Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia

Consensus

In my judgement, there was a consensus that this article ought to be about the kingdom of Sardinia in its evolution from the 13th century to the 19th. The one user strongly opposed to that consensus hasn't been with us since mid-2012. All other involved editors, that I can see, favour the 2012–14 status quo. (The infobox is a separate issue.) Herewith, for AcidSnow, the reasons for the current setup:

• The Kingdom of Sardinia was not created and did not come into existence in or around 1720.
• The term "Kingdom of Sardinia" does signify the entire Savoyard state from 1720 on. The King of Sardinia was ruler of Piedmont, but that does not mean that Piedmont was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia. That secondary usage developed gradually.
• Sardinia had its own institutions before 1720 and these did not suddenly change after the Savoyard takeover. There is institutional continuity from the Spanish to the Savoyards.
  

—Srnec (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasons for reverting all my edits on this article. I have responded to your reasons bellow:

1.There was only one "Kingdom of Sardinia" and it was established in 1720.[1][2] If this is wrong, could you please provided a ref? This article needs more refs to begin with.

2. The term "Kingdom of Sardinia" refers only to the former Italian kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy from 1720–1860. It included: Sardinia, Savoy, Piedmont, and Genoa.[3][4][5][6][7][8] "The King of Sardinia was ruler of Piedmont, but that does not mean that Piedmont was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia.", what? I am not sure as to what you mean because you contradict yourself. The region of Piedmont was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1748 to 1798, then again from 1814 to 1861.[9]; hence also being called "Piedmont-sardinia, or Sardinia-piedmont".[10]

3. I am not sure as to what institutions have anything to do with this.

Although part of the kingdom was on the island of Sardinia, the vast majority of the article is about the islands history and the various other countries that ruled it. Until I receive consensus to change this and reflect what the article should be about I will keep my edits on my sandbox. AcidSnow (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

AcidSnow, you've stumbled into a slow burn edit war that's been going on for years - see tye edit history. There are three editors who want to see the article as it currently is (they've posted on this page) and there were a couple who took the view that you take. The latter seem to have dropped out of the picture in the last year or so, hence Srnec's claim that this is the consensus version. I joined the talk page (see above) from seeing the dispute at a noticeboard with the initial intention of trying to mediate in some way. I came to the conclusion, however, that the English-language literature was firmly supportive of the view you expressed and contrary to the Srnec/URBIS/Shardan view. But to be honest, I couldn't be bothered engaging in a dispute with these SPAs (that's what they are - see their contribs) who have relentlessly pursued their agenda over multiple years. Good luck!DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

SPA? Please do look at my contributions since October 2005, especially the 2,500+ articles I've created. All on Sardinia, of course. The really SPA was Jonny Bee Goo—look at his contributions. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I know, he said I was free to open it and thank you for your support!. AcidSnow (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For starters, for sources, please look at the articles I've created at Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–20), Kingdom of Sicily under Savoy, Reale Udienza, Stamenti and Duchy of Aosta.

A good talk I had with another user over the significance of 1713/20 can be found here. Pay particular attention to the quotations from Christopher Storrs, War, Diplomacy and the Rise of Savoy, 1690–1720 (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

To your point (1), I would say that the Britannica article does not answer the question what Sardinia was prior to its cession in 1720, instead only affirming that it was Savoyard after 1720, which is not in dispute. The answer is a kingdom, which is why it could reasonably be exchanged for another island kingdom (Sicily). Storrs addresses this, but it's a commonplace. Anybody discussing the medieval crown of Aragon touches upon it. Sardinia was just one of the components of the Spanish Empire prior to the war fpr the its succession, along with Aragon, Castile, Navarre and several other places in Italy.

Many sources speak of the Kingdom of Sardinia (Reino de Cerdeña) prior to 1720 and not under Savoyard rule. See, e.g., Francesco Manconi, "The Kingdom of Sardinia: A Province in Balance between Catalonia, Castile and Italy", Spain in Italy: Politics, Society, and Religion 1500-1700, eds. Thomas James Dandelet and John A. Marino (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 45–72. Or see his "El reino de Cerdeña de Fernando II a Carlos V: el largo camino hacia la modernidad", De la unión de coronas al Imperio de Carlos V: Congreso internacional, Barcelona 21–23 de febrero de 2000, ed. Ernest Belenguer Cebrià, vol. 2 (2001): 15–54. For Lluís Guia Marín, "Un destino imprevisto para Cerdeña: De los Habsburgo a los Saboya", La pérdida de Europa: La guerra de Sucesión por la Monarquía de España, eds. Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio, Bernardo J. García García and Virginia León (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 2007), 757–84, see Here.

