Talk:Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622092017/http://www.fuerstenhaus.li/en/fuerstenhaus/fuersten/fuerst_alois_2.html to http://www.fuerstenhaus.li/en/fuerstenhaus/fuersten/fuerst_alois_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2021

 * 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. This was requested at RMTR as a revert of an Undiscussed move, and I have carried that out. The title has been stable for over a year, and there have been no prior move requests so any fresh proposal should be from the stable title. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein → Aloys II – Undiscussed move. It’s a revert of another undiscussed move (in the other direction) but that was over year ago and this article has established stability at the concise title in that time. A revert after that much time is clearly controversial and requires an RM. В²C ☎ 16:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Striking this misrepresentation because I never created nor intended to create a formal RM here — this was a technical request that was copy-pasted here. —В²C ☎ 19:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Deb (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2021 (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.
 * Oppose - The most recent move merely reverted an undiscussed controversial move. Agreement on the initial move is required before the revert can be reverted. Deb (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It should never have been moved to 'exclude' "of country", to begin with. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Sometime next month. I'll open an RM on this topic. PS - Something the other editor a year ago, chose 'not' to do. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Amakuru, disagree that “the title has been stable for over a year” is a substantive statement for a page with so few edits, only bit and gnome edits at that. Your revert serves to validate sneaky pages moves that are a disruptive game to break the apparent natural CONSISTENCY that readers and normal editors expect. All sneaky page moves like this one should be summarily reverted and the sneaky page mover warned. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as "sneaky" at all. Anyone is allowed to make a WP:BOLD move, that's expressly part of the WP:RM guidlines. And this one was done with a named policy (WP:CONCISE) as its rationale. It's always reasonable to revert bold moves within a short timeframe, but this one was now beyond the period at which we'd usually consider the prior version the stable one. To be honest, your comment here appears to be casting aspersions on the editor who made this move, which is quite surprising from a seasoned and respected editor such as yourself, and I suggest you retract that accusation. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also pinging . Since the motives of their move in September 2020 have been questioned here, they have a right to be aware of that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Short time frame should be measured relative to substantive editing and related talk page activity, and the bold page move was not long ago by that move.
 * Any RM regular wandering among many articles, articles with little activity, making bold moves aligned with a known controversial titling theory, well within scope of a well known problematic guideline (NCROY), *should* be suspected of being deliberately sneaky. No talk page posts.  No prior or page editing of the the page.  Look at the pattern.  It is not plausible that a seasoned editor and RM regular would not think the the move would be opposed if publicised. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2021

 * 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: Moved without opposition. Combefere ❯❯❯  Talk  00:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Aloys II → Aloys II, Prince of Liechtenstein — This article (about a year ago) was unilaterally moved via bypassing the RM route. Now it's out of line with its predecessors & successors, whose article titles are in Monarch #, Prince of country style. IMHO, we should move this article back to that style & bring it back into sync, with the other Liechtensteiner monarch bio article titles. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2021 (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.
 * Support - the original undiscussed move was ridiculous and the decision to override the correcting move was highly questionable. How is anyone supposed to identify the subject of this tiny country from the present title? And how can anyone justify the inconsistency with Aloys I, Prince of Liechtenstein? Deb (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- Few of us would know where he reigns if we only had the present title. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The "Prince of [Country]" addition is a useful and natural piece of disambiguation, and is good for consistency. I don't think Aloys II is a sufficiently recognizable figure to justify breaking the pattern for his case. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The title helps to provide context to the identity of this prince. Векочел (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  14:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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) 19:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)