Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Latest RFC

Should this article say or imply (as by dates in the infobox) that the Kingdom of Sardinia was created, was new, began, or came into existence in or around 1720? (I hope we can settle this by October, so that we don't just start edit warring again.) Srnec (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer is just the same as it was last time: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "THIS" ARTICLE? If we conclude (as all the sources seem to show) that the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia" is the state otherwise known as Piedmont-Sardinia, then the answer to your question is either (a) yes, if we choose Kingdom of Sardinia as the title for the article on that state; or (b) meaningless, if we keep Piedmont-Sardinia as the title for that article, since then "Kingdom of Sardinia" would not be an article, but a redirect. Of course if we have an article (under whatever title) about the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1297, then of course that article should not state that it came into existence around 1720. --Kotniski (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean this article. This article is currently protected and won't become a redirect anytime soon.

Of course, the question could be asked, "Should any article say or imply (as by dates in the infobox) that the Kingdom of Sardinia was created, was new, began, or came into existence in or around 1720?" Srnec (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Several articles should certainly be stating, in one way or another, that the entity commonly referred to as the Kingdom of Sardinia (i.e. Piedmont-Sardinia) came into existence in or around 1720. While noting at the same time that there was another entity, also called the Kingdom of Sardinia, that existed before that. I don't see that any of this is remotely controversial.--Kotniski (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, none of this is remotely controversial in academic circles. Wikipedia, however, is not academic. I am beginning to think more and more that we need an article on the territorial development of the Savoyard state itself, which begins in the elventh century and ends in the twentieth, and of which Piedmont-Sardinia is the period during which the old Spanish kingdom of Sardinia was an important part of it. The latter article could then be a sub-article of two main articles dealing with long stretches of time and complex entities that are not always easy to define constitutionally. (And once again it looks like we're going to have a dead-end RFC...) Srnec (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We could have such an article, I suppose, but House of Savoy pretty much covers it already.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why couldn't we move this article to Piedmont-Sardinia, again? john k (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we already did. The article currently at Piedmont-Sardinia is the one about Piedmont-Sardinia (which also probably ought to be the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia", and which most people in the previous move discussion appear to think ought even to be titled "Kingdom of Sardinia", though the resident edit-warriors seem untroubled by such matters as consensus, hence the situation we're in. "This article" (and in particular its infobox) is currently a bizarre tribute to the woolliness of collective thinking - it tries to cover both meanings of "Kingdom of Sardinia" as if they were one - but it's not this article that ought to be moved to Piedmont-Sardinia - it ought to be moved to something like Kingdom of Sardinia (from 1297), and then Kingdom of Sardinia made into either a disambiguation page or (more sensibly) a redirect to (or the new title for) Piedmont-Sardinia.--Kotniski (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Well I have no idea anymore. john k (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suggest we start by writing a sound logical article on the 1297-onwards "Kingdom of Sardinia" (basically this article minus the schizophrenia, possibly adding information from Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica, which at this stage is really just a fork of this one). Call it something like Kingdom of Sardinia (from 1297). Redirect Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica to it. Make Kingdom of Sardinia a dab page for now (though I think it's actually fairly clear from the sources that the other meaning is way primary). That way at least the scope of each article will be clear, and we can work on tidying them. Later we can reconsider the primary topic question and the question of the article titles.--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Many times I suggested to develop the article about the Sardinian administrative entity (article: K of Sardinia and Corsica, eventually changing its name), but our Sardinian nationalist friends rejected this solution, because it would led to an end their propaganda which has a clear goal: to support the strange idea that actual Italy is no more than a "Greater Sardinia".--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems sensible, although I disagree with the idea of Kingdom of Sardinia redirecting to Piedmont-Sardinia. It is probably the most common usage, but I think the potential for confusion is high enough that it's best to keep the main article a disambiguation page. john k (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So what - make K of S a disambiguation page for now? Any better suggestion than Kingdom of Sardinia (from 1297) as the title of the article on that topic? (i.e. a merge of article currently at this title with that at Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica)?--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for anything—neither the status quo nor anything else. I have no idea how to proceed further to arrive at one. What we really need are good articles on these topics, not just good titles. Currently none of the articles—with the exception, I believe, of Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720)—is properly sourced or even remotely comprehensive. As a way forward, and as a compromise, I'd suggest that this article (i.e. the one one whose talk page we are talking) should start something like this:

The Kingdom of Sardinia was ruled by the House of Savoy from 1720 until 1861, when, after leading the process of Italian unification, it formally changed its name to become the Kingdom of Italy. The kingdom when inherited by Savoy comprised only the island of Sardinia, although it had once included Corsica. By the time it received its first codified constitution in 1848 it encompassed the Savoyard states of Aosta, Savoy, Piedmont, Nice, Montferrat and Genoa.
When Pope Boniface VIII first created the title "King of Sardinia and Corsica" to bestow on King James II of Aragon in 1297, neither the Pope, the islands' nominal suzerain, nor the new king controlled any of the kingdom's territory. James began the conquest of his kingdom in 1324, an endeavour only completed during the reign of Alfonso V (1416–58), who was also the only Sardinian monarch to exercise authority over Corsica as well. . .

You get the idea. What do you think? I think there isn't much more to put in the lead other than historical outlines, since it is only for a relatively short period (much shorter than even 1720–1861) that the kingdom really has permanent unified institutions other than the monarch. Srnec (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems rather confusing to uninitiated readers, as it doesn't say clearly that the name "Kingdom of Sardinia" is applied in this period to the whole of the Savoy domains, not just Sardinia; and it seems to preserve the situation we have at the moment where we don't really know which of the two topics the article is supposed to be about. If we want to go back and make "Kingdom of Sardinia" the title of the article on Piedmont-Sardinia (as I believe it always used to be, and in line with what all other encyclopedias seem to do) then it should start something like this: Kingdom of Sardinia is a name given to the possessions of the House of Savoy from 1720 to 1861; also called Piedmont-Sardinia or Sardinia-Piedmont. (Possibly followed by: The name derives from the fact that from 1720, when Victor Emmanuel I was awarded the island of Sardinia, the title King of Sardinia was the highest ranking title of the Savoy rulers.) Then we describe the various domains it includes and so on, and leave the summary of the previous history of the Sardinia royal title to a short section within the article, linking to whatever we decide to call the other article. The alternative is to have a dab page or a redirect and call the P-S article Piedmont-Sardinia, which might make the first sentence a bit easier to phrase, as we won't feel a need to get bogged down explaining all this "Kingdom of Sardinia" stuff straight away.--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my lead does "say clearly that the name [KOS] is applied in this period to the whole of the Savoy domains". I wrote: "By [...] 1848 it encompassed the Savoyard states of Aosta, Savoy, Piedmont, Nice, Montferrat and Genoa." My lead is more precise, because it lists the Savoyard domains, thus giving a geographical overview of the kingdom, and also more accurate because it gives a specific date after which the term KOS is definitely applicable to the entire domain.

