Jump to content

Talk:Isabella II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Isabel II of Spain)
[edit]

There have been many women in history with that name and title:

— Iggynelix 21:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

as edited by Diamantina 07:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Husband and Children

[edit]

Did Queen Isabella II's husband become King Consort? If he did, was his reignal name Antonio I or Felipe VI? In addition, was Infante Luis(1867-1874) lastly born child, or were there more after him? If so, then please mention the last one, even if it was stillborn. --Anglius 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are other issues with that list of children... It lists only 9 of 12, and the way i count them, i get 7 (arguably six) who reached maturity, not five as listed in the article... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He never got a rank over duke nor was king consort nor had regnal name in consequence since it could have meant a virtual degradation of Isabella as "true, single and legitime" regnal queen of Spain, which could have been exploited as propaganda by her enemies the carlists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.129.121 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Isabella

[edit]

She really moves about. How about we just get rid of that Bourbon template monstrosity? --Stbalbach 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestor infobox

[edit]

Cosmos666 has added a box which shows Isabella'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 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English within the Article

[edit]

Has anybody else noticed that the English in this article is written in less than fluent English? I suggest that somebody who is more fluent go through the article (especially the opening paragraphs) and upgrade and clarify the language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.39.67 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've done some editing for grammar and clarity. As grammar at a certain point involves style, I won't be offended if some edits are reversed, although clearly I believe the changes to be an improvement. The article has a fondness for long sentences with many commas; these are not grammatically incorrect but can be confusing. I haven't been able to fix all of these. Furthermore, some is difficult to understand with my very basic knowledge of Spanish history and the wording. For example, exactly what is meant by the "ambiguous friendship" Isabella maintained with her husband after her exile? These need to be addressed, but I can't do so. Alex60466176 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Isabella and not Isabel?

[edit]

Why the articles is "Isabella II of Spain" and not "Isabel II (of Spain)". Why is it "_Juan Carlos I" instead of "John Charles I"??--Karljoos (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Juan Carlos the case is simple: he has consistently been called that in English language texts, and our usual policy is to stick to how someone is commonly known in English. As for Isabel / Isabella, I suspect we followed the 1911 Britannica. In Spanish, she is known as Isabel. (FWIW, I've translated a lot of articles about the Isabeline era, and have consistently followed this article in calling her "Isabella".) - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this issue come up time after time in articles about European royalty. The unfortunate fact is that some names are customarily anglicized, some aren't, and there is no rhyme or reason as to which are which. Fernando VII is usually Ferdinand VII, while Alfonso XIII is rarely Alphonse XIII. For what it's worth, I vote for "Isabel" here since I certainly have seen the name rendered that way in English more than once. Kevin Nelson (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep the current title because it is the most common name used to refer to her. Eve if it weren't, we'd still have to keep this article consistent with the articles about her ancestress, Isabella I of Castile. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Isabella is still a nice name though. Isabel could work too but that is how it is. My name is Portugese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.44.186 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, "Isabella" is not the anglicized version of the Spanish Isabel. It is italianized (Isabella is a very common name in Italy).
Moreover, in Spanish, the English name "Elizabeth" is translated as "Isabel" (see for instance, the Spanish version of the article about Queen Elizabeth II), while in Italian it is traslated as "Elisabetta".
So, the interesting question asked by Karljoos is still unanswered. Paolo.dL (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good answer why some people, including the author of this article, decide to translate Isabel to Isabella. It makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrodesIII (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cortes Generales

[edit]

Isn't "Cortes Generales" a bit anachronistic for this era? Wouldn't it just have been "Cortes"? (I could be wrong; our article Cortes Generales deals only with the post-Franco institution, and I can't think of ever seeing the institution in the 19th century referred to in this manner.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"first and so far only Queen regnant of Spain"

[edit]

