Talk:Charles IX of France

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles IX of France article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / European / French / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

On 4 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Charles IX. The result of the discussion was not moved.

calendar

There seems to be nothing on his chaning the calendar, whereas the wik article on April's Fools' Day refers toa this as a possible origin of AFD. Kdammers (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus?!

According to the article

...the King and his mother set out from Fontainebleau on a tour... they visited Nostradamus, Carcassonne, Toulouse...

"Nostradamus" links to Michele de Nostredame. Firstly, it is strange to mention the astrologer and the names of cities in one sentence in this manner. Secondly, there should be some details on their encounter with Nostradamus. What was its purpose? What did Nostradamus tell them?

Top.Squark (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Bartholomew's Day

Charles called Coligny his father, and by backing Coligny would assert his kingship and freedom from the rule of his mother Catherine de' Medici. The current account does not relate how Catherine bullied Charles that evening to consent to the killing of Coligny to complete her previously botched assassination attempt. A reference to Charles' complicity might better explain why he was subsequently upset, rather than merely a lunatic, as Catherine proposed. Leonie Frieda's cited biography gives ample reference to the actual course of events.1f2 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Frieda's "cited biography" should not be used, since she is clearly not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles IX of France → Charles IX
Charles IX → Charles IX (disambiguation)
Charles VIII of France → Charles VIII
Charles VIII → Charles VIII (disambiguation)

– The French monarchs appear to be the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPICs for these name number combinations, compared to their Swedish counterparts. Looking at the amount of pageviews: [1] [2] the French monarchs seem to be the clear primary topics. Per WP:SOVEREIGN, Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject France has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You haven't demonstrated that disambiguation is not needed per WP:SOVEREIGN. If I was interested in the Swedish monarch it is counter productive to me that the other monarch with that cardinal is now not indicated as such in its title. Moreover, for those interested in the French king, it is easier to know you have the correct article when it has what they are king of in the title.

More broadly, I don't know why it is now Wikipedia policy to make monarchs articles more confusing to navigate. sovietblobfish (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have demonstrated that disambiguation is not needed. The English languge articles about the French monarchs consistently get far more pageviews than the articles about the Swedish monarchs, and as such they are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and do not require disambiguation per WP:SOVEREIGN, just like Charles X and Charles III. Furthermore, the Swedish monarchs are more commonly known as "Karl" (or Carl) rather than Charles, whereas the French kings are only known as Charles.

Having Charles IX and Charles VIII as disambiguation pages makes the articles more confusing to navigate, as 9 out of 10 times, people looking for just "Charles VIII/IX" on English Wikipedia are looking for the French monarch. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To support my claim, here are the wikinav pages for Charles VIII/IX. [3] [4]. Most of the traffic goes to the French monarchs. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the Swedish articles were moved to Karl/Carl VIII IX (which you inform me is their WP:COMMONNAME) that would simplifying matters immeasurably in this situation. sovietblobfish (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN. Disambiguation needed. Also per WP:COMMONNAME. These figures are rendered unrecognizable. Walrasiad (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disambiguation is not needed, as I have shown above. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown nothing of the sort. Walrasiad (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No primary topic. Srnec (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the works on Charles IX refer to them as simply "Charles IX" without the "of France" because he is the primary topic. [5] UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet all those are French articles written in French history journals. Our audience is not French specialist scholars. It is English-speaking general readers. Walrasiad (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:SOVEREIGN as clear primary topics, as demonstrated by both pageviews and wikinav linked above. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Primary topic isn't only about page views. Web searches for "Charles IX" or "Charles VIII" throw up the Swedish kings within the first 10 hits, so the topic isn't primary enough for me to support. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the reasons given above. Disambiguation is needed. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No clear primary topics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views evidence and wikinav provided above. Also supported by WP:NCROY and WP:TITLEDAB (at WP:AT). Disambiguation still exists when primary topic applies, just in a different way. Where there is a primary topic a goodly majority of our readers are better served by getting them where they want to be through the least number of steps. The remainder of readers would still go through the same number of steps that presently exist. If we consider prevalence in sources as a metric to assess primary topic, we still get a result supporting that these do fall to primary topic. Hits from JSTOR for Charles IX (F)/Charles IX (S)/Karl IX are 338/23/14 and google scholar 4310/945/399. Hits from JSTOR for Charles VIII (F)/Charles VIII (S) are 198/4 and google scholar 4410/586. I did not think that the ngram evidence previously cited was as convincing as claimed. These searches would tell us it is not. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Best for our readers to know as early as possible, what country these monarchs have reigned over. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons already given above. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 00:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.