It seems we're still far apart, as I deny that there are really two topics here. I could stand for a disambiguation article that explained how the terminological confusion we're experiencing on these talk pages came about, as a way of elucidating some history for the reader and point him to the main articles, but a disambituation page, that is, a mere list of two topics seems more confusing to me than the present scenario, as if the two topics are unrelated, just sharing a name.

You talk as if the period before 1720 is "the previous history of the Sardinia royal title", but it is in fact the history of an actual, really existing kingdom. It is as if you called the Indian Empire "the previous history of India's official name" merely because it was ruled by a foreign viceroy.

Finally, it is your proposed lead sentence, not mine, that "get[s] bogged down explaining all this [...] stuff straight away". My first sentence(s) told the reader something about the KOS, while yours treats the subject of the article as if it were a "name". What reason is there for this other than our debates? Srnec (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying my proposed lead is perfect. But you still seem to be refusing to accept the basic fact that, "rightly" or wrongly, this name "Kingdom of Sardinia" is used - and is almost always used - to denote the whole Savoy "state" in the whole period from 1720-1861, not just the island of Sardinia or lands that had been formally incorporated into it. As long as this is understood, there really isn't any confusion, and there isn't then the slightest doubt that there are two topics here (I can't really believe you still deny this, after all the discussion we've been through). For hopefully the last time: the first topic is the Piedmont-sardinia state of 1720-1861, and the second topic is the Sardinia royal title and domains from 1297. If there is a primary topic for the phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia", then it's the first of these topics, per all the encyclopedias etc. we've consulted. Hence if there is to be an article at (or redirected to from) Kingdom of Sardinia, it can only be the article on Piedmont-Sardinia, and so should not get bogged down in the history of the Sardinian royal title as your proposed lead does. The other alternative (which to me still seems revisionist, but the well-respected John K supports it, so it can't be so bad) is to title both articles differently and have a disambiguation page here. Please can you say what problem (if any) you have with this latter solution.--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, you did - so yes, the disambiguation page might not just be a bare list of two article titles, but could contain a little additional information to explain what's going on with the terminology (it isn't really that complex).--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Something like:

Kingdom of Sardinia may refer to:

• Kingdom of Sardinia (from 1297), a title created in 1297 and held by successive Aragonese, Spanish, Austrian and Savoy rulers of the island of Sardinia
• Kingdom of Sardinia, or Piedmont-Sardinia, the Savoy state of 1720-1861, following the award of the island of Sardinia and its royal title to the Savoy ruler in 1720

With a "see also" to History of Sardinia (or possibly an extra line, something like "* the domains [I don't think we can really call it a state] of the King of Sardinia on the island of Sardinia; see History of Sardinia).

