Jump to content

Talk:Alfonso XII

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some proposals

[edit]

I suggest excising from the start of the article the doubts about his paternity, and together with some notes about his relationship to Elena Sanz, their offspring, and the juridical troubles of his will, move it to a (several) section in the text. Besides this, as Alfonso XII's memory is deeply ingrained in spanish popular culture, some data about it would be of interest

--Wllacer 10:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I would change the "homosexual" of Francisco de Asis, since there are no evidences about it. Wikipedia should say what we know or we can prove it's true, and to this day, Francisco de Asis' sexual tendencies cannot be assured (it was told he got a lover -woman- too). I would say "presumed homosexual". --80.103.137.151 02:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestor infobox

[edit]

Cosmos666 has added a box which shows Alfonso's four grandparents and eight great-grandparents. This is certainly not usual for an encylopedia article (indeed, often not for a full-length book about the subject). I suggest removal. If not, what are the limits to this? Noel S McFerran 04:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I'd like to see the ancestry box return. Many of the other 'Monarch biographies' on Wikipedia have these boxes. They're useful for tracing historical genealogical relationships and present some useful information in a concise format. Thanks a.windemere ...Sorry, I just noticed that it's still there when the 'show' link is clicked.[reply]

Puigmoltó It´s not Puig y Moltó is Puigmoltó. Don Enrique de Puigmoltó y Mayans, son of the "conde de Torrefiel". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.41.187 (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reign

[edit]

Did Alfosono become King in December 1874 or January 1875? We need consistancy folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive unsourced additions

[edit]

In July User:MJPE doubled the size of the article with this poorly written and completely unsourced edit. For some reason I can not understand, it has been allowed to remain. Unless someone wants to clean it up and add the required citations, I am going to replace it with what was there before the edit. Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso's paternity

[edit]

An American dental student was the biological father of the King? I don't know were that comes from. Sounds suspiciously incorrect. And as for Enrique "Puig y Molto," there is no such man; he was actually Enrique Puigmolto y Mayans (Iberian Studies: Journal of the Iberian Social Studies Association, Volume 10, p. 45 and Isabel II: Los Espejos de la Reina by Juan Sisinio Pérez Garzón, p. 53), son of Jose Puigmolto y Perez, Conde de Torrefiel, and his wife Pascuala Mayans y Enriquez de Navarra, a sister of Luis Mayans y Enriquez de Navarra, Spanish Minister of State in July 1854. The name (Puigmolto) must have been incorrectly transcribed by whoever first made that edition to King Alfonso's biography. Lordmarmont (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Lordmarmont[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

What is the point of the split nation section? I am not doubting its accuracy but it seems out of place in a biography.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing and removed it. All the events mentioned there took place decades before his birth. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem's root lies here.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

The introduction to the article, particularly the second paragraph, has a mistake. The 1868 Spanish Revolution (BTW, the link should be changed, as it currently links to an event that took place during the Spanish Civil War) was not led by Carlists, but by pro-democracy politicians and military men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milarqui (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

remove photographer's credit under image caption

[edit]

The image caption says "Photograph by F. Voight, 1884", should the credit to the photographer be removed? I think Wikipedia credits photographers in their photograph's page, not in the photograph's caption in articles. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Amadeo I of Spain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

post-Napoleonic restorations and revolutions which engulfed the West both in Europe [sic]

[edit]

So the disruptions in Spain could have possibly been an historical and unexplained hidden cause of the discovery of America? 50.72.101.163 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 March 2023

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus as to whether or not WP:NCROY overrides WP:CONCISE in this case. I should've clarified that in my original close; my apologies.

