Talk:Hugh of Italy

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move

I propose that this page be moved to Hugh of Italy. I present the following reasons in point form:

The Manual of Style indicates that monarch should be styled in the form "Name + Ordinal + of + Kingdom". Hugh's kingdom was Italy and he has no ordinal, being the only Hugh ever king of Italy.
There is no reason that 'Hugh of Arles" should be used over "Hugh of Provence" except that the former is perhaps a little more common in the English literature.
Consistency: some Italian kings seem to be left under their common names, while some appear properly as per the MoS. I will propose these moves on all pertinent pages for medieval Italian kings.

Srnec 03:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sister

If there is some secondary source which is stating that she was Louis the Blind's "sister" it is grossly overstating it's sources. It is believed, based on deductions from other statements that she is possibly a daughter of Boso by some prior, unnamed wife or mistress. There is no contemporary source stating the relationship exactly. Wjhonson 23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in Marriages

For some reason, in the section "Second Marriage" it claims his second wife as Marozia, while the section underneath it, "Family", claims Marozia as his third wife, and Alda, who bore Lothair and Alda, as his second wife. Which one is correct? Was Marozia or Alda his second wife? PutinOnTheRitz (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Sources

Also, I would like to bring people's attention to the great lack of sources for the sections "Second Marriage" and "Family". PutinOnTheRitz (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the "Second Marriage" section seems to be almost unchanged from when I wrote the original version of the article over ten years ago (though the division of the article into sections has been done by someone else since then). My sources (or at least the main ones) are in fact listed in the article - they are the Llewellyn and Riché entries in the "Sources" section. This was well within the sourcing standards of that time - these were distinctly less strict than today, and use of inline citations was still fairly uncommon. I think I still have the books around and should be able to provide inline citations when I find them, but I am busy with other things and this may take a while. The "Family" section seems to have been written by other people later, but may well be right about the number of marriages - while (from what I remember) both the sources I was using spent several pages discussing Hugh, both were doing so in the context of other topics and may have missed out biographical details irrelevant to their main concerns. PWilkinson (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]