Talk:Roi des Thunes

This is the discussion page for Roi des Thunes. Here, you may discuss improving the article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Definite article

Given this is the title of the man, not his actual name, shouldn't this have the definite article 'le'? (compare: La Volpe, The Dagger) Sadelyrate (siniath) 13:21, April 8, 2020 (UTC)

There's no rule that a title or a title used to refer to a person has to have a definite article (e.g. Prince of Wales, Emperor of Japan, King of England). Titles would be grammatically preceded by the definite article in prose, but the definite article would not actually be part of the title itself (e.g. "the Emperor of Japan" but the is not part of the title). In fact, I have pointed out before about my skepticism that The Duelist or other similar titles should have the definite article, but it really depends on the individuals who created that title if they had intended the definite article to be part of it or not. Usually, if it is not clear, the definite article should not be added, but if it is clear (as in the case of La Volpe), it should. Perhaps, it is that titles which consist of a single word like "the Duelist" or "the Fox" need the definite article for clarity. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:19, April 8, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in this sort of grammar rules but it seems to me that the article get dropped when talking about a title that refers to a group such as king of England but when the title refers to a specific individual it should be kept? Le Roi de Thunes is interesting because it’s actually both; it’s a title that has been held by multiple people but our article is written in such a way that it is used to only refer to a certain person. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 22:16, April 8, 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, I agree with Lacrosse. As in, in the context of this specific wiki, there's just one King of Beggars. But us commoners can't go changing it, 'cause 'Le Roi des Thunes' is already redirected to this article. (This whole thing brought to you by the fact that in the description of the Poison Pin among Arno Dorian's mementos, the King is referred to as 'le Roi des Thunes'.) Sadelyrate (siniath) 22:28, April 8, 2020 (UTC)

Lacrosse, I don't mean to come across as too blunt, but that is not correct. :-/ It sounds entirely alien to me, is not mentioned in the Wikipedia MoS, and has never been the explanation in any grammar books or style guides I have consulted. Even if when there had only been one Emperor of the French, the title as a proper noun was still "Emperor of the French" not "the Emperor of the French". Of course, the holder of that title would be referred to in running text as "the Emperor of the French" but the would not be part of the proper noun. The formal title does not change just because it suddenly has been passed onto another individual such that there has now been more than one person who has held that title. The title of the President of United States has always been "President of the United States" not "The President of the United States" when George Washington was president.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the situation is ambiguous for le Roi des Thunes since it is not clear if the definite article is part of the proper noun or not. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:11, April 8, 2020 (UTC)

So after reading the Wikipedia page on Naming conventions in regards to articles I am at an impasse. It gives two conventions of which one must be met. I feel it meets condition one but it doesn’t meet the second at least in the one example I know of. I think the second condition might trump the first in this case. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 00:32, April 9, 2020 (UTC)