Original close

Not moved. We have five article title criteria that were all brought up repeatedly. WP:CONCISE was against the move (though it was well noted that WP:CONCISE does allow certain exceptions for biographies), WP:CONSISTENT was repeatedly argued to be in favor of and against the move (with plenty of examples on each side!), WP:PRECISE isn't relevant, WP:RECOGNIZABLE was convincingly argued to be a nonfactor (if you're familiar with Alfonso XII, you'll recognize this article as being about him)... and WP:COMMONNAME was conclusively shown via Ngrams to be against the move. With no convincing reason to move, and one unquestioned reason to keep it here, the decision isn't hard. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 04:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]

(non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:SOVEREIGN. Articles regarding monarchs should be titled "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". I know that these move requests are contentious (those asking to either add or remove the "of {Country} portion. Most arguments to remove the territorial designation arise from WP:CONCISE, which also states that "Exceptions exist for biographical articles", so that argument is moot. Estar8806 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are they Spanish monarchs? Because there's no indication of that in the title. I would think they were Leonese kings, or Kongolese kings, or Wallachian princes, or installments of a movie series or the name of a tactical sports formation? Wikipedia is written for a global audience. Why should they be expected to know how things are spelled in Spanish or Portuguese? Or that these spellings are in either of those languages and not, say, Romanian or Swahili? "of Spain" clears it all up an instant. Walrasiad (talk)
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SOVEREIGN, which is further based on WP:CONSISTENT (see pretty much everyone else in Category:Spanish monarchs) and WP:RECOGNIZABLE: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. I'm unimpressed by letter-counting in defending the "concise" case; to quote the policy The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. The Alfonsos are not household names, and the two latest kings barely so. Even if I'm "familiar with the general subject area", I don't remember that the current king is Felipe VI and I don't see why he should be treated differently from Philip V of Spain. No such user (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the Alfonsos are not household names, and the two latest kings barely so? What is your reliable source as proof? Alfonso is a typical Spanish-language name (Afonso in Portuguese language, which lacks of the letter "l" from Alfonso, in non-Iberian languages there is rare for Alfonso/Afonso), with the very high regnal numbers (XII and XIII), it is so unique, disambiguous and recognizable for the regnal name Alfonso XII and Alfonso XIII. For the European monarchs since 19th and 20th century, the English modern social medias prefer the romanized name of the native name even if not anglicized. However, for the European monarchs before 19th and 20th century, the English historical materials prefer the anglicized name instead of the romanized name of the native name but not anglicized. Thus, there are Philip I of Castile, Philip II of Spain, Philip III of Spain, Philip IV of Spain and Philip V of Spain (here Philip is the anglicized style of Spanish-language name Felipe), to distinguish from Philip I of France/Philip I of Macedon, Philip II of France/Philip II of Macedon, Philip III of France/Philip III of Macedon, Philip IV of France/Philip IV of Macedon, Philip V of France/Philip V of Macedon. However, as the monarch reigns in 21st century, Felipe VI is common for his native regnal name by the English modern social medias. With Philip VI of France and the pretended Philip VI of Macedon–Andriscus, Felipe VI is so unique, disambiguous and recognizable that can show his native language–Spanish language, and his motherland-Spain, even if without the unnecessary disambiguous description "of Spain".--Joker Twins (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we also have a unique Isabella II (if we discount an obscure Isabella II of Jerusalem, 13th century queen of HRE), yet her article is titled Isabella II of Spain, to be WP:CONSISTENT with WP:NCROY and pretty much every other article in the category. No such user (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:household name: A very well-known public figure. How many people would know who were Alfonso XII and XIII? Do you want me to conduct a survey of people on the street and publish it in a scientific journal so as to have a "reliable source"? WP:RS is about article contents, not about validating talk-page arguments (particularly of the "sky is blue" category). No such user (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no reason. The title is in its original language and there are no other similar monarchs, so it does not hurt or cause confusion. TheRichic (Messages here) 15:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Not a household name. Having given this more thought, while being a household name is a motivating factor, Charles III (disambiguation) shows