Regarding point (2), see what I've already said and cited. My point about Piedmont was that it was not part of the Kingdom of Sardinia which Victor Amadeus received in 1720. And it is not as if immediately everybody began referring the Savoyard composite state as the Kingdom of Sardinia. That took a little time.

My point, re: your (3), about the instutions was the the K. of S. that pre-existed Savoyard rule was the same as the one under the Savoy. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What you've never understood, and what I'm not going to get into again (after this post) is that the issue is not some technical continuity in the Kingdom of Sardinia, but what is meant by "Kingdom of Sardinia" in the English-language literature. This issue revolves around WP:COMMONNAME. May be there should be an article with the scope you want (although I doubt it because it would overlap too much with other articles) but the point is it shouldn't be under this article title. It misrepresents the position of this name in English scholarly sources (and I suspect in other languages too, but that's not relevant). A search of google books quickly reveals that references to the Kingdom of Sardinia are to the Savoyard polity in it broad political sense, and not to the narrow and historic institution created in the middle ages. If this article is to exist it should have a distinguishing title such as Crown of Sardinia, Kingdom of Sardinia 1324-1861 or Monarchy of Sardinia leaving this article title to the narrower topic because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to it. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never opposed the division in coverage you are suggesting, or using this title for the Savoyard state post-1720. I have only opposed misleading statements in the article itself, and it seems nobody is capable of writing an article on the Savoyard state post-1720 without committing basic errors. The state was, prior to 1847, a composite one. What happened in 1720 was that the House of Savoy acquired a kingdom. Unlike you, I am not convinced that this division in coverage is necessary or that this title ought to be for the page on the Savoyard state, rather than, say, Piedmont-Sardinia. The debate has never been about a primary topic, but about what is true and what is false about the Kingdom of Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what it's been about in your mind. But what I was trying to point out (and failed to get across) when I participated a while ago is that the real issue is WP:COMMONAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: what should be covered by an article that bears the title "Kingdom of Sardinia" given how that term is used in English-language literature. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a very strong bias to a very short span of time when we talk about "how that term is used in English-language literature". That's becaue (a) as a shorthand for the entire Savoyard state the term was mainly in use after 1815 and (b) the Kingdom of Sardinia reached its apogee after its fusion in 1847. Thus, the periods 1815–61 and especially 1847–61 are the subject of far more English-language study (or any language study, for that matter) than earlier periods—because that's when Sardinia was becoming a great power. It is not as if in 1720 the Savoyard state suddenly became the Kingdom of Sardinia. Also, because the period of most interest postdates the Holy Roman Empire (†1806) and largely also postdates the fusion and the Albertine constitution, the composite nature of the monarchy prior to 1847 is less relevant or not at all relevant. For example, the Sardinia that fought in the Crimean War was a unified state—but had only been so for less than a decade. Read the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (on French Wikisource), however, and you will find that at that time Sardinia was always referred to as the States of His Majesty the King of Sardinia, because they were not unified into a single Kingdom of Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And there's the problem. You don't understand that none of that has the slightest relevance to Wikipedia policy except the first two sentences. If there is "a very strong bias" in the English language literature, the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect that bias. We are not here for the "truth" and we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The problem is that you appear to be here at Wikipedia for a very narrow purpose and you don't get the broader Wikipedia context. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So, DeCausa, tell me "what should be covered by an article that bears the title Kingdom of Sardinia given how that term is used in English-language literature"? Srnec (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The same as is covered by mainstream English-language literature of course, whether it is "right or wrong". DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If I had multiple statements from the (mainstream English-language) secondary literature that contradicted a statement in the (mainstream English-language) tertiary literature, what, according to our polices, should we do? I am not, of course, calling the Britannica's account of Sardinia into question. (There's nothing wrong with saying that "Sardinia [was a] kingdom of the house of Savoy from 1720.") Srnec (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We should delight in their quixotic eccentricity...and then ignore them because they are outweighed by the bulk of the sources, of course. Any other questions? DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you've already said "There is a very strong bias to a very short span of time when we talk about "how that term is used in English-language literature". That's becaue (a) as a shorthand for the entire Savoyard state the term was mainly in use after 1815 and (b) the Kingdom of Sardinia reached its apogee after its fusion in 1847. Thus, the periods 1815–61 and especially 1847–61 are the subject of far more English-language study (or any language study, for that matter) than earlier periods—because that's when Sardinia was becoming a great power." So, I'm sure you won't come back and say actually that bias doesn't exist after all. You wouldn't be that inconsistent, would you? DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The bias is to a time period. As in, a lot more is written about Savoy–Piedmont–Sardinia in the periods I mentioned than about it in the period before. My point was that a shorthand usage, perfectly acceptable in itself, should not be anachronistically projected back in time. All the sources that talk about the Kingdom of Sardinia in the Crimean War, for example, are irrelevant to this debate, unless you think this article should only cover the time period 1847–61. As I've said before, in direct response to you, I believe, the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" refers to whatever that was at the time referred to. I do not know how much 20th- and 21st-century English historiography favours that term for the entire Savoyard state in 1720–1815. I really don't; but I do know that, from my research, contemporary 18th-century English sources appear to distinguish between Sardinia and the rest of the Savoyard state. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Besides the low quality of the article generally, do you have a specific problem with it, particularly with the lede, which lays out what it's about? Srnec (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If I am allowed to enter the discussion, the article now is very clear and respects what sources say: I judge the incipit. Of course, if you talk about the Kingdom of Sardinia, you refer to the institution that lived several centuries and obviously assumed different forms: so the exact meaning of the term depends on the time you are talking about. The article should explain all these phases and let the reader focus on the phase he or she is interested by, not because of a specific point of view in the literature but because it is the aim of a well-written article. If contemporary English literature focuses on the 1847-1861 period, of course most readers will look for that part of the article, but it does not prevent me - if I encounter a Middle Age source - to find what actually the Kingdom of Sardinia was at the time. Thank you to all contributors, I encourage you to keep working on the subject. --Vadsf (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Senate in the late 1700s

