Talk:Sancho Ordóñez

Untitled

if you want to merge it . go ahead.--CltFn 10:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Request Move

The following discussion is an archived 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.

Result of discussion: Page moved. Clear consensus. --Hadal (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sancho I Ordóñez → Sancho Ordóñez — He probably never used an ordinal and the Spanish wiki title him es:Sancho Ordóñez and there is Sancho I of León. - Relisted. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC) --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the regnal number is to be lost, it should be Sancho, King of Galicia. Reigen (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • He is better known by his full name, just do a google search. Example like his predeccessor Alfonso Fróilaz. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • 6,410 results for "Sancho Ordóñez", 2 results for "Sancho, King of Galicia", 1 result for "Sancho of Galicia". --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sancho Ordóñez appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Well, I'm Galician :-) While the name he used for himself in the charters he issued was simply Sancio (rex, princeps, etc.), he's most frequently known in Galician and Spanish historiography alike as Sancho Ordóñez (he was son to king Ordoño/Ordonho II), or Sancho Ordoñez king of Galicia (es: Sancho Ordoñez rey de Galicia, gl: Sancho Ordoñez rei de Galicia/Galiza), at least since the 18th century. In any case, "Sancho I de Galicia", for example, can also be found, but just in a pair of occasions in Google books:
  • "Sancho I de Galicia" (2), "Sancho de Galicia" (268), "Sancho Ordoñez de Galicia" (107), "Sancho Ordoñez rey de Galicia" (3750), "Sancho Ordoñez" (6290)

--Froaringus (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Alternative It definitely shouldn't be Sancho I Ordonez, the ordinal rarely if ever being used. However, the WP naming convention for a king is 'Name of Kingdom' unless they are so well known under another name to do something different. Sancho Ordoñez is no William the Conqueror, so I think Sancho Ordoñez of Galicia best harmonizes scholarly usage with the English WP naming convention. (And here is where comparison to Alfonso Fruelaz breaks down - there is no consensus on what or even whether Alfonso ruled.) Agricolae (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support original proposal per The Emperor's New Spy's clear common name arguments. While I appreciate Agricolae's attempt at a compromise, I cannot support a title, "Sancho Ordóñez of Galicia", that only gets two gbooks hits, compared to the several thousand for "Sancho Ordóñez". Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Alternative Following the arguments of Agricolae, what about Sancho Ordóñez king of Galicia? It directly translates "Sancho Ordoñez rey de Galicia", which has some 3740 hits in Google Books, more than half the total hits of "Sancho Ordoñez".--Froaringus (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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