This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amedeo
In Italian it is Amedeo, isn't it?
- It is. Amadeo is Spanish. 82.161.19.51 14:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Puccini & Amedeo I
Is this Amedeo di Savoia, duca d' Aosta, the same that Puccini dedicated his "Chrisantemi" to? And in case he is, then does anybody know anything about WHY Puccini dedicated C. to him? thanks,
Alejandro
Descends from Philip II of Spain
I think is important to put that Amadeo is a descendant of King Philip II through his daughter Catherine Michaela and his grandson Thomas Francis, because this dynastic liaison with the legitimate Hapsburg House was instrumental in the choosing of Amadeus to be King of Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.209.83.77 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 20 August 2020
- Amadeo I of Spain → Amadeo I
- Alfonso XII of Spain → Alfonso XII
- Alfonso XIII of Spain → Alfonso XIII
- Felipe VI of Spain → Felipe VI
- Juan Carlos I of Spain → Juan Carlos I
– per WP:NCROY, if the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them Interstellarity (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose them since they are, in fact, ambiguous. For example, Amadeus I, Count of Savoy is also known as Amadeo I in Spanish, and Felipe VI could refer to Felipe VI of Navarre (better known as Felipe IV of Spain). And let's not forget Alfonso XII de Castilla el pretendiente, who never became king. Neodop (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support, because they are completely unambiguous in English-language literature. Nobody is going to look up a medieval Savoyard ruler on English Wikipedia under a Spanish name. Even if there were any ambiguity in the titles (which there is not), WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would still apply. Surtsicna (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Amadeo I, which is unrecognizable. Who even notices the difference between Amedeo and Amadeo at a glance? And who actually calls him the First, given there was no second? As for the rest, I don't see the benefit. Srnec (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I have added Juan Carlos to this discussion since that should be discussed as well before moving. Interstellarity (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per conciseness for most. Unsure on Amadeo, since it's not quite as unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Leaning towards support, chiefly because the fact that the intended titles currently redirect at them suggests that they are WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (obliterating the arguments about potential obscure ambiguities) to begin with while adhering to WP:CONCISE. The case of Amadeo could be a bit more tricky. "King Amadeo" (as in Queen Victoria) could be an alternative (differences in length of reign notwithstanding, hehe :) ).--Asqueladd (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support for the Alfonsos, Felipe and Juan Carlos, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Unsure about Amadeo. His name is too similar to the Latin "Amadeus" and the Italian "Amedeo" to be clearly unambiguous, and he was not a particularly well-known, fruitful or long-lasting King when compared to all the other ones listed. I'd say that the country in the title doesn't hurt in his case, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Impru20talk 00:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support for the latter four, especially for Juan Carlos I of Spain per WP:PTOPIC. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 22:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)