The article on Joseph de Maistre says he followed in his father's footsteps by becoming a Senator in 1787. There's not any information in this page on the Kingdom about the institution of a Senate in the Kingdom during that time. What was it and what was its role? --ESP (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

EvanProdromou, you will find some information in this book, which is available in its entirety at Google Books. The senate he was a member of was not the senate of the Kingdom of Sardinia. There was such a thing, but it applied only to the island of Sardinia (i.e., the actual kingdom at that time). De Maistre belonged to the senate of the Duchy of Savoy, which was a judicial body more than a political one. Only in 1848, after the "perfect fusion" of all the states ruled by the House of Savoy, did a senate encompassing both Savoy and Sardinia (the island) come into existence. We have an article on it at Subalpine Senate. Srnec (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Split in Kingdom of Sardinia (1324-1700) and Kingdom of Sardinia

I think we should follow Italian Wikipedia's example and split this page in two (Italian example: it:Regno di Sardegna (1324-1720) and it:Regno di Sardegna (1720-1861), with the medieval Kingdom of Sardinia and the modern Kingdom (also known as Sardinia-Piedmont), which was never at all based in Sardinia but was based really in Piedmont and Sardinia was simply a province. Another good mark of how these two kingdoms are really distinct and separate is that there already is a page about the interregnum Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720). The two entities only really share the name and in all other aspects are completely different. Sardinia-Piedmont was really a whole entity to itself, and it makes little sense to have a bunch of info about the medieval Aragonese kingdom attached to it at the beginning in a confusing manner. Namewise, I think the modern one can retain the current name, and e just split off a page about the medieval kingdom. Eccekevin (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact you are right @Eccekevin:. We’ll do it.--Revolution Yes (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Eccekevin and Revolution Yes: This needs a much more thorough discussion. In fact, it was discussed A LOT over a decade ago. That's why there is a big bold notice at the top of this page: "Before discussing the naming and scope of the Kingdom of Sardinia, please visit the relevant archived discussions." Srnec (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is few to be discussed. The former page is at the border of an immediate deletion for original research. “King of Sardinia” was a simple title over the island, an island which never became a state but simply a personal possession of many European families. Simply, in 1723 the title of king was the highest ranked in the House of Savoy. But a title had quite never to do with states (the “full” title during this period was King of Sardinia, Cyprus and Jerusalem”).--Revolution Yes (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And what magical thing happened in 1720 to make it a state? Before my revert, the page began Kingdom of Sardinia became the name of the Savoyard state when its king, Victor Amedeus II of Savoy, acquired the Sardinian throne in 1720. This is false. No such change of name occurred, because the "Savoyard state" had no name at all at the time. Srnec (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It went from being a de jure possession of the Spanish empire to becoming the highest-held title of an independent country. That's quite the difference. Eccekevin (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that when the Kingdom of Sardinia entered in the Crown of Aragon the Spanish Empire didn't even exist yet, that doesn't change the fact that neither the title nor the name of the Kingdom ever changed because of the historical events that you mentioned, so they are irrelevant when it comes to this article's scope and name. L2212 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eccekevin until 1847 the Kingdom of Sardinia was centered only in the Island of Sardinia. NorthWest Italy was subdivided in the Duchy of Savoy and Genova. There are never been a Piedmontese-Sardinian Kingdom. Use only the best and impartial sources, please Xóil (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