--Kotniski (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the primary topic is only the Kingdom of Sardinia (1297-1861). It is important for readers to have a complete information, from beginning to end, on what was the kingdom. If we want to give more information about the most important periods in its history, then you can create others pages, as already explained a thousand times. If readers want to know information about the State of Duchy of Savoy, there is the page: Duchy of Savoy. The Sardinian State was another thing. Kotniski, imho, he just wanted to increase the already great confusion created by Jonny Bee Goo. The sources are the basis of Wikipedia and secondary sources have priority over tertiary sources. The primary sources confirm, beyond any doubt that the kingdom was one and only one, from beginning to end. Secondary sources say the same thing. Only anachronistic tertiary sources, those preferred by Kotniski in this case, ignore the origins of the kingdom and the beginning of its history.I prefer the Srnec solution--Shardan (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to revise history. If all the historians and reference works we know of (apart from one, apparently, and I assume he doesn't write in English) use "Kingdom of Sardinia" to refer to something that existed from 1720 onwards, then we assume that this is the subject that people want to know about when they type in "Kingdom of Sardinia". Even having a disambiguation page here is in my view too much a concession to those who want to confuse the issue with this post-1297 thing. But putting an article under this title about the post-1297 thing - or, according to Srnec's "solution", writing another hybrid article that tries to be about both things at the same time, thus confusing everyone utterly - is totally unacceptable. --Kotniski (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the story does not need to be revised, but simply to be known, and you, as demonstrated by what you have written here, you just do not know anything about the kingdom of Sardinia, but at the same time, you pretend to dictate your rules. Perhaps the first thing useful to do, before opening your mouth, is to buy a good book, not too old, and learn something about the kingdom of Sardinia, because until now, really, you don't have understood anything.--Shardan (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have understood (as I think has nearly everyone else in this discussion, though most of them have been driven away by your intransigence) what the usual referent of the phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia" is. Is there really any serious dispute about this (i.e. that said usual referent is the Savoy domains from 1720 onwards)? --Kotniski (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is important is that final user has complete information about KoS, not just half, and not simply what please Kotniski or Johnny Bee Goo. If there is no main entry, user will be obliged to re-construct a strange puzzle on kingdom history, starting with imaginative names and wrong at the same time. As already said a thousand times before, if a user is interested in the final part of the kingdom, then he can easily read the article about Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861. In that article anyone forbids to write that at that time the kingdom was called Piedmont-Sardinia, only Sardinia, just Piedmont, just House of Savoy, etc., etc.. You talk... talk.. talk... but at the same time, on the kingdom history, you have not written a single word. Srnec wrote, or me that I helped to write the three articles in the it.Wiki; you no, you have not written a single word in any Wiki, even in the Polish one, but you are allways here to impose your abstruse ideas, along with Jonny Bee Goo who still thinks that the kingdom did not exist in the Middle Ages. Please let us work on peace. Thanks --Shardan (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the closest thing to peace, I think, is the disambiguation page solution I put forward above. It still fails to reflect that people are much more likely to be looking for the Savoy entity than the medieval-onwards entity, but at least it gives the reader a clear and concisely presented choice of which of the two topics they want to read about.--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all agree. Lacks a main page where the history of the kingdom is reported from start to finish. From that page we can insert two see also to Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861) and to Kingdon of Sardinia (1324-1720). Much better than your sad disambiguation page --Shardan (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need for an article that stops at 1720. The article about what you are calling "the kingdom from start to finish" will be the one that I've proposed calling Kingdom of Sardinia (from 1297), or whatever. No problem about such an article existing; the only problem is that it clearly isn't the primary topic for the phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia", and so has no business being at (or redirected to from) that title. If you don't like a disambiguation page, then we can just make "Kingdom of Sardinia" the title of (or a redirect to) the article on the primary topic, which is the entity otherwise known as Piedmont-Sardinia, with a hatnote to direct people to the other article. (This is the normal treatment when we have two topics of which one is primary.) --Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In our case the topic is only one: Kingdom of Sardinia. The same problem you are experiencing now on these pages, has been addressed years ago in it.Wiki. A solution was found and adopted, and that is that I'm proposing here as well. On it.Wiki the main page (with infobox) is this: [1] Those to delve into :[2] and [3] with the template {{:it:torna a|Regno di Sardegna}} similar to yours see also. In our case, Srnec has already written the page Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720), so the others two will be Kingdom of Sardinia (1324–1700) and Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861). Easy --Shardan (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Italian usage of the phrase "Regno di Sardegna" - maybe it's the case that that phrase has as its primary usage something other than the Savoyard state (or maybe Italian WP has different practices as regards primary topics). But in English, it seems quite clear that the primary topic for the English phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia" is (if any) the 1720-1861 Savoy realm, so that's the topic (if any) that needs to be at that title. That's not only supported by the sourcces, but it's certainly the majority view through all our discussions here, so you ought to be more than pleased with the proposed dab page solution, which gives greater acknowledgement than could reasonably be expected to the existence and significance of a Kingdom of Sardinia before 1720. If this solution is unacceptable, then I think we have to go with the majority here and with normal Wikipedia practice, and move the Piedmont-Sardinia article back to this title.--Kotniski (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Italian usage of the phrase "Regno di Sardegna", is the same than in english: readers they expect to know what that kingdom was. I think that, in our case, is a big mistake to give priority to sources cpming from printed encyclopaedias. By the Web, the information lacks they start to be known, even thanks to Wikipedia. This unfortunately does not happen using printed encyclopaedias (tertiary sources), where the updating is slower. I'll give you an example just as significant. If you search in printed encyclopaedias Phoenician colonization, you can easily find that Sardinia was colonized by the Phoenicians. If you ask the same question to a professor who teaches these things in the University, he'll laugh at you [4]. This can happen becouse the archeology brought new knowledges over the past twenty years, but theese knowledges have not yet reached the tertiary printed sources all around the world. So in that case to whom we must give priority? to official on line archeology or to tertiary snails sources? Same thing for the kingdom of Sardinia. Who we should listen? tertiary snails sources, or secondary updated and specific sources but not yet published on printed encyclopaedias? For whic reason we should stay in a cristallized world, like that one we have consulting printed enciclopedias? And after, Wikipedia guide line say that secondary sources they have priority on tertiary sources. Anyway, I'm starting to be fed up. If the problem it's just me, I go away: I don't want at all be an obstacle on wikipedia.--Shardan (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski writes: "[A dab page] gives greater acknowledgement than could reasonably be expected to the existence and significance of a Kingdom of Sardinia before 1720."
No it does not. Have you seen what kind of dab pages we have? Unless you are saying that the "Kingdom of Sardinia before 1720" is barely even worth mentioning in our encyclopedia, I don't see how we couldn't place it on a dab page were one made. But the most reasonable way to acknowledge the existence and significance of the "Kingdom of Sardinia before 1720" is to write about it on the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia, making it clear that the Kingdom of Sardinia did not come into existence in 1720 and that its significance predates its acquisition by the Savoyards. Is this really so hard? Is it really impossible to write a satisfactory lead for such an article or to devise an acceptable layout? Is anybody but me even giving it thought? Or have we decided that the two sense of the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" just cannot share a room? I think that's silly. Srnec (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, they can share a room if they have to, and that room will most helpfully be a dab page like the one I've proposed above, which makes the terminological situation quite clear, and then allows the reader to choose the article that interests him. Of course the lead and body of any article about one sense of K of S must also mention the other and make it clear how the two are related. But the silliest solution of all is the one we've got now, and which you still seem to be proposing we maintain - that we try to write a schizophrenic article about two things at one time, just because they happen to share the same name.--Kotniski (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Kotnisnki is losing the common sense. He wrote: ....that we try to write a schizophrenic article about two things at one time. Kotninsky forget that Kos was not two things at once, but during all his long life, it has always been one thing, only one thing. In no doubt often it has changed, adapting to new situations, such as normality of life require for everything and everybody. Where is the problem of writing an article all about KoS? E.g.: if we desire to write an article about a person, and this person in his early life was a doctor, and later during his mature age he started to write becoming a writer, - for Kotnisky - we need a dab page and we should write two articles: one about his career as a doctor, and another about his career as a writer. I still do not understand. We cannot simply write a page explaining, in a chronological order, what happened during the wholly life of this person? Or still do not understand yet that the Sardian State and Duchy of Savoy State are not the same thing!!??.--Shardan (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself all over the place. Of course I understand that the Sardinian "state" and the Savoy "state" are not the same thing (and not the same kind of "state"). Since we all now agree on that, all we have to decide which of the two of them (or neither) is the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia". I really think this nonsense has gone on long enough - the primary topic is either the Savoy state (in accordance with all other encyclopedias and non-Sardinian sources we can find) or (at an extreme push) neither. So we either make "Kingdom of Sardinia" an article about (or a redirect to an article about) the Savoy state of Piedmont-Sardinia, or we make it a dab page. To propose any other solution seems simply bizarre, or else an attempt to rewrite history.--Kotniski (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to remember to you that sardinian sources are italian sources: Sardinia is part of Italy, and me I'm italian. Contradiction is just on yours words, expecially when you say: ...all we have to decide which of the two of them (or neither) is the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia". Again with primary topic!!!. Imho primary topic for Duchy of Savoy is Duchy of Savoy, and primary topic for Kingdom of Sardinia is Kingdom of Sardinia. Or you would prefer Duchy of Savoy as primary topic for Kingdom of Sardinia, and Kingdom of Sardinia as primary topic for Duchy of Savoy !!?? If like that, we should rewrite Duchy of Savoy page!--Shardan (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are ceasing to make any sense at all. What do you really think is the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia"? (And don't answer "Kingdom of Sardinia", because we still won't know.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - User Kotniski asked me to offer an opinion here, because I previously offered to help (above, where the RfC starts). I'm an uninvolved editor. Unfortunately, my real-life time constraints prevent me from investing the time necessary to get up to speed on this topic. Many RfCs can be analyzed in 10 or 20 minutes, but this one looks like it would take a couple of hours to do it justice. At this point in time, I don't think I'll be able to spend enough time to provide a useful opinion. If your conversation in the RfC has reached an impasse, perhaps you could solicit input from some related projects on their project Talk pages? Or consider the next step in dispute resolution: informal mediation. Or, just pause and come back to the issue in the future. --Noleander (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

