Talk:Felipe VI

Untitled

Suggest removing the honorific Infante since Felipe is the heir-apparent to the Spanish throne (in direct contradiction to the definition of Infante) Nafisto 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

---

surname removed from article title, as per Wiki naming convention rules. JTD 01:48 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

Did the Sannum affair last several years? -- Error 01:24, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The marriage has been said to be the most significant European marriage of the century.

This I find hard to believe. Can we supply a rationale for this assertion? -- Viajero 08:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Rationale? It sounded like something Hello! or Interviu would say, and I must confess I just deleted it. Anyway, I'm sure it'll pale into insignificance alongside the April 2078 marriage of Pope Jane Paula. –Hajor 13:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Should this be Philip? As in Philip I of Castile, Philip II of Spain, Philip III of Spain, Philip IV of Spain, Philip V of Spain?--Henrygb 19:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We go by the most common name used in English, and I don't think I've ever seen this fellow called Philip. When he becomes King, unless there's a sudden move to call him "King Philip VI," he should probably remain Felipe too (like his father Juan Carlos, not John Charles). - Montréalais

I'd like to add to Montrealais's answer. Since the Spanish Monarchy's latest restoration ,Spanish Royal names have been given in Spanish form in English books (Example: encylopedias), indeed a Anglo inconsistancy. Under this recent trend ,Felipe will likely be called Felipe VI of Spain (when he reigns) by English books ,but the proper Anglo version would be Philip VI. Mightberight/wrong 25 October 2005

Felipe VI should be called Philip VI, here why, all the the other spanish kings on wikipedia have there regal names translated (except Juan carlos). We also must not forget that this is the english wikipedia so the versons of names should reflect that and for us to use the spanish verson of everything is ridiculous . Although this does not mean that every spanish name should traslated to the english version. - Beauthegreat (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Leonor's birth time

Leonor's birth time is given as 1:46 Am on this site: http://www.astrotheme.fr/en/index.php

Go to the directory and type in "Leonor". Follow the directions, and you will come to her page.

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

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

• 1 rey gala.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Philip VI

Why was Philip VI removed from the intro of the page? GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I share in the same concern. While there are multiple defensible criteria on whether to title the article Felipe VI or Philip VI, I think it is less debatable that the lead section of the article should include both the localized the name as well as the English one. Articles for all previous five Philips include their names in English. Al83tito (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I assume it was removed because he's not called Philip. DrKay (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? the Spanish article on King Charles III of the United Kingdom has his name translated into Spanish: Carlos III (https://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Carlos_III_del_Reino_Unido). Al83tito (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Presumably, because he's called Carlos in Spanish-language sources. What the Spanish wikipedia calls its article on Charles depends on what policies are in place there and is a question for editors there to decide not here. DrKay (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the majority of English sources refer to him as Felipe. And in consequence it seems appropriate that the English article would be titled using the Spanish name Felipe. The question is whether alternative names, such as his name in English, should be included within the lead section of the article. There is a smaller set of sources that do use the English name (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I am surmising from the search results that the use of Philip is more prevalent in middle eastern and south Asian media. So I'd move to have the English version name included within the article. Al83tito (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Poll cited in the introduction doesn't support the article's claims

The article that is cited only vaguely refers to "a poll conducted by the Spanish newspaper El Español in 2020", with no link to the poll in question. So I took it upon myself to find the original article, which I did (https://www.elespanol.com/espana/politica/20200811/felipe-vi-convence-espanoles-aprueba-incluso-menores/511949939_0.html). We know it's the original because it's from El Español, it's from 2020 and it features the statistic of 64% that appears in the cited article.

The original poll doesn't support the claim that Felipe VI has "moderately high approval ratings, especially among younger Spaniards". In fact, younger Spaniards (born after 1990) are the age group in which Felipe enjoys the least support, with only 44.5% of them approving of him in contrast to 44.1% of them disapproving of him, which is much lower than his 64% general approval rating. This should be corrected and a more trustworthy source should be used. Sir. Paulord (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alfonso XII which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 30 March 2023 (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:

• SM El Rey Don Felipe VI diario Tierra (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. History6042 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2023

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: Procedural close. Discussed in full a few months ago here and the same article was nominated by the same user and closed minutes go here. This is disruptive behavior. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Felipe VI → Felipe VI of Spain – To be consistent with the rest of Spanish monarchs. Also, WP:NCROY applies here. History6042 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2023 (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.

RfC of interest

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Felipe VI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheRichic (talk · contribs) 12:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Howdy, thank you for your work on this article and for nominating it! I don't think it's just yet ready for a review though, I'm seeing some large issues:

• A good bit of unsourced material:
  • "Additionally, he is the third cousin once removed of ..."
  • "Further promotions in 2000 were commandant in the Army ..."
  • The paragraph about his promotion of Spain's economic, commercial, and cultural interests.
  • "and continues to make contributions internationally towards enhancing the importance of voluntary work."
  • "Upon his accession, he became the youngest monarch in Europe ..."
  • "While he is nominally chief executive, he is not politically responsible for exercising his powers. Per the Constitution ..."
  • "a relevant Cuban historian ..."
  • "and from the beginning, the Mexican president showed rejection of what Spain and its companies represented."
  • "After this incident, neither the Royal Family nor the King's Household have spoken about the issue ..."
  • "which had been postponed twice ..."
  • "In the evening, the State Dinner ..."
  • The paragraph beginning with, "On Thursday the 13th ..."
  • "At noon, Oxford University hosted a luncheon in his honour. To conclude"
  • A chunk of the paragraph about the symbology of the coat of arms
  • "These arms differ from those of his father's as king ..."

• Focus:
  • The first three paragraphs of the "2017 terrorist attacks" subsection are completely unrelated.
  • When compared to other aspects of the topic, I'm not sure if the "State trip to the UK" section has resulted in that much lasting impact to warrant such length.

In termes of minor issues:

• A fair few short paragraphs and some examples of WP:PROSELINE
• One or two instances of WP:OVERCITE
• Some quibbles with formatting, word choice, and grammar, but I intend to look through the article to address these.

Right, this is what I've noticed at a glance. I applaud the sourcing quality though, it looks quite good! I'd consider looking around databases like JSTOR for any books or scholarly articles about him, but perhaps there might not be too much of use. Alright, thanks again for your work, and feel free to ask me any questions! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (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.