in other words from 1720 to 1847 the Savoy family ruled a CONFEDERATION of states. It's very wrong to refer to Piedmont as the Kingdom of Sardinia, only some sloppy modern historians do it, the documents of the time says otherwise Xóil (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

for example this German postcard from 1825 says "View of the city Cagliari, Capital of the Kingdom of Sardinia"

View

. Obviously it was Cagliari the Capital and not Turin because Piedmont was not part of the Kingdom, and obviously the Parliament of the Kingdom of Sardinia (the Stamenti) was in Cagliari since the time of the Aragonese until 1847 [11] Xóil (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Another source of the time is the "Dizionario geografico storico-statistico-commerciale degli Stati di S. M. il Re di Sardegna" (1833-56) by Goffredo Casalis and Vittorio Angius. According to this contemporary work: "CAGLIARI (province), the first and most important of the provinces of the island and the kingdom of Sardinia, of which the "capoluogo" itself is the capital." It's clear that the Kingdom is the Island of Sardinia and Cagliari her Capital.

My suggestion is to move all the historical informations about Piedmont before 1847 to "History of Piedmont" and "Duchy of Savoy". Regards Xóil (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for these contributions about the story of the medieval Sardinian kingdom. However, they have nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.--Revolution Yes (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The informations he gave are all about the Kingdom of Sardinia in the modern age, there is nothing about medieval times. He is right, a Piedmontese-Sardinian kingdom never existed, and the main political entity was only the Kingdom of Sardinia. The kings all called themselves "Kings of Sardinia", and the kingdom's name was also the only one on maps, of course. Piedmont was a part of the Kingdom of Sardinia, not the opposite. L2212 (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Both Piedmont and Sardinia were under the House of Savoy, this is the relevant fact in an absolute monarchy as the State was until 1848.--Revolution Yes (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the relevant fact is that their title was "King of Sardinia" and the name of the state was "Kingdom of Sardinia", because it was the same institution as the medieval one. Even the Savoy family themselves used these terms. So that should be the name of the article. A change in royal family does not create a different state. L2212 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

L22212 you are very confused. The State did not changed its royal family, it changed its name....--Revolution Yes (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The only confused one here is you. No name was changed until 1861, when the Kingdom of Sardinia became the Kingdom of Italy. Anything else is an arbitrary division unsupported by historical documents. L2212 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The medieval Sardinian kingdom and the modern Turin-based Savoyard state are two very different polities that should be treated differently. Eccekevin (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Eccekevin is evidently right. The medieval Sardinian kingdom was a second-level entity for all its existence.--Revolution Yes (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with anything... We have an article at Savoyard state. For me, if we are to treat the composite state of the Savoyards between 1720 and 1861(?) in its own article, it should be Piedmont-Sardinia for clarity. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Piedmont-Sardinia makes sense. Let’s reserve Kingdom of Sardinia for pre-1706. Eccekevin (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eccekevin There is already a Page about the Savoyard state. You can improve that article not rename this Page with the phantomatic name "Piedmont-Sardinia". This article is about the History of Sardinia from 1324 to 1847. Xóil (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