One more time!

Hi my friends. I restored the usual, referenced version of this page, based upon Britannica, Ohio University and other basic sources.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, "Ohio University", the definitive source on early modern Italian history. —Srnec (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is going to keep being a bone of contention, I think we all have to accept that consensus is clearly against the Wikipedia innovation of making the historical formal kingdom of Sardinia the primary topic for this term. Apart from Srnec and Shardan, everyone else who's commented has been of the opposite opinion. We can't let two editors overrule everyone else simply because of their willingness to edit war and unwillingness to listen to reasoned argument. We need either a dab page here (no primary topic) or an article about (or redirect to) Piedmont-Sardinia (as the primary topic by all usual standards).--Kotniski (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's going to be done, it's got to be done right. I think "refers to the possessions of the House of Savoy from 1720 or 1723 onwards" is a terrible way to explain the term "kingdom of Sardinia". I think referring to "the new kingdom" in the introduction is also misleading, and "officially" the name the lede says was the kingdom's name wasn't. That's Jonny Bee Goo's innovation.

Here is yet another suggested solution:

• Move Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica to Kingdom of Sardinia under the Crown of Aragon.
  • This article would then cover the entire history of the kingdom up until 1700, when the succession is disputed.
• Move Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720) to Kingdom of Sardinia and the Spanish Succession.
  • This article essentially remains as is, describing the succession dispute which resulted in the kingdom leaving the Spanish ambit.
• Leave Piedmont-Sardinia where it is.
  • This article would describe the entire domain of the Savoyards after their acquisition of Sardinia down to its transformation into modern Italy.

The above does not require the introduction of vast new amounts of detailed information, although there is a great lack of references for the first and third of the above articles. The following suggestion would require serious work to introduce new information not really found on Wikipedia right now (or at least not in an easily accessible way):

• Perhaps create Kingdom of Sardinia under the House of Savoy to describe the island of Sardinia under Savoyard rule down to its legal fusion with the rest of the Savoyard state.
• Perhaps create Savoyard state (with a redirect from State of Savoy) to describe the evolution of the domains of the house of Savoy from the late 10th century down to their fall from power after World War II.

The final question would be "Where does Kingdom of Sardinia redirect, or is it a disambiguation page, or is it a short summary article?" In truth, I don't care anymore. In any case it will be short and in every case it will be clearly explained that the term was used to refer to different entities at different times as the political situation changed. If it is a disambiguation page or summary article, links to all the above articles would be provided. If it is a redirect we would also create Kingdom of Sardinia (disambiguation). Srnec (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't need more useless speeches.Wikipedia can't be in opposition respect to all other sources. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Jonny's idea of "all other sources" is the Britannica and "Ohio University". Srnec (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What Srnec proposes above seems reasonable. Not my ideal solution, but let's take it as a compromise - no point in having these edit wars every so often that inevitably don't lead to any progress, just page protection again. --Kotniski (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we could create a Kingdom of Sardinia (disambiguation) page. Let's use this Kingdom of Sardinia page to speak, as all other sources, about the State 1720-1861 formerly known as Duchy of Savoy. Let's use the Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica page (we can also discuss a name change) to speak about the administrative division, the province of the Kingdom of Spain and, later, of the Kingdom of Sardinia, with all its governors and local laws.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

....about the State 1720-1861 formerly known as Duchy of Savoy..show sources please! I think it's hard to find an historian that can affirm that Sardinian state was formerly known as Duchy of Savoy. I'm not agreed about Jonny Bee Goo's idea just up.--93.45.141.251 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 93.45.141.251. The "State [of] 1720-1861" was not "formerly known as [the] Duchy of Savoy". That is an oversimplification. It is also false to speak of the Kingdom of Sardinia [and Corsica] as an "administrative division ... of the Kingdom of Spain" or anything else, and the word "province" is at the least misleading. Jonny still shows no awareness of the problem. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ohio University is a respected research institution; whether or not it has Italian political specialists I don't know, but its publications generally meet our definition of "reliable" sources. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No argument from me there, but Ohio Unviersity is itself not a reliable source and it is bizarre to refer to it as if it was. "Ohio University" says nothing, I'm quite sure, about the history of Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

One more time...Jonny Bee Goo should produce specific sources. Ohio University or Brittannica or are not sufficiently comprehensive for this specific topic. Please stop vandalism. --151.27.239.39 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Jonny Bee Goo instead have fun with continous revertings, he should show here secondary sources to prove his POV. Britannica and Ohio University about K. of S. are not enough exhaustive. I’ll not change idea until he’ll shows here on Wikipedia historical specific studies that will invalidate F. C. Casùla (et al.) historical researches. --93.45.121.123 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem of sources

I noticed some big problems around this page. It seems that two different versions have being discussed. I think it could be useful to stop this edit war and show the appropriate sources about this topic.--Barlafus (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

The page has been protected for several weeks to allow editors time to reach consensus on how the article should develop. In accordance with policy (see WP:PREFER), I have protected it in the version it was in when I came upon it. This is contrary to the way Wikipedia works and not in the best interest of our readers.

