Jump to content

Talk:Victor Amadeus III

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

Move

[edit]

Well, this is going to be messy. The page should really be at Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia but some well-meaning but misguided editor apparently moved Victor Amadeus II of Savoy to that namespace without understanding that the styles start over again with the new title. Right now there are many links going to "Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia" that really want to go to "Victor Amadeus II of Savoy", who was "Victor Amadeus I of Sardinia". The move shouldn't occur before all those links get cleared up. We don't want people going to the wrong page.

It's worth researching and noting if it's common in English now to call this guy "Victor Amadeus III" just so he can be treated as part of a straight line with his family... but if we're keeping VA3 it has to be "of Savoy" or "of the House of Savoy", not Sardinia. It's simply not what they were styled under that title. — LlywelynII 11:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3rd of Sardinia???

[edit]

III refers to Savoy, not to Sardinia. The dinastic number of all members of the House of Savoy refers to Savoy not to the other title. In fact, en.wiki is quite the sole or very few wikis with this erroneous title. In few days I’ll move to Of Savoy or King of Sardinia, but not Of Sardinia which is simply wrong (and an original research). Revolution Yes (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 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: All Moved - Consensus that the proposed moves are more concise and aligned with WP:NCROY.

Whilst there have been multiple other discussion that have failed to find consensus, with roughly equal !votes and arguments, in this discussion the consensus for moving is very clear both numerically and in terms of argument-strength, particularly around name-accuracy. Relisting the discussion has only emphasised that. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– As noted in the previous section, the present formula yields nonsensical results: Victor Amadeus III was not the third of his name to rule Sardinia but Savoy. The subsequent rulers' ordinals likewise refer neither to Sardinia nor to Italy but to Savoy.

More importantly, these moves will bring the articles in line with the WP:CONCISE policy and the WP:NCROY guideline. The present titles contain unnecessary disambiguation, which is explicitly against both WP:CONCISE and WP:NCROY.

Note that Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia→Victor Amadeus II and Victor Emmanuel II of Italy→Victor Emmanuel II were moved in 2023 and 2022, respectively. Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: - Why are you relisting? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay, apologies for not seeing this earlier. because on the overall, it seems that almost every recent discussion relating to NCROY has resulted in almost equal numbers of contributions to the both sides of the discussion. The relist was to ensure that the discussion has run its course beyond the minimum 7 days. – robertsky (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
blindlynx, appending the country actively hinders clarity and recognizability: these men are better known as "of Savoy" or "of Piedmont" than as "of Sardinia". We should not pretend that "of Sardinia" was ever here for clarity and recognizability. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then they should be moved to 'of Savoy' or 'of Piedmont'—blindlynx 23:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It does not improve clarity or recognizability if the reader saw them associated with one of the other states. On the contrary. And it does not disambiguate either. All we are left with is that more elaborate titles sound grander. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception a handful of monarchs, numbers after a first name is not sufficient information for most readers to identify who an article is about—blindlynx 17:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the purpose of the article title to define the subject. The name John Ballance is not enough for most readers to identify him as a prime minister of New Zealand, yet we do not call him John Ballance of New Zealand. Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, the article title should be recognizable to people who are familiar with the subject, not to most people. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People familiar with monarchs will struggle to identify monarchs based on just name and number. Particularly when it comes to higher numbers where even experts in the field won't necessarily know at which number there's only one country with that named monarch left—blindlynx 15:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do not need to know any of that. They just need to be familiar with Victor Amadeus III. That is what WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says. Everyone familiar with Victor Amadeus III will know that the article titled Victor Amadeus III is about Victor Amadeus III. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The direction in the NCROY guideline (to include the territorial designation only when required for disambiguation) has in practice failed to garner consensus support at various other recent RMs — e.g., Christian I, Edward I, etc. In light of this I think the best approach is to revisit NCROY, not use it to invoke still more RMs that are likely to be contentious.
    More broadly, and speaking just for myself: omitting the country makes the titles less clear and recognizable, and doesn't aid the reader. I understand it's not our goal to maximize recognizability with lengthy and detailed titles, but I also recognize that the most concise title that disambiguation allows is not necessarily the best one either; reasonable and encyclopedic titles often tend to lie somewhere in between, and I think that's true here. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At Christian I and Edward I ambiguity was cited as an issue (notwithstanding WP:PRIMARY). There is no ambiguity here. These men cannot be more recognizable under "of Sardinia" titles when they are more commonly called "of Savoy" or "of Piedmont" in reliable sources; the argument has no basis in reality. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no ambiguity for (say) Oprah or Missoula — yet we title their articles Oprah Winfrey and Missoula, Montana. As WP:CRITERIA makes clear, the determination of what constitutes the best and most encyclopedic title for an article is about more than whether the title is distinct from others or maximally concise; it should instead balance relevant considerations in a manner that's supported by consensus, and that puts the interests of readers ahead of editors. To judge from other recent RMs, the push to drop the nation from the titles of articles such as these doesn't seem to have clear consensus in practice, and some contributors (like me) feel that the nation is an important clarifier that helps the reader. If you disagree, that's fine, but suggesting that such concerns have "no basis in reality" is unhelpful. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What lacks basis in reality is your assertion that adding "of Sardinia" to "Victor Amadeus III" increases recognizability. That is not true because, in the world outside Wikipedia, he is more frequently associated with Savoy and Piedmont. I do not think it unhelpful to note that. A reader is therefore less likely to recognize who the article is about with Sardinia in there. Surtsicna (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim is that Victor Amadeus III is most commonly associated with Savoy, then I have no objection to using “of Savoy”. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
revisiting it is probably for the best between this discussion and Talk:Ferdinand_VI#Requested_move_22_December_2023 there seem to be serious reservations about the recent changes to it—blindlynx 23:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Revisit. Start an RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not included because I did not want the entire move request to fail on account of the technical ambiguity of Charles Albert, Umberto I and Umberto II. That is a lesson learned from the Richard III discussion. Those three will be discussed separately because for them PRIMARYTOPIC needs to be defended. Surtsicna (talk) 00:35, 18 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victor_Amadeus_III&oldid=1208406034"