But there is no cohesive history of a kingdom of Sardinia from 1324 to 1847 Eccekevin (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The kingdom is the same. Whether or not they were connected to other entities at some points of their history is irrelevant. Otherwise all of the articles related a good part of historical and even still existing states should be split in a lot of different articles with different names. A change in royal family does not mean that it becomes a different title, it just goes from a dynasty to another. The only change to the Kingdom of Sardinia that justifies a different name in the article is the one that that changed its official name to Kingdom of Italy. By the way, even that actually did not "split" its history, as even the royal family of the time knew. That's the reason why Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia did not become Victor Emmanuel I of Italy, but stayed Victor Emmanuel II of Italy. L2212 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Xoil, there is History of Sardinia for that topic. However, we are not speaking about the regional history of the medieval kingdom, but about the second phase of the history of the Savoyard state that from 1720 (better: 1723) was called Kingdom of Sardinia by their ruling monarchs (with unresolved disputes with the HRE).--Revolution Yes (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, the page should be divided (as the Italian Wikipedia does, not coincidentally). Also most other Wikipedia’s do as well. Eccekevin (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Xoil, to call the Kingdom of Sardinia "Piedmont-Sardinia" makes no sense at all. First of all, if we are talking about the Savoyard state than the correct way of editing would be to split the Savoyard state article into two, not to change the name of this one. They are two different entities. Most other wikis do not split the Kingdom of Sardinia article into two (there are 73 languages for "Kingdom of Sardinia", only 6 for "Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861)", and 5 for "Kingdom of Sardinia (1324-1720)" including the recently created English one made a few days ago), and all of those that do it call it a translated version of "Kingdom of Sardinia" with the only exception of the Catalan one, that calls it Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont (still incorrect, only Sardinia was a kingdom) and most of them (Sardinian, Italian, Catalan and Bulgarian) also have an article like this one for "Kingdom of Sardinia". In the Italian, Sardinian and Bulgarian wikis there are therefore at least three articles: "Kingdom of Sardinia", "Kingdom of Sardinia (1324-1720)" and "Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861)". If we want to follow the Italian example we must leave this article as it is and create the missing "Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861)" one to connect them all to their respective Wikidata entities.--L2212 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This article, as it is, is the perfect candidate for an immediate deletion as an WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. We have to different matters to speak about: the regional medieval kingdom, and the second phase of the Savoyard State that from 1723 took its new name from its newly acquired province (the regional medieval kingdom). --Revolution Yes (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The only OR here is the arbitrary division of a Kingdom (a very clear institution) into a "regional medieval kingdom" (the pre-Savoy era lasted until 1720, so definitely not the middle ages) and a non-existent state that was never even mentioned at the time. The Kingdom was the same, the new royal family even had to accept the conditions of respecting the previous administrative institutions, like the Stamenti, in the terms of the cession. L2212 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

We are using the term “medieval” because the regional kingdom started in the Middle Ages, it’s clear.... But you can write about whatever you want about the regional “medieval” administrative kingdom, we are not discussing it. --Revolution Yes (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Again yes we are, it's the same kingdom. It just went from a personal union along with other kingdoms to another one where it was the only kingdom and the other entities were of a lower level. The institution was always the same, and you have given no valid argument to say otherwise. Even the administration system only changed in 1847 with the perfect fusion act. L2212 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Two completely different kingdoms. The latter was based in Turin, United Italy in 1861, and had little to do with the island of Sardinia. Eccekevin (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's the same kingdom, a change in the political centre (not even the capital, since as Goffredo Casalis and Vittorio Angius wrote back then, that was still Cagliari) does not create a different institution. Otherwise there would be three different Kingdoms of Italy: "Kingdom of Italy (1861–1865)" (capital: Turin), "Kingdom of Italy (1865–1871)" (capital: Florence), "Kingdom of Italy (1871–1946)" (capital: Rome). If we count even de-facto capitals the number becomes 4, because we would need to add "Kingdom of Italy (1943–1944)" (capital: Brindisi). This makes absolutely no sense, it's not applied anywhere else and for a good reason. L2212 (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the capital, they are two completely different institutions. One was a de-jure Sardinian-based title part of Spanish domains, the other was a Savoy-based Italian state. Another big differnce is that the medieval pre-1720 was just a subsidiary title (hence there was no independent country called Kingdom of Sardinia in 1719), while the Savoy one became the highest held title (hence the nation was was an independent country). This is a huge difference (as you yourself pointed out) - it went from being just a title in a long list of the titles fo the Spanish kings, to an independent country that was a regional power. Again, it is no coincidence that most other Wikipedias (notably the Italian one) treat them separately. The Italian Wikipedia is notable because the Kingdom of Sardinia was the predecessor of the Kingdom of Italy, but only in its Savoyard incarnation.

