Talk:King/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

What is this process called...

Basically, my question is what is the process called when titles were reassessed from the more grandiose titles to what they are today? For example... when the kings of Early Middle Ages Wales went from using the king title to that of prince by the 12th century, for instance. Or when the rank of earl was subjected to that of Duke. I know the reasons for such reassessments, but not the actual term. Or when the Dukes of Aquitaine began using the king title in the late dark ages, then refered to as count in some sources in later centuries, then promoted again to that of Ducal rankings. Simularly for that of the Breton title, it went from King to Prince to Duke, while some French sources for the same periode called them Count of Brittany. I hope I did not thoroughly confuse anyone! hehe.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I found it, the process is called Mediatization ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What is a "Junior King"

The term "junior king" appears in several pages throughout the Wikipedia. Perhaps it should be explained here. patsw (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was to move content to King (disambiguation) and redirect to Monarch. --JaGa^talk 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

King → King (disambiguation) — Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and turn this into a redirect to Monarch with a redirect hatnote. JaGa^talk 09:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Another option is to restore this version, but Monarch is nicely complete, so that remains my preference. --JaGa^talk 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the move. The "king" article was clearly a scope duplication of the "monarch" one. I think because I compiled the current dab page from King (disambiguation), I can just copy-paste it back, and make this a redirect as you suggest, no actual move is necessary. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, this is resolved then. Could an admin close? --JaGa^talk 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

This just don't make sense

Why King can't have his own article if even the most minor of the noble title have one? And by no means Monarch is a good redirect, which is a much broad concept that needs to be treated separately. Turgeis (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2016

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: Withdrawn by nom Ppp ery 16:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

King (title) → King – King (title) is the original page. Find their histories. Sawol (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sawol: I have reverted a recent cut-and-paste from King to King (title). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is wrong. The current King (title) is original. The current King is the copy. Sawol (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Ryk72 swapped them on controversial technical request. [1] Take it back first. [2] And this should be merged with the current King. Sawol (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sawol: I am not sure what has gone on here, or why you are objecting to the requested technical move; but copy/paste moves to your desired version are not helping, and will only make things more difficult to get straight. Would you please self revert these and clearly explain what you believe is the issue? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Are you talking about as a redirect page? Or, as an article page.

This started out as a redirect to Monarch and content was added, but it 1) only covers men, but the monarch article covers men and women. 2) This article has no citations. 3) is just a small subset of the information in the monarch article. What is it's usefulness?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For symmetry, I thought it would be interesting to know if there is a Queen page, there is. It's a disambig page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I am also a little confused; but I am speaking about the article which a few hours previously was at King (title), which I round-robin moved, by request, to King, which in turn was a redirect to King (title). The article immediately post my move[3] contained information which I do not believe would be found at Monarch, specifically on the etymology. I hold no opinion on whether we should have specific individual articles on Kings, Queens &/or Monarchs, but would like the moves (my technical; Sawol's cut/pastes) sorted out. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Queen is complicated by the UK rock band, which means that the PRIMARYTOPIC is less clear; Queen regnant is the direct analogue of King. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann rewrote the current King (title) (former King) to the disambiguation page [4], King (disambiguation)'s copy in September 2010. And the user merged [5]. In November 2016‎ Dbachmann rewrote the current King (former King (title)). The user should have rewrote at the current King (title) (former King). The current King (former King (title)) has been just a redirect until November 2016‎. Sawol (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

'King' could also refer to Martin Luther King. Randy Kryn 11:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes it can Randy, but there's a question of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC- outside of the US, King will mean a monarch or fairy tale character more than MLK. When my elementary school first heard of MLK, someone asked, "Was he really a king?" Google Books gives us 2,340,000 results for Kings besides MLK vs 252,000 results for MLK or 91,000 results for my own country's prominent King, William Lyon Mackenzie King. There is a concern about lack of cites here, but Monarch is also seriously short on citations. Duplication is the main concern. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I have rarely if ever heard MLK referred to solely as King so I don't this that would be an issue.--69.157.254.203 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Somehow with the moves flying this ended up in my watchlist. This kind of stable version seems good enough, but the talk is in the redirect and the King one redirects here. It would be better if this got moved there, I think. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bertdrunk: I hve now swapped back the two talk pages (this one and Talk:King (title)). GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 06:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we need an admin to do a history merge to sort out this mess. I also think we need to shut down this debate and restart another so we know what the hell we're discussing here. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Pls Sawol update the request, it's making the RMCD Bot goes crazy. Bertdrunk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment the history here has become a huge mess. The current incarnation of the article on the title is at King, and the earlier history (I think) is the redirect formerly at King (title). The history of the title "King", which includes many other reverted attempts to make an article about the title, now sits at King (title). Ppp ery 16:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFHM solved my problems. I wish someone to close this move request. Sawol (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

King and Queen pages

I started at discussion at the politics page about ideas about creating uniform king and queen pages.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Now here. You seem to think that "king" is the equivalent of "monarch". Most (modern) monarchs do not have the title of king. "queen [regnant]" otoh is simply the English title given to the female ruler of a kingdom. This is clearer in most other languages (rex, regina; König, Königin, etc.). This is not the "monarchy" page, but it does double as the "kingdom" page, because we (reasonably) have no separate article on that. --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shadmort.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Core

Currently the article says: "The core of European feudal manorialism in the High Middle Ages were the territories of the kingdom of France, the Holy Roman Empire (centered on the nominal kingdoms of Germany and Italy) and the kingdoms of England and Scotland."

This reads like OR. If there was a "core" then it is a POV and needs a reliable source. Why include Scotland and miss out Naples, the Iberian peninsular, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe (eg Poland and Russia)? -- PBS (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the Frankish Empire was the core of manorialism, while Iberia, Scandinavia or Russia was not. But you are right in stating that this needs a source of course, what about this one. Not sure about including England and Scotland, the main point is that the area of the Carolingian Empire was the heart of the institution, and of course it spread to varying degrees to adjacent territories. --dab (𒁳) 07:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)