This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
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)
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)
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.
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)
Did Alfosono become King in December 1874 or January 1875? We need consistancy folks. GoodDay ( talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)}} |
– 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
exception made on a case-by-case basis, except that you apparently prefer the status quo (and don't like the convention).
"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)
(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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
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)
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)
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.
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)
Did Alfosono become King in December 1874 or January 1875? We need consistancy folks. GoodDay ( talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)}} |
– 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
exception made on a case-by-case basis, except that you apparently prefer the status quo (and don't like the convention).
"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)
(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)