This is also clearly seen in the page itself: in the history section, there is a 300 year gap between the late 1400s (when it became part of the Spanish empire) and the 1720s, when it became an independent Italian state. The fact that these 300 years have no history just shows that in this gap it was not a real entity, but merely a posession of the Spanish crown.

By your standard, we should merge Roman Republic, Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire under the same page because they technically claim continuity.

Finally, even the names are different: the one created in 1324 is the Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae (Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica), while the one created in 1720 is the Kingdom of Sardinia.

Britannica, for example, treats the post-1720 independent country separately.Eccekevin (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing that you wrote proves that it was a different institution since no, the fact that it went from being a part of a personal union to another one doesn't magically change its nature as a kingdom. Because that's the only valid and official definition: "Kingdom". Anything else ("de-jure title" "Italian state" or whatever) is either irrelevant or made up. The name was already changed way before 1720 because the Crown of Aragon didn't manage to annex Corsica (it already had to fight for almost a 100 years just to win in Sardinia), it has nothing to do with the new royal family. Also, a personal union by default made pre-1720 Sardinia "an independent country", because the only thing connecting it to the other institutions of, for example, the Crown of Aragon, was the king. Charles III is not only king of the UK but of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all of the other Commonwealth realms too, but that doesn't make Australia not an independent country. And it neither makes "King of Australia" a lesser title just because it's used less. When it comes to the period after 1720, the fact that a some point the Sardinian title became the most important one in the union if anything makes even more obvious the fact that the name of an article about that period should be "Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861)", following the model of the ones already existing here for the other periods, not something else. That's also what the Italian Wikipedia does, since for some reason you keep mentioning it while at the same time giving false informations about it, because (like I already wrote) it.wiki has multiple articles: the equivalent of this one (rightfully and like almost all wikis, again the reality is the opposite of what you are saying), about the Kingdom's entire history and three (not two, I forgot the 1700-1720 one before) sub-articles for those three different periods. Because they are sub-articles, as you can see from the template on top of them containing a link to the main one and calling it like that. It also obviously has informations about the late 1400-1720 period, because of course there there were events back then, how could they not exist? An English article needing to be expanded doesn't mean that in a place nothing happened for 300 years. Even the idea is absurd. The article here is fine like this and has its own reason to exist separately to any sub-article about a specific time period of the institution's history. L2212 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I suggest to give no great importance to the concept of personal union that basically is an English concept (in fact, en.wiki is quite the sole wiki with relevant references about it) which was invented to give to the Scots the illusion of one more century (the 17th) of independence than they effectively had. Britain and Australia in 2022 are in personal union, and it is a completely different situation. Hugo Grotius’ works yet showed as it was an irrelevant concept for the international law (the internal affairs are a different thing).
However, as I said, it is not a relevant fact in our discussion which is not about the medieval regional administrative kingdom. --Revolution Yes (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think those claims need some sources, especially the Scotland one considering that the inventor of the term is supposed to be a German jurist. Anyway it's not true that only this wiki has relevant references about it, for example both the Spanish and German articles have them in their respective languages. And there are articles talking about it specifically about Sardinia as well, that I will probably add later, like this one and this one. So it's definitely not just an English thing. Btw, in the change that you reverted there was a removal of a source that simply did not say what the text said (that page does not include those names in it), so it should not be there regardless of this discussion. L2212 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with following the Italian model: having one general article, and then having two sub-articles for the different incarnations of the kingdom. The two separate incarnations of the kingdom are sufficiently different two merit this, as the Roman Empire has a separate page from the Byzantine Empire, despite techncially being the same polity. We should follow sources like Britannia on this model.

