Talk:His Majesty the King (Miró)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on His Majesty the King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://80.25.201.238:8081/cdm-fons-fjm/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Ffons-fjm&CISOPTR=7677&CISOBOX=1&REC=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629115948/http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/joanmiro/room13.shtm to http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/joanmiro/room13.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2023

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. Developing consensus after relisting supports move to the suggested titles. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 08:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

---

• His Majesty the King → His Majesty the King (Miró)
• His Highness the Prince → His Highness the Prince (Miró)

– Should be WP:CONSISTENT with Her Majesty the Queen (Miró). The first page should also probably be redirected to The King as His Majesty The King is. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support—makes sense. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support (King, Oppose Prince per Freedom4U comment below], adding Miro to the title, and this probably could have been done non-controversially. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support (strongly) per nom, and per WP:ASTONISH. No clear primary topic for these titles. The safest bet is to have them go to a disambiguation page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support WP:ASTONISH. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support King, oppose Prince "His Highness the Prince" as well? I understand the WP:ASTONISH argument regarding Queen and King, but I do not understand its application to the Prince (given The Prince currently leads to the book by Machiavelli). And the WP:CONSISTENT argument is illogical here, as the cited section states that consistency does not control disambiguation. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • "His Highness The Prince" could refer to umpteen princes throughout history. Sometimes disambiguation is best to avoid ambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

But it doesn't refer to an individual prince, so the artwork title seems a stand-alone in terminology usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

And "His Majesty the King" doesn't refer to a specific king! Most kings are "His Majesty the King". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the king term is universal, and there is a work by Kipling with the title. But princes are not "majesties", which is a term for kings and queens, so Miro's work seems unique in this usage, with no need to specify the artist in the title. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You do know the title of this work is "High Highness the Prince" rather than "His Majesty the Prince"? "Highness" is the standard form of address for princes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that someone is searching "His Highness the Prince" to look for a specific prince. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Very clear consensus for moving His Majesty the King, but further discussion is needed for His Highness the Prince. Is there ambiguity that needs to be resolved with "His Highness the Prince"? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support I think no one has argued against moving "His Majesty the King". With regards to the other one, yes, "the Prince" alone could refer to an artwork or a novel or an object, but "His Highness the Prince" is rather too specific in terms of style and is a form of address that has been used by various sovereign princes (or a form close to it); Prince of Liechtenstein and Prince of Monaco are two examples. Keivan.f^Talk 04:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support both per nom, for consistency and the avoidance of ambiguity. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:19, 20 July 2023 (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.