That's kind of misleading, since Juana la Loca was in basically the same situation (even if some of the technical details of her titles were a little different). AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying otherwise might be misleading. Isabella II was the first female sovereign of a unified kingdom known as Spain. Joanna was sovereign of many, many small kingdoms that became Kingdom of Spain only when Philip V ascended the thrones. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, "first and so far only Queen regnant of Spain" is only true by a technicality, and not true in substance, so it is somewhat misleading in implication. AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be changed to "first and so far only queen regnant of Spain since the unification of the kingdom in the 18th century"? Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Isabella I; the situation of Johanna is sufficiently complicated (did she ever reign in Aragon?) that I don't see explaining it in a sentence in an article on somebody else. "Only queen regnant of Spain in modern times"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A giantic majority of people believe Spain emerge before Philip V, I just saying. I like "in modern times" better.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Philip II, considered the first monarch of a united Spain? GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as James I is considered the first monarch of a united Britain. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually probably a little more than James I. Like history says Spanish colonization happen in Philip II's reign, not Castilian or Aragonese colonization, but only English colonization happen in James I's reign never British colonization. Also the Spanish Armada not the Castilian or Aragonese Armada. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really choose a bad picture

[edit]

You have chosen a bad taken photo of Isabel II. What is the point having so many portraits. Is it an encyclopædia or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.96.133 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then upload a better photo. --Lecen (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but someone reverse the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.232.86 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to husband

[edit]

In both this article and the one about Francis of Cadiz it says that they were double first cousins because there fathers were brothers and their mothers were sisters. It should also be mentioned that Francis was also her nephew because Isabelle's mother was the niece of Isabelle's father — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage of Alfonso XII

[edit]

Michener in Iberia reckons the probable father of Alfonso XII was an American dentist called McKeon arguing that Puigmoltó was away on maneuvers at the relevant time. That's not a good enough source in itself but does any serious history address the possibility? SoulRebel56 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

Was there ever a discussion to change the name to Isabel II? Nothing is changed since the page move.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's her name and no one challenged the move. Do you plan to do any real improvement to this article or is this just an excuse to change the article's name to something you personally prefer and move on? --Lecen (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there ever was an RM. Haven't checked the article history, but I believe it was changed to Isabel I unilaterally, without little or no discussion. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[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. There is a strong English-commonname argument here, supported by many. A few opposers mention that "Isabel" was her real name, but that's overwhelmed by those pointing out that she is more commonly called Isabella. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Isabel II of Spain → Isabella II of Spain – I'm unsure about this. But I feel it should be Isabella based on consistency with Isabella, Princess of Asturias (1851–1931) and Isabella I of Castile and Isabella Clara Eugenia, If there is an agreement that Isabel should be used instead for more contemporary Spanish royals it should still be decided based on a request move. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is stopping you from working on the article. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong case. Wikipedia policy says to use common names, not so-called "real names". Evidence has been provided above, in the form of Google Ngrams, that shows that "Isabella" has always been favoured over "Isabel" in the English name of this person. RGloucester — ☎ 05:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)′[reply]
I know what common name means, and that it cannot be picked when both alternatives are valid ones. About been favoured, it don't seem that much [1]. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That search is invalid, as it uses the ambiguous "Isabella II", which can refer to Isabella II of Jerusalem, and "Isabel II", which can refer to a Spanish ship, a Spanish water company, and indeed, to Queen Elizabeth II (of GB &NI, &c.), who is known as such in Spanish. My search ensured no ambiguity, using "Isabella II of Spain" and "Isabel II of Spain". In any case, we use the most common name, so yes, it can be picked from amongst valid alternatives. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant, it cannot be expect that every citation of her have "of Spain" attached. Bertdrunk (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Isabel II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"She came to the throne as an infant"?

