal usage, but "Willem II, Graaf van Holland" and "Graaf Willem II van Holland" seem to be used. The naming convention suggests both "William II, Count of Holland" and "William, 2nd Count of Holland". ( 11:35, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is no standard formal usage, at least not contemporary (13th century). "William, 2nd Count of Holand" is an incorrect anachrony; according to Count of Holland, he is about the 16th count of Holland, but only the second "Willem". Also, that style sounds very "British" to me.

In the Middle Ages, the distinction between kings and other nobility that is made in the naming conventions is very artificial. If I would name this page now, I would call it "William II of Holland", with a link to king William II of the Netherlands/Holland in the first sentence. That name is most consistent with the other medieval dukes and counts in wikipedia. But I won't move this page again without some agreement from others like Rmhermen and you. Eugene van der Pijll 13:07, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think William II of Holland would be fine, especially since he was also crowned as king. ( 13:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But not as king of Holland, so that is not a very good argument (although I almost used it myself :). And what would you name count William I? Eugene van der Pijll 13:35, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Also he was only the first William, king of the Germans so the argument is even worse. If "Willem II, Graaf van Holland" and "Graaf Willem II van Holland" are both used we could use either. The first would be more consistent with the may we name English nobility. We tend to confuse the names Holland and Netherlands to much to just use William II of Holland. Many people would think it was William II of the Netherlands. Rmhermen 13:42, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be enough to put a sentence like "This article is about the 13th century count William II of Holland. There is also an article on the 19th century king William II of the Netherlands." at the top of the article? Eugene van der Pijll 13:55, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

William I of Germany is already taken: I don't think anyone calls this William by that name. I think William I of Holland would be OK too. A disambiguation notice for Williams of the Netherlands and Williams of Orange should surfice to avoid confusion. ( 14:08, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

With Count William and King William, we do have a natural disambiguation, since on is "of Holland" and the other "of the Netherlands". Is there a reason not to include count in the article title so it is consistent with other articles? Are we sure that that are no other William II of Holland's under a different noble title or office. So far we have William II of the Netherlands, Count William II of Holland, and William II of Orange. Rmhermen 14:11, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think Count should be omitted for William II at least, since he obtained a higher rank than count. For the others, there's no particular reason not to include Count in the title. I suppose Count William I of Holland is better than William I, Count of Holland since he is the first Count William, not the first William in general. ( 14:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

He didn't become king as William the second. He was count as William the second. The higher rank has nothing to do with his name. Otherwise you end up trying to make names like William II, Count of Holland and William I, King of the Germans...etc. For English kings it goes on for pages. Not suitable for a title. We could name them William I, Count of Holland, William, King of the Germans, William III, Count of Holland but I don't see that that simplifies matters. As for your comment about Count William I of Holland being better than William I, Count of Holland, I don't understand. How could you misinterpret it. And it is already the accepted standard for British titles on Wikipedia so if it is used in the Netherlands, it has a better claim than the other. Rmhermen 14:42, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

You make some good points. But using the convention of the British articles, we'd have William, 16th Count of Holland ( 15:02, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I knew there was a good reason that I stayed out of most of the naming convention discussion. (It ran for at least a talk page and 9 archives pages.) Count William II of Holland looks good to me! Rmhermen 15:21, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Another problem I noticed. William of Holland needs to become a disambiguation page, not a redirect like William of Orange which covers the stadtholders and kings. I don't know who the other counts of holland were or if they have articles. Rmhermen 19:47, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

I redirected the other William of Hollands to Count William II. I think they all refered to him. I couldn't find any articles on the other Counts of Holland on Wikipedia. Rmhermen 21:19, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

Yeah, I wanted to do something like this, and add some of the other counts as well (and a list of counts somewhere), but I decided to wait a bit for the naming discussion. Floris V is one other count with an article (from the Encycl. Brittannica), and there was a link to William II (his father) in the article, but it was a broken link. That was one thing I was trying to clean up. Eugene van der Pijll 17:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

a nice bio

http://hubert-herald.nl/William%20II%20of%20%20Holland.htm#_edn1 - PietervHuis (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)