Talk:Francis Phoebus

Untitled

There was no Francis II, so why Francis I? Maybe "Francis of Navarre" is a better title. Srnec 20:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There was in the person of Francis Phoebus. --Sugaar 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Francisco I de Navarra.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2024

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. Of the opposes, I see disagreement with the application of WP:CONCISE, and a singular concern of precision. Supports mention WP:CONCISE as applying to the proposed title and cite WP:NCROY. I see a rough consensus for this move, especially considering the strength of the recent NCROY RFC mentioned explicitly in some supports. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sennecaster (Chat) 02:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Francis Phoebus of Navarre → Francis Phoebus – Per WP:NCROY: Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. As far as I can tell, he is the only monarch named Francis Phoebus. Векочел (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, I support some of these “of country” removals (if there is no other monarch by that name, also depending on the circumstances of the rm), but this is a bit too far. What’s next? Charles Albert? Charles Felix? Beatrix? I think in the cases that there is no number the “of country” should remain. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • In this case, there is no one else with an article on Wikipedia with the name Francis Phoebus, monarch or non-monarch. Векочел (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom, in line with WP:CONCISE policy and WP:NCROY guideline. As far as I can tell, he's the only notable person (monarch or not) named Francis Phoebus. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Concision does not benefit the readers. Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Great then, I suppose the article on the current British king should be moved to Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Векочел (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I would support such a move. The current title contains ambiguity with Charles III of Spain. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

    • Yes. "Charles III of the United Kingdom" would be a better title than "Charles III" which is ambigious with Charles III of France, Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor, Charles III of Spain, Charles III of Norway, Charles III of Naples, Charles III of Hungary, Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, and Charles III of Bohemia, all of which are currently more notable in their historical significance than Charles III of the United Kingdom, who is supposedly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. WP:CONCISE indicates that indeed consensus is that concision is of benefit to readers. The applicable guideline WP:NCROY supports this move. Bensci54 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. – Hilst [talk] 20:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Normally, I'm inclined to support these sorts of thing (even though its against my personal preference), but using only a first name in the sort of circumstance really should be kept to names easily WP:RECOGNIZABLE, like Marie Antoinette or Maria Theresa. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per @Estar8806 Killuminator (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The juggernaut is rolling on this one and, despite efforts to halt it, it will continue to roll. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE and, latterly, WP:NCROY all support this move so there's really no grounds on which to object, other than attempting to relitigate a change to naming conventions via an RFC that has already concluded.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"despite efforts to halt it" Yes, Wikipedia keeps getting worse in recent years, despite our efforts to improve it. Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Showing the country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear. Removing it isn’t an improvement for our readers (which policy instructs is our priority) and doesn’t seem to serve any purpose other than to satisfy a specialist editorial desire for maximal conciseness. Also, just to be very clear about this: Wikipedia nowhere asserts that the most concise unambiguous title is necessarily the best one. If it were, we’d have US, UK, Cézanne, Obama, 103rd Congress, DTs, Bothell, AI, and countless other un-encyclopedic titles. The change to NCROY that prompted this and other contentious RMs was ill-considered and should be revisited. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Amakuru. —В²C ☎ 00:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per consensus at WT:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: Should the guideline explicitly accept Elizabeth II, Carl XVI Gustaf, etc titles?. Why did we need another discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per WP:PRECISE. Francis Phoebus, as a personal name, cannot be treated as unambiguous without a numeral, even if he is the only notable person with that name. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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.