the standard wikipedia seems to be following: if the monarch is a household name that "everyone" knows or is constantly referencing, then don't attach the realm; for the 16 other nobles/monarchs who were also Charles III, they get held to a different standard. I think Charles III of the UK is preferable, and I think the mistake that has been made on his page should not extend to Felipe, Alfonso, etc. In short, whether a monarch is a household name or not should not be the reason why we simplify their title. Brevity is nice, but playing text golf is not the purpose of Wikipedia. MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Charles III is equally the King of 15 kingdoms. "Charles III of the United Kingdom" would be inaccurate. Meanwhile, Felipe VI is only the King of one kingdom. Important distinction. Jèrriais janne (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jèrriais janne That's not the point. The point is Charles III is immediately recognizable as King of the United Kingdom to basically anyone. Is Felipe VI immediately recognizable as King of Spain? Is Alfonso XII? Plus, Charles III of the United Kingdom is no less accurate than Charles III of Saint Lucia or Charles III of Canada, and I can say with all but 100% certainty that he is far more well-known as King of the United Kingdom than any of the other 15 countries. Estar8806 (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes thank you for the correction; regardless of where he is king over, text golf is not the only purpose of Wikipedia.
    There are genuinely deep questions about the balance between WP:CONCISE, WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I tend to weigh less on recognizability, and would prefer to see where the individual is ruler over in the title, regardless of whether he/she is constantly in contemporary media sources or not. These discussions have plenty of precedent on Wikipedia (as others in this thread have noted wrt Charles III) and they veer into semi-political territory in addition to the democratic preferences and consistent standards issues. MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Talk:Charles III/Archive_6#Requested_move_8_September_2022, in which ~240 editors came to a clear consensus to keep "Charles III" and overrule WP:NCROY, is illustrative that NCROY does not have the consensus level that supporters would like when it's truly put to wide community attention. And if anything, that case was the much harder one, with numerous other notable individuals named Charles III creating a serious question of primary topic and recentism. In our case here, there is only one Felipe VI (for instance). And there is no "household name" popularity clause in article title policy. The lesson cannot be that NCROY is the rule yet can repeatedly by consensus turn out not to be the rule when the person is popular (and not coincidentally, British). The lesson must be, simply, that the community applies the same criteria throughout, under which titles like Charles III and Charles II of England live together in harmony. Here, Felipe VI, etc., are unambiguous and clear. Explanation beyond that, even of the most basic facts, is the job of the article, not the title where it is unnecessary precision. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "household name" is just a shortcut for the WP:SOVEREIGN clause Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy, e.g. Queen Victoria, Alexander Jagiellon. I don't think the exceptions are justified in this case, particularly for the Alfonsos. As you probably know, we used to have a successful "mutiny" against WP:SOVEREIGN, where an ill-attended RfC managed to change the naming convention so as to favor the shortest possible unique names (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 24#Request for comment) – which resulted in an absolute chaos in royal article titles, and was subsequently removed by an overwhelming majority at the well-attended Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 24#RFC: Regnal names – and I invite you to re-read the arguments in favor of the current NCROY wording, even if you disagree with them. If anything, the clear consensus to keep Charles III is only the proof that the community wants the current British monarch at the short title under the "household name" clause, not that we want to dive back into the chaos. No such user (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that case by case consideration applies only to "household names" is nowhere to be found in the quote Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of general article titling policy. "Household name" is not even close to being a summary of that language or any RfC. Nor is it the standard set by any general article title policy. Joker Twins has validly raised case-specific considerations – for example, that Felipe is unanglicized Spanish, despite the obvious option to anglicize, and not a name shared by any other country's monarchy. The talk of mutiny and chaos is pure hyperbole. (If there's any concern about instability, I'll note that stability presumptively cuts in favor of not moving in any particular instance.) Adumbrativus (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have specialized naming conventions, such as WP:SOVEREIGN, for a reason, and this one clearly enjoys community consensus, as in the Regnal names RfC. You fail to explain why this particular set of monarchs should enjoy an exception made on a case-by-case basis, except that you apparently prefer the status quo (and don't like the convention).
