Talk:John I of Cyprus

Untitled
In my opinion, this shouold be moved to John I of Cyprus. His title of Jerusalem was purely nominal, his father had lost those small lands, and only his next brother regained them. And, had he ruled Acre, still Cyprus would have been his more important kingdom. However, he ruled in Cyprus only. 62.78.125.186 08:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 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  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

– "John II of Jerusalem" appears to refer exclusively to John II, bishop of Jerusalem. The king is instead called John I of Cyprus. This is not surprising because he was primarily and arguably only really king of Cyprus. At the same time, all search results for "John I of Cyprus" refer to the king rather than the archbishop. Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * John II of Jerusalem → John I of Cyprus
 * John I of Cyprus → John I, archbishop of Cyprus
 * Note: John I of Cyprus titles a page with significant content and so is ineligible to be a target "new" title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support the first, but the second should be John I (archbishop of Cyprus). Srnec (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me. In fact, I prefer it, though it might not be the standard format. Surtsicna (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, with John I (archbishop of Cyprus). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)