It seems evident from the above that dispute resolution methods tried so far are not working; there are other options. "Request for Comment" can be very effective, but only if it is conducted in an orderly fashion and only if people choose to actually show up.

I would recommend that editors of this article read through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and decide what may work best for this situation. At this point, perhaps mediation is an option? If after the protection expires the revert war continues, it is very possible that blocks will be the next step to dealing with the issue, combined with long-term semi-protection to avoid block evasion.

Please remember that dispute resolution only works if editors are willing to work with others to find solutions. The best way of resolving most issues is to bring in neutral parties and to lay out, succinctly and civilly, the core of the disagreement so that these fresh eyes can help determine what approach works within Wikipedia's policies and practices. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I want to make clear to everyone working on this page that simply waiting for the block to expire and resuming the edit war will not work. If there is no discussion and consensus within the allotted, it is my intention to semiprotect the page long term so that only established editors can work on it and to block accounts who continue pursuing this course of action without following dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Because I really don't want it to come to that, I've launched a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard proposing a possible solution to the stalemate, asking for alternative ideas as well. You are all welcome to discuss the approach, but please do not argue the content issue. That will only prevent any chance of the discussion there reaching useful conclusion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• In response to my request for feedback and alternative ideas at AN (permanent link), topic bans have been imposed upon User:Shardan, User:Jonny Bee Goo and User:URBIS. The problematic range of IP editors have been blocked from editing this article. This state may not need to continue; if the editors who have been reverting without adequately joining in consensus building engage at the talk page wish to contribute constructively, they are welcome to do so after demonstrating a willingness to engage in dispute resolution processes, abiding by whatever consensus emerges. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have sometime rolled back because the voice was under a vandal attack! I collaborated to improve the Italian voice of Kingdom of Sardinia and there we had the same problem with the user Davidboz alias JonnyBee Goo. He wants to demonstrate that Kingdom of Sardinia before 1720 was a flatus vocis, using a generalist voice coming from Britannica as a source, when - on the other side - specialist secondary sources demonstrate the opposite. I have already explained in the talk page what secondary specialist sources say about the Kingdom of Sardinia. I am ready to accept any other specialist secondary source about the history of the Kingdom and I have continuosly asked to Jonny Bee Goo to cite them, but in vain. For Wikipedia reliability, a generalist tertiary source should not have priority on a specialist secondary source. I’m sorry, my English is not so realy good, and I find difficulty to contribute to improve the voice, but I’m totally agreed with user Srnec contributions. I find this ban completely inappropriate because I have just rolled back an evident vandalism, a vandalism that should have been rolled back by an administrator, not by me.--Shardan (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop calling each other Vandals

The lead to the Vandalism policy says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Neither side is doing this: you just don't agree. Read WP:NOTVANDALISM. This is a content dispute, even if it is being pursued on both sides with no real understanding of Wikipedia policies or sense of undertaking a collaborative project. Constantly calling each other vandals is not only incorrect but is a personal attack which could get you blocked. DeCausa (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuation from WP:AN discussion

Shardan, I want to ask you a question so I can understand the point you are making in this post better. PRIMARYTOPIC says "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." I've just put "Kingdom of Sardinia" into Google Books and could not find any items for the period prior to the Savoyard kingdom. There must have been some - but they were not obvious. What's your take on that? DeCausa (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have already told to you, because of his long history, Kingdom of Sardinia is a broad concept, and for that reason the page located at the title, should be an article describing the broad concept. This solution is suggested by our policies ([5]) giving as example History of France. Of course, if we are talking about Risorgimento, or if any user wants news about Kingdom of Sardinia during his last century, this primary topic can be found in Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861). Risorgimento is at the moment very popular in Italy because of his 150° anniversary, and for that reason on Google books you can easily find the Savoyard period, but the history of the Kingdom of Sardinia is not just Risorgimento, but even one hundred years of bloody wars fighted to unify the island, for example. So, to give better information to user, the page where is located at the title should synthesising the different periods of his life, and at that point dividing into subpages, chronologically, pages such as Kingdom of Sardinia (1297-1700) where primary topic is the State under Aragon kings; Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720) where primary topic is the Kingdom under Haugsburg sovereigns; Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861) where primary topic is the Sardinian State under the House of Savoy.--Shardan (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you may not have fully understood my question. When I searched Google Books for "Kingdom of Sardinia" the results seemed to almost always refer to Piedmont-Sardinia as far as I could see. Obviouisly I did not scrutinize all the results and there may have been references to the medieval Kingdom etc, but they were cerainly not very many and not very prominent. What I was trying to ask is how you explained that (the current popularity of the Risorgimento in Italy can't be the answer - I'm referring to English language books Google search). In other words, do you agree or disagree that the result of Google Books indicates that the "Kingdom of Sardinia" commonly in English-language general sources refers to Piedmont-Sardinia rather than the Kingdom of Sardinia alone or during earlier periods? I'm trying to ascertain which of these statements you believe is true:

(1) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" mean the de jure Kingdom (containing only the island of Sardinia) throughout its history back to the 13th century; OR

(2) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" may well mean the Kingdom under the House of Savoy only, but they would be wrong because specialist reliable sources say that the Kingdom of Sardinia has been in continuous existence since the 13th century; OR

(3) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" may mean all the territories of the House of Savoy post-1720 but they would be wrong because specialist reliable sources say that the Kingdom of Sardinia only means the territory of the island of Sardinia.

I don't think the "broad concept" point is really relevant here because it seems to me there are two distinct topics being discussed here. The first meaning of "Kingdom of Sardinia" is that specific de jure kingdom which was an appendage to the Aragonese/Spanish crown and was then one of the possessions of the House of Savoy. It includes the Kingdom of Sardinia under the Savoys, but not the House of Savoys other possessions. I agree that's all one broad concept topic. But the second topic is a case of pars pro toto, and refers, from what I've seen from Google Books, to all the possesions of the House of Savoy in the later period, not just the Kingdom of Sardinia itself. It's not the de jure position, but it is a different topic. To determine which of those two topics is the primary topic one needs to look at WP:PRIMARY TOPIC not the "broad concept" policy that appears earlier in that guideline.