[edit]

Since when is the age of two considered "infancy"? 23.121.160.252 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Nevers of Marshall Prim

[edit]

I notice that the "three famous nevers of Marshall Prim" are so famous they don't even appear in the Wikipedia biography article on Marshall Prim.RichardBond (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain's only queen regnant

[edit]

Opening discussion about whether Isabella II is the only queen regnant in the history of Spain and if so, since when, and how to phrase it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told, in edit summaries. Yes, she was a queen regnant, even if her excercise of power was often very limited. If not her, who did rule Spain? No, she was not "the only queen regnant in the history of Spain", because of Isabella of Castile, and for all I know Britney of Navarre etc. The current wording "She is the only queen regnant in the history of the monarchy of Spain" is correct. What's to discuss? Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Petronilla of Aragon too. Joanna the Mad is more complicated, but still before people talked (or talk) about the "Kingdom of Spain" etc. See also the discussion on this point above, from 2010. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Urraca of León too. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, if anyone from the 2 projects Thinker78 has notified (very prematurely, imo) wants to look at the article history], they may be as puzzled as I have been. Both Thinker and Estar have been edit-warring over the issue, but their edit summaries and their actual edits contradict completely! All very odd. Thinker, if you trouble 2 projects with an issue, don't just say "Opening discussion" - actually open it. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod please, if you have any concerns regarding my personal editing bring it to my talk page, per WP:CIVIL[a] and WP:READFIRST.[b] I did perform a single revert. That hardly is edit warring. Let's focus on the topic at hand.
    Regarding my notification to the wikiprojects I simply did it because it is a relevant topic and I thought fellow members there might be interested, it was not even on my mind any kind of dispute. I opened this discussion because the revert by Estar8806 made me wonder about the issue.
    I am familiar with the story of Joanna, who I consider was installed just as a figurehead for others to wield power. Hardly a queen regnant because she was not reigning, ruling, she was just holding the title. But I don't know about the stories of all the queens nor to what extent were they reigning or could be considered regnant. Petronilla was queen of Aragon, not of Spain, so that illustrates another doubt I have. Since when is the history of Spain or how to properly phrase it (i.e.modern Spain?). Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are just not understanding the concept of queen regnant, which just means a queen in her own right rather than by being spouse of a king, or a regent. Competence in ruling is not required. I changed the wording just to deal with the "start of Spain" issue - see below. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky question, which relates to -when did unified Spain come into existence- & should the moment be considered the starting point of Spanish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philip II or V are the usual points, based on coins & titles in letters. Well after Joanna, for sure. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My logic is that, while Isabella II was the only queen regnant of modern Spain (ie. a single, unified Kingdom of Spain, Joanna was Queen of Castile and Aragon, in effect Queen of all Spain. While Joana did not reign or rule in her own right, that does not exclude her from being a Queen regnant. Isabella II herself had regents for her early reign, but that is still regarded as her time as Queen regnant. Same for Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Even Elizabeth II did not "rule" per se but is still considered to have been "queen regnant of 32 sovereign states during her lifetime". Further, there is only three types of Queens: Queen regnant, Queen consort and Queen dowager (which includes Queen mother, while a Queen regent would be either a Queen consort or Queen dowager). Joanna was certainly not a Queen consort, she held the throne in her own right. She was not a Queen dowager, as she had never been Queen consort. Both of those exclude her from being Queen mother and Queen regent. Therefore, she must've been Queen regnant. Even if she didn't exercise her authority, it was done in her name, similar to the modern day where Prime ministers exercise authority of their sovereigns on behalf of said sovereigns.
Nonetheless, therein lies the fact that my issue doesn't lie in calling Isabella II the only queen regnant of something, but that something shouldn't be just "Spain". I wouldn't exactly be opposed to "modern Spain", and/or adding some sort of note mentioning Joanna and possibly even Isabella I of Castile. Estar8806 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at Britain. Was Mary II the first British queen regnant? or was Anne? GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely where my point lies. I personally consider Mary II as the first British queen regnant, because she reigned in all of Britain. However, legally speaking Anne was the first queen regnant of Britain. Therein lies a potential distinction in that Mary could have been the first "British queen regnant", as in the first queen regnant of the British people (that is the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish, not including their respective individual queens, aka both Marys I), while Anne was the first Queen of Great Britain (the legal entity).
