Talk:Kingdom of Pamplona
If we are going to have separate articles on the Kingdom of Pamplona (i.e., early Navarre) and the Kingdom of Navarre (i.e., later Navarre), they should be clearly integrated with one another and make abundantly clear how they relate: that is, they're the same thing at different times. Srnec (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, Kingdom of Navarre still covers the whole history of the kingdom and its content should probably be divided between these two articles.--Metroxed (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- And here we are a year and a half later and the probblem persists - the Kingdom of Pamplona article remains a content fork of the first half of Kingdom of Navarre. It needs either to be merged back in, or our Kingdom of Navarre article needs to have this material removed. Given that this was a difference in style and not a different entity, that there is continuity fromthe Lordship of Pamplona to the Kingdom of Pamplona to the Kingdom of Navarre and there was no formal instant when one turned into the next, it is preferable to treat them in a single article. Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree. This looks like an overdone forking of the topic, there is no such a clear-cut division. There is the first stage started by Eneko/Iñigo, then the Jimeno dinasty, and all the rest of the Basque/native line up to 1234. The naming Navarre instead of Pamplona was basically a strategic decision made by the monarchs of Pamplona in mid-12th century to proclaim their kingdom as the legitimate kingdom of the Navarri, i.e. the Basques to the south of the Pyrenees, who extended on the west up to the sources of the Ebro river according to contemporary and 9th century sources. I think the Kingdom of Pamplona should merge to the article Navarre. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Between the initial support and yours, this looks like a consensus to me so I will start the process, but I don't have the stamina to do it all in one go, and others are encouraged join in - Please update here so there isn't duplicate effort. First step, I migrated images and bibliography. Agricolae (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this has my support. I removed the short section on naming in modern historiography since it was unsourced and doesn't need merging. Srnec (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merged through the Fortun Garces. Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- I merged the section "Jimenez dynasty". Srnec (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- I merged the rest. Take a look and see if there is anything else that you think should be transferred. I will change this page to a redirect tomorrow (if I don't forget). Agricolae (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I merged the section "Jimenez dynasty". Srnec (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merged through the Fortun Garces. Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this has my support. I removed the short section on naming in modern historiography since it was unsourced and doesn't need merging. Srnec (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Between the initial support and yours, this looks like a consensus to me so I will start the process, but I don't have the stamina to do it all in one go, and others are encouraged join in - Please update here so there isn't duplicate effort. First step, I migrated images and bibliography. Agricolae (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree. This looks like an overdone forking of the topic, there is no such a clear-cut division. There is the first stage started by Eneko/Iñigo, then the Jimeno dinasty, and all the rest of the Basque/native line up to 1234. The naming Navarre instead of Pamplona was basically a strategic decision made by the monarchs of Pamplona in mid-12th century to proclaim their kingdom as the legitimate kingdom of the Navarri, i.e. the Basques to the south of the Pyrenees, who extended on the west up to the sources of the Ebro river according to contemporary and 9th century sources. I think the Kingdom of Pamplona should merge to the article Navarre. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- And here we are a year and a half later and the probblem persists - the Kingdom of Pamplona article remains a content fork of the first half of Kingdom of Navarre. It needs either to be merged back in, or our Kingdom of Navarre article needs to have this material removed. Given that this was a difference in style and not a different entity, that there is continuity fromthe Lordship of Pamplona to the Kingdom of Pamplona to the Kingdom of Navarre and there was no formal instant when one turned into the next, it is preferable to treat them in a single article. Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)