You left a message on my talk page to say you will be busy for a while so I won't be expecting an answer soon!

DeCausa (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Shardan, but I would like to answer your most recent question. I don't believe 1, 2 or 3 is true. I believe what we have here is a case similar to what we had a while back with Ireland and more recently with China. Most of the time the distinction at the heart of the dispute is not being made, and doesn't need to be. What I would dispute in your analysis is that we have "two distinct topics being discussed here". The question is really how do we write about an entity which changed so much over the centuries of its existence? This problem confronts us for similar topics, like the Roman Empire. We cannot state that the kingdom of Sardinia was formed in 1720 for the same reason we can't say the Roman Empire fell in 476: it's not accurate. The pars pro toto usage is an informality, and it's perfectly fine as that (that's why I do not agree with 3), but you cannot build an accurate encyclopaedia article around that usage alone. What I think is true is:

(4) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" mean whatever was most often called by that name at the time to which they are referring.

In other words, the referent of the term, as for all names of countries, depends on the era. To chose one era over another, in this case, would be arbitrary, but that does not mean the article should be unduly weighted towards medieval and early modern Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

But the whole point, surely, is that we are talking about two different but overlapping topics. "Kingdom of Sardinia" clearly has two different meanings depending on the context:

A. In the 18th century/19th century, looking at the Google Books results, it clearly is used by historians as the normal term for the Savoy territories on a pars pro toto basis. It's clearly common usage and, to my mind, fits with WP:COMMONNAME. "Kingdom of Sardinia" gets over 63,000 Google Books hits, and from what I can tell pretty much all of them refer to Piedmont-Sardinia. But the next most likely name (combinations of Piedmont and Sardinia hyphenated) only get 12,000 each. The "informality" or lack of "official" status is not relevant per WP:COMMONNAME, for example Byzantine Empire was never called that!

B. There is also the de jure Kingdom of Sardinia, which is the legal entity that you are focussing on, and existed from the 13th to 19th centuries but is territorially limited, mainly, to the island of Sardinia.

If one were to draw a Venn diagram/Euler diagram, Article A is not a subset of Article B.

DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa, if you try to focus the point B, everything will be clearer. The legal entity in 19th century has been extended to the continent (not limited to the island, as you have stated); the States of House on Savoy with the Perfect Fusion on 1847 they merge themselves into Sardinian State (it was a Kingdom, not a Duchy or a County). So, only one Kingdom and only one State (the old State born in 1297(1324); composite State after 1720; unitary State after 1847). As you can see, we are talking about at the same State, the same entity. To give correct information, we shouldn’t create uncertainty, but be as clear as possible and explain to users that the Kingdom had a long life starting from 1297 to end in 1861. Davidboz/Jonny Bee Goo states the opposite. He affirm that the State of the County of Savoy (later Duchy of Savoy), born in 1003, gave birth to the actual Italian State. Here it is well explained his point of view: [6]. But at that point there is a very big problem: if I got plenty of sources proving what I have written, Jonny Bee Goo until now didn’t show any source, apart generalist Britannica. As you can see, the difficulty is not how to call Kingdom of Sardinia during the years 1720-1861 (anyway his official name was K.of.S, as primary sources show), but how to conciliate two different notions: one well sourced and the other one fully unsorced. As I have already told to you, imho there are not problems to cite both of them, but both of them they should be well sourced. F.C. Casùla (and others historians) affirms that Kingdom of Sardinia born on 1297(1324) and in 1720 was still alive when Victor Amadeus II become King of Sardinia. The State of Duchy of Savoy, on the other side, ends his life on 1847 with Perfect Fusion, and the Duchy itself disappeared on 1860, when was ceded to France. --Shardan (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK - you seem to have a slightly different perspective than Srnec. Going back to my earlier post - in terms of common usage (i.e. "most people"), not the specialist sources you refer to, which of the options I suggested do you agree with (you obviously don't think Option 3):

(1) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" mean the de jure Kingdom (containing only the island of Sardinia) throughout its history back to the 13th century; OR

(2) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" may well mean the Kingdom under the House of Savoy only, but they would be wrong because specialist reliable sources say that the Kingdom of Sardinia has been in continuous existence since the 13th century.

DeCausa (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What is my personal opinion is not at all relevant on Wikipedia. My POV doesn’t change anything. What is very important, imho, is the historians' POV, the only one accept on Wikipedia. For that reason I ask to cite sources. About Srnec, I agree with him: he knows very well the history of the Kingdom of Sardinia, and he’s able to write about it in a better way than mine. I am agree with the version proposed by him, that one continously reverted by Jonny Bee Goo.--Shardan (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I think this is a big part of the problem. Naming articles in Wikipedia isn't about technical accuracy - it's in large part (but not only) about common usage (and that common usage might even be technically incorrect - but that doesn't matter). In order to advance a argument for what you think this article is about, you need to have a view, supported by evidence of course, of what is commonly meant in the sources and by readers by "Kingdom of Sardinia". See WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. here my POV: if during period 1720-1861 the Kingdom was Know as Kingdom of Sardinia by international treaties and from people inside and outside its boundaries (the official name), so this name should be the one accepted by Wikipedia. Piemont Sardinia (or Sardinia Piedmont) came later, used by some historians, becouse of the weight of Piedmont (region) inside the Kingdom was more relevant, more that Sardinia (island). In Italy is often used Piedmont as sinonimous of Kingdom of Sardinia in an informal way, but we are far to use that term in a formal way to indicate the kingdom during the period 1720-1861. I think that Piedmont-Sardinia is an informal way to call that kingdom in English language too. If it is the most common name, I don't Know, but I don't trust Google books research as a way to give names to Wikipedia articles. --Shardan (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with saying, as DeCausa does, that "we are talking about two different but overlapping topics" is that we are always talking about two different but overlapping topics. We can always draw lines and make distinctions and call the things on either side "different topics", and then we can invariably finding stuff in common between them and call them "overlapping". I would even say that "Kingdom of Sardinia" has more than two different meanings depending on the context. It might, for instance, refer to the kingdom of Barisone II (12th century) or Enzo (13th), and there are constitutional differences between the kingdom in the 15th century under Aragon and the kingdom in the 19th under Savoy, besides the fact that the "kingdom of Sardinia" at one time and in one sense included Genoa and at another time did not.