Applying that idea to Spain, I Joanna would consider the first "Spanish queen regnant", Queen regnant of all the Spaniards, but Isabella II could be considered the first queen regnant of Spain. Because that idea is so complex and probably only makes sense to me based on the way I've worded it. I would say it's best to say Isabella II was the first queen regnant of modern or unified Spain, or not to mention it at all, because confusion could arise as to the prior reigns of Joanna or Isabella I. Estar8806 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica seems to indicate that Isabella II is the only queen regnant of Spain proper.[1] Let's bring reliable sources because so far this discussion is pure original research and interpretations. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isabella I and Joana, as well as several other queens regnant are also listed in that table Estar8806 (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the headings that separate polities. Isabella I is not under Spain. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, but the intro to the table and the title of the table itself nonetheless refer to "kings and queens regnant of Spain". Estar8806 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. This illustrates perfectly the confusion about what constitutes the history of Spain. The latter article talks about pre-Roman times.
I propose, Isabella II was the only queen regnant without a king regnant in united Spain.[c][2] Thinker78 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though that's a little clunky, I don't think we need to reference a King because a queen regnant is almost always without a king regnant (save for joint sovereigns like William & Mary). I do like the mention of unified Spain, however, so perhaps something like Isabella II was the only queen regnant of a unified (or modern) Spain. Estar8806 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I think per Britannica that Isabella I was also queen regnant during unified Spain, that's why I added king regnant, although I recognize there is a repeated word. Thinker78 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I'm not opposed to regarding Isabella II as the only queen regnant of something, as long as that something is not just "Spain". Also, Britannica refers to Isabella I as "queen of Spain". [3] Estar8806 (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The monarchy of her days is not normally called "of Spain". Unfortunately "modern Spain" has its own ambiguity. I'm not seeing anything that improves on my, current, wording yet. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"monarchy of Spain" references the institution of the Spanish crown. That's far more complex than the Spanish state and the title "of Spain" (or "of all the Spains" goes back way beyond even Isabella I. I'm going to go ahead and boldly change it to "of a unified Spain", as I believe we seem to be in agreement on that above. Estar8806 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella I was Queen regnant of only Castile (and Leon), from 1474 to 1504. While her daughter Joana, was separately Queen regnant of Castile (and Leon) from 1504 to 1555 & Aragon from 1516 to 1555, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added explanatory note. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why using elusive and concocted concepts such as "unified Spain" [sic], rather than pointing out that Isabella "II" is the first (and only?) queen regnant of the Bourbon dynasty/house?--Asqueladd (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Asqueladd I think it's because only mentioning the Bourbon doesn't give as much significance or idea than concepts regarding Spain as a whole. Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And which is the non-nationalist significance of the concept first in "unified Spain as a whole"? (whatever the ellusive construct is). The wars mentioned next in the introduction steem from disputes around legal changes introduced by the Bourbon dynasty, not because of this lady being the first female monarch in a country. Although I suppose it can be made clearer--Asqueladd (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The non-nationalist significance is like any similar significance for any other country leader. Being the only woman ruler in the history of a country is very significant I would say. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod I am having trouble finding better sources than Britannica. Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kings-and-Queens-Regnant-of-Spain-1830606
  2. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kings-and-Queens-Regnant-of-Spain-1830606
  3. ^ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Isabella-I-queen-of-Spain

