Talk:Christian IX of Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

We always use the most common English form of the name when naming someone. Granted it often makes no sense but that's a common feature in English! --rmhermen


As you say, it makes no sense, so the offending cs have been evicted.

The c's are back in because that is how we spell it in English. Check Google or another English encyclopedia. It doesn't need to make sense, it's English. --rmhermen

Tell you what , mate, if you go and change the entries for Ivan IV of Russia to read John IV of Russia (Ivan is Russian for John), I'll let those c's stay. Until then the c's stay out, and I'll keep this up as long as you do.


In 1900, he approved the establishment of a Danish parliament which would have power over absolutism.

This is far from clear: Absolutism usually means "absolute monarchy", and that had been abolished in 1849 with the Danish Constitution. And what is meant by establishment of a Danish parliament?

Sebastjan

Politics section??[edit]

Even though it can be debated whether Christian tried to "prevent the spreading of democracy" - it is simply inaccurate to state that he "approved of a parliament with power over absolutism" in 1900. Absolutism was abolished in 1849, long before Christian became king, and there had been a parliamentary system ever since. The problem was whether the composition of the government should reflect the composition of the parliament or not. The constitution did not demand it, and Christian and his prime minister thought it would be an inappropriate mixing of the three branches of power. Christian therefore continued to appoint prime ministers from the minotiry party - as he had a constitutional right to - until 1901 when he government party had been almost eliminated in the parliamentary elections. He then reluctantly appointed a prime minister from the majority party and thereby began the Danish tradition of parliamentarism which was written into the constitution at the revision in 1953.

Dubious[edit]

The 1852 Treaty of London calls him "His Highness Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" (The Times (London), Monday June 21, 1852, p. 5). DrKay (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian IX of Denmark. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2020[edit]

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: Not moved. While the opinions are split, there are reasonable concerns that the proposed title hurts recognizability. No such user (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)



– The first title is the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject while for the second one, it shortens the title while remaining unambiguous. Interstellarity (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It seem a little unbalanced if suddenly Queen Victoria should remain being adressed as a Queen whereas King Christian IX shouldn't be adressed equally as King anymore in the title-headline for the article about royal descendants. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1st. Oppose 2nd If you are going to call one queen you have to call the other king. As mentioned it becomes unbalanced and gives the false impression that one isn't a king. -DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, not sure what's caused this sudden serge to change so many monarch bio articles titles. But, it's causing an increasing inconsistency & thus resulting sloppiness. PS - At NCROY, concerning your point #4, you should be pushing for Monarch (country). GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current article title is also a common name, and no evidence has been provided that it is uncommon or rare compared to the shorter version. While conciseness is one of the five criteria at WP:AT, the first criteria is recognizability. If I saw "Christian IX" on its own, I don't think I'd immediately recognize the name as a king of Denmark. The current article titles are not so long that they require shortening anyway, and they're natural, precise and consistent. DrKay (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DrKay. Srnec (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:TITLE tells us to follow published encyclopedias. See Columbia and Britannica. Allan Rice (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Struck !vote by sock of a community-banned user. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Britannica's article is titled "Christian IX: king of Denmark". DrKay (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Press the "cite" button on the top right. It says, "Article Title: Christian IX." Whatever the article title is, "king of Denmark" is a descriptor and not part of the subject's name. Take a look at "Paris." Allan Rice (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
See Article Title: Henry I. Point is, how Britannica handles titles is different because it's formatting is different. It's pointless to compare. Srnec (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no other article that could have the title Christian IX nor is there likely to be, and it is trivially more concise... every occurrence of Christian IX of Denmark in sources is also an occurrence of Christian IX. Similarly Christina IX is preferred to King Christian IX in the second article. We cannot shorten Queen Victoria because Victoria is ambiguous. It has nothing to do with giving her more or less honour! Andrewa (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current is concise, the proposed is terse, hurts RECOGNIZABILITY, and has no conceivable benefit for any reader. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2020 (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.

second what again?[edit]

In the article, his wife is called his second cousin and double second cousin. So I matched up their grandparents and aha! They were second cousins one way and half-second cousins another way. For those keeping score at home. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)