Note how the article on Byzantine Empire starts: by telling us that it was the same thing as the Roman Empire! If this article started that way (by saying that the kingdom of Sardinia, also called Piedmont-Sardinia, was the Savoyard state after the acquisition of the island kingdom of Sardinia), then there wouldn't be a big problem, although it could probably start better. I have no problem with informal pars pro toto usage, but it has a major danger, which is summed up well by Christopher Storrs:

One final point needs clarification, by way of introduction: the proper designation of the Savoyard state. This causes many problems to those unfamiliar with the state, who seek to identify it with a variety of labels which it is felt reflect power realities. Thus, it is often called Piedmont-Savoy to indicate the fact that, although Victor Amadeus was duke of Savoy, the most important part of his territories (in terms of extent, population and revenues yielded) was the principality of Piedmont. These efforts to give the Savoyard state an adequate name reflect the degree to which this typically composite early modern state fitted (and continued to fit after 1713, with the added complication of the acquisition of the Kingdom of Sicily and later Sardinia) ill into our 'modern' notions of statehood. For the most part, it will be referred to in this book as the Savoyard state, unless otherwise appropriate. (War, Diplomacy and the Rise of Savoy, 1690–1720 [Cambridge University Press, 1999], 19)

Let's not succumb to the temptation of "reflecting power realities" at the expense of what was actually going on. The infobox in the current article is particularly useless, but the most offensive and inaccurate phrase is "the new kingdom". There was no new kingdom in 1720, not in Sardinia, not in Piedmont, not in Savoy, not anywhere. Then there's the ridiculous "officially, the nation's name..." The "power reality" being grasped at here had no official name, it was usually just "the states of his Majesty the King of Sardinia", sometimes in royal decress just "our ancient states" (antichi stati nostri). In other words, the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" in its common and informal sense is more like "British Empire" than it is like "Kingdom of Italy". But let me stress again that that's no problem so long as the article makes it clear. It is unfortunate that the topic here is relatively obscure, especially if you're looking for information in English. That makes it all the more difficult to represent what the actual constitution of the Savoy domains was without oversimplification or error.

A final note to DeCausa: his B is a subset of A for the period from 1720 to 1847, but B was a subset of other entities before that, and A (the Savoyard state, in existence since the 11th century) has had many changing subsets, and for a time included only Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaving a conclusion, before I drop out of discussion

Let's not succumb to the temptation of "reflecting power realities" at the expense of what was actually going on. My reading of this debate is that you and Shardan are effectively trying to argue "let's not succumb to the temptation of common (mis)usage at the expense of what was actually going on." But that's not how WP operates in the context of titling and scoping of articles. I think that's the crux of it here. As with Byzantine Empire, "what was actually going on" can be explained in the article - not through the title. So the article title aligns with general (mis)usage ("Byzantine Empire") but the article explains why that title does not necessarily align with "reality" as determined by the specialist sources (hence Byzantine Empire#Nomenclature).

To me, the arguments here aren't following WP policy. It shouldn't be about the "reality" it should be how it is generally reported in English language sources. I referred to a Google Books search and Shardan, quite rightly, began pointing out the problems with Google Books results. That's the sort of issue where there should be focus, not which is the technically correct interpretation. Another way of considering it is if one where to open one of the standard English language general histories of Italy, does references to "Kingdom of Sardinia" focus on Piedmont-Sardinia or is it consistently used for Sardinia in the medieval/early modern periods as well as for Piedmont-Sardinia? (And by the way, policy requires it to be English language sources - Italian won't be relevant to determining usage.) The argument should be about the best way of determining what readers and English-language sources generally take to be meant by this title, not what is literally accurate. I don't think there's anything more I can usefully add to this discussion, and will now drop out. DeCausa (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is primarily a dispute about naming. It is not a question of "What is this called?" or "What is that term used for?" I will quote two question that I suggested, months ago, got to the nub of the issue:

1. Should this article say or imply (as by dates in the infobox) that the Kingdom of Sardinia was created, was new, began, or came into existence in or around 1720?
2. Should this article cover some part of the history of Sardinia before 1720 as part of its main topic, as opposed to background?

My answers are no and yes, respectively. The problem with the article as it stands is that it is false and misleading, not that it is incorrectly named. It would be equally false and misleading under any title. Fundamentally, it misrepresents both what happened in Sardinia circa 1720, what the kingdom of Sardinia was before that and what the Savoyard state was after. The mistake is in the same class as "The UK was formed in 1603", or "France was created in 1958", or "Navarre became a part of Aragon in 1076". I do not believe consulting general histories will solve the problem, especially since the last assertion is of the kind you will occasionally find in English-language works that are sloppier about political arrangements the more remote they are from English lands. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - the 'protection' at the current state of the article is, obviously, at m:the wrong version - the discussion here should not be regarding 'should we revert to the other version, the discussion here should be to get to somewhere which would satisfy both camps. If you think that the other version is a better starting point for that, then I would suggest that you document that decision here, and ask an independent editor to 'revert' it to that version (or implement another version you agree upon). Reading through this discussion I have the feeling that you are focussing too much on the 'this version is incorrect', and not enough on 'how do we get to a point that satisfies both sides' (do realise, that when it is decided to revert to the other version as a better starting point, the other side will return here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There aren't two camps, but only a vandal on one side, and on the other side only secondary specific sources. On wikipedia should speak sources, not vandals. last version is not correct. Srnec version is much better and exhaustive --Shardan (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa clearly understood the problem about this page, realizing the same conclusions of many other users. There's a sole, largely dominant meaning of the term K.o.S. in English (and also Italian) literature.
Unfortunately, times ago a small group of vandals thought that starting an endless debate could impose their own unreferenced version. Many users that opposed this vandalism left this debate for exhaustion. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer is easy: when sources talk about the kingdom of Sardinia, they relate to the State that bore that name. If the source is about middle age or modern age, it refers to the KoS within the crown of Aragon and later of Spain, if it talks about "contemporary" after-1720 history it refers to the Savoy-ruled kingdom (separate from other Savoy-ruled states before 1848 and together with them since that date). If we write an article from this point of view, we can choose the name most suitable: but limiting the article to last 200 years out of 500 is actually misleading. Vadsf (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Besides misleading, I would say "arbitrary". Srnec (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what has been written just now. Even for me the current version is clearly arbitrary and devoid of specific sources. I restore the previous version.--URBIS (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