Not to mention, a different geographical location, different flag and coat of arms (the current page only uses the post-1720), currencies, capitals, different languages and so on. Eccekevin (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with following that model too, therefore creating an article named "Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861)", like it's named in Italian and all other wikis except for the Catalan one, and adding it to the already existing ones (this one and the two other ones about the other two periods, that also follow that same name model). In that case I can add the necessary templates to connect the main article with the sub-articles. L2212 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eccekevin Why did you revert my revert? You wrote here that you were ok with following the Italian model with one general article+sub-articles, if that's the case and we have a consensus on that you can just create Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861) and write about that specific period there. This is the general article. L2212 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• The biggest problem with an article on the 'kingdom of Sardinia' in 1720–1861 is that all the major changes took place between those two dates, not in them. In actual practice it has proven nearly impossible for most users to state correctly what actually happened in 1720, since it did not affect Savoy or Piedmont at all.
  There is in fact a perfect parallel between Sardinia and Prussia. The kingdom of Sardinia/Prussia lay outside the Holy Roman Empire, but its ruler was also a prince of the Empire. It conferred sovereign and royal status on its ruler, who normally resided elsewhere (Turin, Berlin). Because it was the highest title, the ruler is normally referred to as King of Sardinia/Prussia and by extension all his territories are called Sardinia/Prussia for short. With the collapse of the Empire and the reordering of Europe post-Napoleon, the territorial collections ruled by the kings of Sardinia/Prussia found themselves with no impediment to 'fusion'. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Srnec Sorry for the late answer, in the last month I have been extremely busy. Anyway I think that the name would be correct that way, because the article would be just a sub-article of this one (like in the Italian wiki), regarding a specific part of the Kingdom's history (that was the same kind of entity from the start, what Eccekevin and Revolution Yes wrote in their last messages is wrong). In regards to Savoy or Piedmont the Savoyard state article, about the Savoy's family personal union, already exist, and if someone wanted to split it into pre-1720 and post-1720 there would be no issue, but also being the title of King of Sardinia the highest one I don't see why changes related to it would not justify a sub-article. In 1720 the Savoy family acquired the title of kings and therefore became a royal family, that's quite relevant for them and all of their other domains as well. L2212 (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  An article on the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1720 to 1861 that covered all the king's states would be a sub-article of Savoyard state, not of the overarching article on the island kingdom. I'm not saying it can't be done. I just think that Piedmont-Sardinia is a better title that will lead to a clearer understanding for readers. Srnec (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's why I proposed to eventually split Savoyard state, if the personal union is the topic. Or to just add a new section to it, since it's quite a small article right now and that would make it better. But this article should be left as it is and any sub-article about the 1720-1861 period should not be named like that, in my opinion, first of all because the official title was just "Kingdom of Sardinia" and the Piedmont-Sardinia name was never used then. It's just one of many names used right now, not even the main one. And it's not even present in the source used in the opening paragraph, hence why I removed it before. It's also misleading, because it makes it look like Piedmont was a kingdom too, and the main title even, while that's just not true. It's the Kingdom of Sardinia that got its name changed and became the Kingdom of Italy in 1861, not the Principality of Piedmont, that kept its name and the tradition of being used as a title for the heir apparent of the royal family. Also, I think it's way less confusing to have a single model like it.wiki, with a main article (Regno di Sardegna) and three sub-articles for the different periods (Regno di Sardegna (1324-1720), Regno di Sardegna (1700-1720) and Regno di Sardegna (1720-1861)). Readers can understand way more easily that they are sub-articles regarding a part of the kingdom's history this way. L2212 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

In 1720 the title went from being dependent title (simply part of the Spanish crown) to an independent title (the highest held title of a polity). That’s enough to justify it. Eccekevin (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, Srnec: you can edit whatever you want with the article about the medieval kingdom. Better, it could be expanded until 1847 when it was disbanded as an effective administrative entity to be replaced by the provinces of Cagliari, Nuoro and Sassari. Here we are speaking about the second phase of the Savoyard State (the national state, in contemporary terms), when it changed name from Duchy of Savoy to Kingdom of Sardinia (with a brief parentheses as Kingdom of Sicily between 1713 and 1723).--Revolution Yes (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

References

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:

• Conservet Deus su Re.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2022 (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:

• National Anthem of the Kingdom of Sardinia.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)