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) 19:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 January 2024

[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: moved. This is not a vote, as you all surely know; although Support–Oppose !voters were split 6–4, support !voters provided far more convincing policy-based arguments than oppose !voters. Overall, Isabella II of Spain has more long-time significance than her counterpart in Jerusalem, and is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella II of Spain → Isabella II – Consistent with all of her successors (save for Amadeo I) and her predecessors Ferdinands VI and VII. Already a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Isabella II of Jerusalem is linked via hatnote. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Spain has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Women's History has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Wikipedia:SOVEREIGN. Requires disambiguaton with Isabella II of Jerusalem. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SOVEREIGN. Disambiguation is not needed because the Spanish queen is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (WP:SOVEREIGN), primary and "Isabella II" already redirects here. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would need disambiguation from Isabella II of Jerusalem. Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Isabella II of Spain is getting about 6 times more page views than Isabella II of Jerusalem. Векочел (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant Apple Inc. is commonly referred to as just "Apple" and gets many more page views than Apple the fruit, but no one argues to move Apple to the technology company. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is very relevant. Apple Inc. may have more pageviews, but it also has to have more long term significance than the fruit to be treated as the primary topic, which obviously it does not so WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION is applied. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: I originally closed this RM as no consensus. After a discussion at my talk page, I've decided to reopen this discussion to allow for further discussion of "Isabel II" vs. "Isabella II". Regardless of target, the page should be moved following the precedent at Talk:Ferdinand VI § Requested move 22 December 2023. – Hilst [talk] 18:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move as proposed to Isabella II per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (established for 20 years via WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT which makes ambiguity not a policy-based reason to oppose), WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE (no more precise than necessary) and especially WP:SOVEREIGN (use “of country” only when disambiguation is required). As to the question of whether it should be Isabel or Isabella, I think they got it right back in 2017 at #Requested move, especially going by the Google Ngrams data linked there which shows Isabella significantly preferred over Isabel in context (Isabella/Isabel II of Spain) since the early 1900s. Finally, no matter how many Oppose !votes there are, when they’re not based in policy, and none are here, they shouldn’t count in determining consensus per WP:RMCIDC (assigning due weight accordingly...as reflected in…policy) —В²C ☎ 20:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @Born2cycle. Killuminator (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2024 (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.

Requested move 18 February 2024

[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: not moved. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella II → Isabel II – Per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. The Spanish version of her name is both unambiguous and more commonly used in reliable sources. Ngrams shows Isabel II is more commonly used than Isabella II, and "Isabella II" is ambiguous with Isabella II of Jerusalem. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Oppose the name "Isabella" is how the English Wikipedia recognizes women by the name "Isabel" in Spanish, like Isabella of Castile. Eliasparras (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comment - I agree with the spirit and rationale of this nomination. However, as a Spanish speaker, I would also like to note that Isabel II can also refer to none other than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, as seen here by Vogue México y Latinoamérica and here by El País. I am happy to add a hatnote to the lede should this RM be successful. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English-language Wikipedia, so the fact that Spanish speakers refer to the British queen by her exonym is irrelevant as far as this RM is concerned. I'm not convinced that a hatnote for the benefit of Spanish readers would be justified either. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; Isabel's endonym is more common than her exonym in reliable English-language sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure we all know what version of Wikipedia we're on. Guess we'll have to rename Felipe VI to Philip VI? AusLondonder (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me. I would have those pages changed to Philip VI of Spain, John Charles I of Spain, Alphonse XIII of Spain, etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But no reliable sources call them by those names. The habit of translating monarchs' names into English died out at least a century ago. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, not sure if all editors have noticed... AusLondonder (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is WP:JDLI, not a policy based argument. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you pushing for this queen to be named "Isabel", when there's Isabella I of Castile? Why should we have such inconsistency? GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact GoodDay seriously thinks that we should move Felipe VI to Philip VI, something not supported by any English-language sources (even the very English Daily Mail uses Felipe) suggests their feelings on this matter are more personal, rather than policy-based. Will you be starting a RM at Felipe VI GoodDay? AusLondonder (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason I am proposing this move to "Isabel" is because it is her WP:COMMONNAME in English. Margaret I of Denmark is called "Margaret" in English, however Margrethe II is known as "Margrethe." It may be "inconsistent" to refer to Philip V of Spain as "Philip" but Felipe VI as "Felipe" but we do it anyway, because those are the names that they are primarily known by. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not required here. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not proposing this move because "Isabel II" is the more common name in Spanish. I'm proposing this because "Isabel II" is both the common name in English, and and more WP:PRECISE, as "Isabella II" is ambiguous with Isabella II of Jerusalem. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned in the lead that "Isabel" is the Spanish version of the name. Why isn't that good enough? GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The supporters are going to need more than just ngram trend, which only counts texts available on Google Book and where the English results still include Spanish language sources, to prove that most current RS have switched to using the proposed title instead of the traditional English version Isabella II especially for academic works. --StellarHalo (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure_requests. Natg 19 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (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.

Should be “Elizabeth II”

[edit]

Isabel II is exactly how Elizabeth II of the UK is called in Spanish. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isabella_II&oldid=1250445848"