... I am not sure if that is getting to a middle ground, URBIS, it is NOT a version that both sides agree upon. I asked that if that decision was made, that a discussion here should come to that consensus, and that an uninvolved, independent editor then implements that version, not one of the involved editors. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no middle ground: Wikipedia does not have to distribute candy to both parties. For me, it can be inserted well as the other version, but that version must be provided with specific sources (Sources are the most important things for Wikipedia). If there are historians who support that Kingdom of Sardinia was a flatus vocis ante 1720, then these historians actually have to be mentioned.--URBIS (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

All I say is, that the restore of the version that you restored is a prolongation of the long term edit war which resulted in the previous protection. I again suggest, if this is really the version that is should be reverted to, then get to that conclusion here, and ask an uninvolved editor to close that discussion and implement the version. Then that version is defendable, now it is not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is only one person against the current version: Jonny Bee Goo; others follow without knowledge of history and uncritically. I also agree with Srnec. Let Srnec write the article.--URBIS (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Then establish that here, and let an uninvolved editor implement that version. If then Jonny Bee Goo reverts, it is against that consensus. Now it is still the same edit-war. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected .. again

I have again protected the page (yesterday) after there were again undiscussed reversals by one of the editors who also was active in the edit war in the past. The editor is clearly aware that they is behind a rotating IP, and that blocks will not help in their case.

I am asking, again, whether the regulars here can please come to a consensus on this talkpage regarding a version, and let an uninvolved editor make that change. If that is needed, go through dispute resolution (an RfC to get external input on the situation?). Blind and continuous reversion is not going to stop the edit-war, and if the editors here are unable to get to a consensus before the page protection expires that edit war will also continue, probably resulting in an even longer protection. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica into Kingdom of Sardinia. Michael! (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

---

<discussion>

Well, I propose to merge Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica into Kingdom of Sardinia. Reasons for merging: 1. Duplicate and 2. Overlap. Both articles are about the same kingdom on the same island in the same period ("1297–1848" and equivalent "from the early 14th century until the mid-19th"). Both articles have a section about the conquest of Sardinia/formation of the kingdom under the Aragonese, and both articles have a separate subsection about the Spanish succession war and subsequent exchange of Sardinia and Sicily between Austria and Piedmont. Yes, there are certainly differences between both articles, but since both articles are within each other's scope, I think a merge would be the best option. Michael! (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: What a mess! Piedmont-Sardinia is a distinct, separate article, but it is almost exactly the same (structure, texts, images) as this article, Kingdom of Sardinia. However, Sardinia Piedmont, Sardinia-Piedmont, Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, and Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia all redirect to Kingdom of Sardinia and not to Piedmont-Sardinia, as you would expect.Michael! (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

After checking the revision history of Piedmont-Sardinia, I decided to change it back into a redirect to Kingdom of Sardinia, just like those aforementioned articles. PS was originally a redirect to Kingdom of Sardinia. That suddenly changed on 21:56, 28 May 2011‎ by User:Kotniski, his comment: "temporarily recreating article under this title due to disruption - for edit history see that of Kingdom of Sardinia". This action was followed by some edit war, but the article hasn't been changed significantly ever since and seems to have been forgotten afterwards. Since it was created only temporarily, hasn't been changed signifacntly, and still is a duplicate of Kingdom of Sardinia, I think it's completely justified to return PS to its first version, i.e. a redirect, just like SP, KoSP, and KoPS are. Michael! (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: For clarity, I'm not at all opposed to a separate article on Piedmont-Sardinia, but it shouldn't be a duplicate. Michael! (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A week has past and nobody seems to object to a merge. Therefore I assume there's no opposition to the proposal (per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus) and I'll proceed to merge Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica into Kingdom of Sardinia. Michael! (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2013 (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.

Controversial?

Actually, I don't think this article is still controversial. There hasn't been any conflicts or discussions in the past few months, nor has anybody reacted to the merge proposal (above). After having a look at Talk:Byzantine Empire (which seems to be far more controversial) I decided to replace the "controversial" banner (date=April 2012) with a new, more relevant banner. Michael! (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are right. I also think this goes to show how much the controversy was driven by one editor, who now appears to be gone. Srnec (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This article does need lots of work. So wouldn't it make more sense to add an infobox once that work is done? So that we don't waste time debating what the infobox should say? By then maybe the information will be in the article, well-sourced, and we can add it to an infobox. But for now, what good purpose does it serve? Srnec (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this article certainly needs lots of work. The infobox and other abundant/inappropriate features/texts are results of the merge. Feel free to delete anything, including controversial banners. Any improvement is welcome! Michael! (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This article does need lots of work, so please don't start like this. This article need a {{Infobox former subdivision}} or {{Infobox former country}} template, just like the Italian version, and any other article on Wiki. If there is an error, correct or challenge it, maybe one at a time. --Felisopus (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not every article needs a disinfobox. This article does not need to mimic the Italian one or any other one. I strongly oppose the inclusion of an infobox in this article, and I can see no consensus for one. It is a total distraction for both editors and readers. The real information should be in the text. Srnec (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"improve content, don't remove the "container"". Felisopus, was it necessary to revert Srnec's edit? He did more than just removing the infobox. Yes, I'm the first one to admit that this article needs a lot of work, but don't you think every improvement is welcome? If you're willing to rewrite the article yourself, that would be great, if not, than please allow others to make minor improvements. Michael! (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

More restored. No problem with minor improvements, I've done a lot of these. --Felisopus (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is still a misleading mishmash of stuff from different eras that does nothing to help the reader get oriented. Srnec (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We just combined two kingdoms of different eras, so i'm sorry, the infobox must combine infos about different eras! In the Italian version there's exactly the same template with stuff from different eras and no one considers it a misleading mishmash. --Felisopus (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)