    Speaking of "stability": this batch of articles was originally at "of Spain" titles and moved to the current titles at Talk:Amadeo_I_of_Spain#Requested_move_20_August_2020, at the time when NCROY contained the "If the regnal name and number are unambiguous" clause. Since the clause was deleted in the 2021 RfC, they should be moved back to conform to the new (and the original) wording of NCROY. No such user (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not withstanding the fact that Charles III reigns in multiple realms, which is a large factor in why the page was not moved to Charles III of the United Kingdom. Obviously Charles III is the primary topic for his name, as are Alfonso XII, Alfonso XIII, Juan Carlos I and Felipe VI. But how recognizable are the Spanish monarchs names. You'd have to live under a rock to not know that Charles III is the reigning King of the United Kingdom. But how many people know that Felipe VI is King of Spain? Or that his predecessors names were Juan Carlos I, Alfonso XIII, and Alfonso XII? If these pages were moved, a primary redirect would still be left (as is the case for other Spanish monarchs, namely Ferdinand VI & VII), that way anyone familiar enough with the monarchs would still reach this page but those who are not would still find the added "of Spain" for clarity. Estar8806 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Recognizability in article title policy is not a free-floating question of how many people know a person. (See also "not what first comes to mind".) To give an example, few people know who Melville Fuller is, what he's notable for, or even what country he's from, but recognizability doesn't mean we put any of that in the title. He is of course not royalty, but that doesn't affect the meaning of recognizability. No one contests that there are other considerations specific to royalty, but recognizability is not one of them. Recognizability is conditional on some basic familiarity. Most people haven't heard of Felipe VI, but then most people aren't looking up his article at all. The people who do look him up, though, will find and recognize that they have arrived at the article about him, and that the article calls him what he is commonly called. Adumbrativus (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct on that plenty of articles are not immediately recognizable, Melville Fuller being a fine example. But how would one make that more recognizable "Melville Fuller (U.S. Chief Justice)"? That's just wrong. But, simply changing "Alfonso XII" or, "Juan Carlos I" to "Alfonso XII of Spain" and "Juan Carlos I of Spain" makes it far more clear that this person was king (or at least some form of monarch) of Spain. Estar8806 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if the goal is to be clear, why stop as the half-clear "Alfonso XII of Spain"? That could be a duke, a pretender, or a band. Why not go for "Alfonso XII, king of Spain"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simple to me: most people probably don't know that there are any reigning princes or grand dukes in the world. And those who do would at least know that their are far more rulers with the title of king or queen. Estar8806 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But adding "of Spain" does not make it any clearer that they are kings. The ordinal makes it as clear as possible without explicitly saying they are kings, so the question still is: why not go all the way if clarity is the goal? Surtsicna (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title Alfonso XII does not fail recognizability any more than Frank-Walter Steinmeier does. How many people know that Frank-Walter Steinmeier is the president of Germany? It is not the job of the article title to define the subject, and if it were, then "Alfonso XII, king of Spain" would do so much better than "Alfonso XII of Spain". Surtsicna (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The movement to strip the countries ruled over was over-done - it made sense for a few very specific cases like Victoria, but should not be the "default." The default should include the country ruled over; clarity is more important than concision. SnowFire (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as I prefer we return to the "Name # of country" page title style. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:CONCISE seems enough to keep already unambiguous titles as they are. "The default should include the country ruled over" Foo country under the yoke of King Foo Joe featuring as as a prize in the article of King Foo Doe just because the latter is a monarch reads like an awful principle to apply. These are biographies. They are people, after all. It is not "text golf", this is about titles of articles of monarchs being not about explaining the content of the article (particularly when they don't need disambiguation). Insofar there are no demands of disambiguation, Alfonso XII's article title does not need further explanation about the subject's activities than Sinach's article title does not need explanation of the subject being a Nigerian singer, songwriter and senior worship leader (that is the job of the article). In addition, if the ordinal already entails nationalist historical nonsense, the ordinal plus the country worded in such way makes such nonsense (the notion of 12 Alfonsos reigning over the country of "Spain") even more flagrant (Alfonso XIII, King of Spain unties the nonsense to some extent). Sadly there are policies (and to a lesser extent ambiguousness-creating endogamic practices) preventing us from using their family names (I suppose Alfonso of Bourbon and Bourbon in this case and Alfonso of Bourbon and Habsburg-Lorraine in the case of his son). I was persuaded to think that there also were degrees of recognizability worthy to ponder on such as Alfonso "XIII" being much more known than his father Alfonso "XII" in a global context, but I was apparently mistaken in light of some comments here wanting to shun the exploration of such nuances for any non-British monarch. In addition, there is little worth preserving for the sake of consistence.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - These are their titles. Why anybody would want to remove this information from the titles for the sake of brevity I will never understand. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's title was "king of Spain". The regnal name was Alfonso XII. His full legal name was Alfonso Francisco de Asís Fernando Pío Juan María de la Concepción Gregorio Pelayo de Borbón y Borbón. "Alfonso XII of Spain" was neither his title nor his name. He never called himself that. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Alfonso XII of Spain" is far more common than "Alfonso XII King of Spain" (ngrams won't allow the comma) [1]. Also, WP:SOVEREIGNS #1 "Article titles are not normally prefixed with "King", "Queen", "Emperor" or equivalent." rules out "King Alfonso XII of Spain". The titles of king/queen or emperor/empress also do not appear in article titles, except occasionally when there has only been one sovereign by a certain name (ie. Queen Victoria, Anne, Queen of Great Britain, etc.), and even then that is not a requirement with Philippe of Belgium and Wilhelmina of the Netherlands excluding their titles of "king" and "queen" respectively. SOVEREIGNS #3 states "Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}".", the title of king/queen or emperor/empress is not included. The inclusion of the title only exists for monarchs below king/emperor rank, as written in SOVEREIGNS #5. If you want to establish a wider review of NCROY to include the title of king/queen in article titles, this is not the place and we should follow the conventions as written. Estar8806 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing for either "King Alfonso XII of Spain" or "Alfonso XII King of Spain". I am pointing out that "Alfonso XII of Spain" was not Alfonso XII's title, and am perfectly satisfied with the article being left at "Alfonso XII", which is more common than "Alfonso XII of Spain".[2] Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amadeo I is also the common name for Amadeo I of Spain, but that page exists at the latter title, which I guess was also not technically his "title". Estar8806 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are very much welcome to propose a move to rectify that. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel the need to rectify that, because it is at the right title per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:SOVEREIGNS. The same can be said for Isabella II, Ferdinand V and Ferdinand VI. Estar8806 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the title of this article is the right title per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:CONSISTENT, WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME aspects of the WP:AT policy, so nothing needs rectifying here. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CONCISE, PRECISE AND COMMONNAME may be true, but RECOGNIZABILITY and CONSISTENT are questionable. Estar8806 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is consistent with the titles of articles about other kings of Spain with unambiguous names. It is recognizable because nobody is likely to think that the article is about anything other than Alfonso XII. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also likewise inconsistent with other kings (and one queen) of Spain with unambiguous names: Ferdinand VI of Spain, Ferdinand VII of Spain, Isabella II of Spain and Amadeo I of Spain.
While we're considering consistency, lakes look at the other WP:CRITERIA, shall we?
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. - Are Alfonso XII, Alfonso XIII, Juan Carlos I and Felipe VI recognizable as to who they were/are? Probably not for the former two, maybe for the latter two.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. - Not in the context of Spain or its monarchy, would one just search "Alfonso XII", or "Alfonso XII of Spain".
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. - There's no argument that the present title doesn't do this, it does so fine.
Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. - This one is the most commonly cited, but does not completely support the present title as it explicitly says "Exceptions exist for biographical articles.". We are under no obligation to have the most concise title here, but we are obligated to meet the other CRITERIA.
and Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. - This one obviously supports following WP:NCROY to be consistent with the subjects of these articles numerous predecessors. Estar8806 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isabella II and Amadeo I are very much ambiguous; see Isabella II of Jerusalem and Amadeus I of Savoy. Ferdinand VI and Ferdinand VII could use pruning.
Yes, the titles are recognizable as defined by the policy because everyone who is "familiar with", even if "not necessarily an expert in", Alfonso XII will know that the article is about Alfonso XII if it is titled Alfonso XII. An example of an unrecognizable name would be using his full legal name as the article title, since merely being "familiar with" the subject would not be enough to recognize that Alfonso Francisco de Asís Fernando Pío Juan María de la Concepción Gregorio Pelayo de Borbón y Borbón is Alfonso XII, whereas Alfonso XII obviously refers to Alfonso XII.
Yes, a vast majority would sooner search for Alfonso XII than for Alfonso XII of Spain. I cannot imagine anyone typing in double the amount of letters that they actually need. Surtsicna (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isabella II and Amadeo I may not have been the sole monarchs by their name, but they are still WP:PTOPICs. If the vast majority will search for Alfonso XII (and the others listed), then there will still be the primary redirect left, but the disambiguator "of Spain" should be added to increase recognizability for those not searching for it, and for consistency with their predecessors. Estar8806 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extraneous disambiguation does not increase recognizability. Anyone "familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in" Alfonso XII will recognize that the article titled Alfonso XII is about Alfonso XII. Surtsicna (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know "King of Spain" was his title. You know that I meant Alfonso XII, a king of Spain = Alfonso XII of Spain. Being a needless pedant doesn't advance discussion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not needless pedantry because the title Alfonso XII, king of Spain has been proposed as an alternative to Alfonso XII of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed Like some others have noted, the names are rare and distinct enough to be recognizable without listing the country in the article name. For similar examples look at the likes of Louis XIV, Napoleon III, Henry VIII, Hirohito, Puyi and so on. The concern trolling that readers wouldn't know who these people are without the country name in the title is risible. No one would think these people ruled Congo or Egypt and if they're typing the full name they'll type Alfonso XII before reaching the 'of Spain' party anyway. --Killuminator (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no comparison between Alfonso XII (or or his successors) with Louis XIV, Henry VIII, Napoleon II or Hirohito, the latter are all unambiguous (yes, so is Alfonso XII) but also instantly recognizable. First of all, Alfonso XII doesn't even register on google trends compared to the examples you cited[3]. Almost everyone will know that Louis XIV was king of France, that Henry VIII was king of England and that Hirohito was emperor of Japan. This is the same reason we have Elizabeth II, not "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", because everybody knows where she was queen of (or at least the most notable place she was queen of). Can the same be said for Alfonso XII?
    For additional reference:
    Alfonso XIII, Juan Carlos I and Felipe VI also barely appear in contrast to Louis, Napoleon, Henry and Hirohito [4][5][6] Estar8806 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alfonso XIII of Spain also barely appears in contrast to Alfonso XIII. --Killuminator (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that there is a qualitative gulf in recognizability between Louis XI and Alfonso XIII you are grasping at straws. Either way, explaining the content of the biography is not the point of titles of biographical articles. The only seeming criteria for titles of articles of French monarchs named Louis not requiring disambiguation beyond the ordinal is... the lack of need for disambiguation with another biography (XI and next)... exactly as it is the case here.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a much better example. I would advocate that page being moved too. But then again, I would imagine that an average reader would better recognize Louis IX as a king of France, since there are many commonly known French kings by that name (and not many well-known Kings Louis of other countries). The same cannot be said for Alfonso, there was only two of those (XII and XIII) of Spain, neither of them particularly notable. Estar8806 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC of interest

[edit]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfonso_XII&oldid=1230190744"