Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Continuation from WP:AN discussion[edit]

Shardan, I want to ask you a question so I can understand the point you are making in this post better. PRIMARYTOPIC says "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." I've just put "Kingdom of Sardinia" into Google Books and could not find any items for the period prior to the Savoyard kingdom. There must have been some - but they were not obvious. What's your take on that? DeCausa (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have already told to you, because of his long history, Kingdom of Sardinia is a broad concept, and for that reason the page located at the title, should be an article describing the broad concept. This solution is suggested by our policies ([1]) giving as example History of France. Of course, if we are talking about Risorgimento, or if any user wants news about Kingdom of Sardinia during his last century, this primary topic can be found in Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861). Risorgimento is at the moment very popular in Italy because of his 150° anniversary, and for that reason on Google books you can easily find the Savoyard period, but the history of the Kingdom of Sardinia is not just Risorgimento, but even one hundred years of bloody wars fighted to unify the island, for example. So, to give better information to user, the page where is located at the title should synthesising the different periods of his life, and at that point dividing into subpages, chronologically, pages such as Kingdom of Sardinia (1297-1700) where primary topic is the State under Aragon kings; Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720) where primary topic is the Kingdom under Haugsburg sovereigns; Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861) where primary topic is the Sardinian State under the House of Savoy.--Shardan (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you may not have fully understood my question. When I searched Google Books for "Kingdom of Sardinia" the results seemed to almost always refer to Piedmont-Sardinia as far as I could see. Obviouisly I did not scrutinize all the results and there may have been references to the medieval Kingdom etc, but they were cerainly not very many and not very prominent. What I was trying to ask is how you explained that (the current popularity of the Risorgimento in Italy can't be the answer - I'm referring to English language books Google search). In other words, do you agree or disagree that the result of Google Books indicates that the "Kingdom of Sardinia" commonly in English-language general sources refers to Piedmont-Sardinia rather than the Kingdom of Sardinia alone or during earlier periods? I'm trying to ascertain which of these statements you believe is true:
(1) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" mean the de jure Kingdom (containing only the island of Sardinia) throughout its history back to the 13th century; OR
(2) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" may well mean the Kingdom under the House of Savoy only, but they would be wrong because specialist reliable sources say that the Kingdom of Sardinia has been in continuous existence since the 13th century; OR
(3) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" may mean all the territories of the House of Savoy post-1720 but they would be wrong because specialist reliable sources say that the Kingdom of Sardinia only means the territory of the island of Sardinia.
I don't think the "broad concept" point is really relevant here because it seems to me there are two distinct topics being discussed here. The first meaning of "Kingdom of Sardinia" is that specific de jure kingdom which was an appendage to the Aragonese/Spanish crown and was then one of the possessions of the House of Savoy. It includes the Kingdom of Sardinia under the Savoys, but not the House of Savoys other possessions. I agree that's all one broad concept topic. But the second topic is a case of pars pro toto, and refers, from what I've seen from Google Books, to all the possesions of the House of Savoy in the later period, not just the Kingdom of Sardinia itself. It's not the de jure position, but it is a different topic. To determine which of those two topics is the primary topic one needs to look at WP:PRIMARY TOPIC not the "broad concept" policy that appears earlier in that guideline.
You left a message on my talk page to say you will be busy for a while so I won't be expecting an answer soon!
DeCausa (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot speak for Shardan, but I would like to answer your most recent question. I don't believe 1, 2 or 3 is true. I believe what we have here is a case similar to what we had a while back with Ireland and more recently with China. Most of the time the distinction at the heart of the dispute is not being made, and doesn't need to be. What I would dispute in your analysis is that we have "two distinct topics being discussed here". The question is really how do we write about an entity which changed so much over the centuries of its existence? This problem confronts us for similar topics, like the Roman Empire. We cannot state that the kingdom of Sardinia was formed in 1720 for the same reason we can't say the Roman Empire fell in 476: it's not accurate. The pars pro toto usage is an informality, and it's perfectly fine as that (that's why I do not agree with 3), but you cannot build an accurate encyclopaedia article around that usage alone. What I think is true is:
(4) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" mean whatever was most often called by that name at the time to which they are referring.
In other words, the referent of the term, as for all names of countries, depends on the era. To chose one era over another, in this case, would be arbitrary, but that does not mean the article should be unduly weighted towards medieval and early modern Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
But the whole point, surely, is that we are talking about two different but overlapping topics. "Kingdom of Sardinia" clearly has two different meanings depending on the context:
A. In the 18th century/19th century, looking at the Google Books results, it clearly is used by historians as the normal term for the Savoy territories on a pars pro toto basis. It's clearly common usage and, to my mind, fits with WP:COMMONNAME. "Kingdom of Sardinia" gets over 63,000 Google Books hits, and from what I can tell pretty much all of them refer to Piedmont-Sardinia. But the next most likely name (combinations of Piedmont and Sardinia hyphenated) only get 12,000 each. The "informality" or lack of "official" status is not relevant per WP:COMMONNAME, for example Byzantine Empire was never called that!
B. There is also the de jure Kingdom of Sardinia, which is the legal entity that you are focussing on, and existed from the 13th to 19th centuries but is territorially limited, mainly, to the island of Sardinia.
If one were to draw a Venn diagram/Euler diagram, Article A is not a subset of Article B.
DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
DeCausa, if you try to focus the point B, everything will be clearer. The legal entity in 19th century has been extended to the continent (not limited to the island, as you have stated); the States of House on Savoy with the Perfect Fusion on 1847 they merge themselves into Sardinian State (it was a Kingdom, not a Duchy or a County). So, only one Kingdom and only one State (the old State born in 1297(1324); composite State after 1720; unitary State after 1847). As you can see, we are talking about at the same State, the same entity. To give correct information, we shouldn’t create uncertainty, but be as clear as possible and explain to users that the Kingdom had a long life starting from 1297 to end in 1861. Davidboz/Jonny Bee Goo states the opposite. He affirm that the State of the County of Savoy (later Duchy of Savoy), born in 1003, gave birth to the actual Italian State. Here it is well explained his point of view: [2]. But at that point there is a very big problem: if I got plenty of sources proving what I have written, Jonny Bee Goo until now didn’t show any source, apart generalist Britannica. As you can see, the difficulty is not how to call Kingdom of Sardinia during the years 1720-1861 (anyway his official name was K.of.S, as primary sources show), but how to conciliate two different notions: one well sourced and the other one fully unsorced. As I have already told to you, imho there are not problems to cite both of them, but both of them they should be well sourced. F.C. Casùla (and others historians) affirms that Kingdom of Sardinia born on 1297(1324) and in 1720 was still alive when Victor Amadeus II become King of Sardinia. The State of Duchy of Savoy, on the other side, ends his life on 1847 with Perfect Fusion, and the Duchy itself disappeared on 1860, when was ceded to France. --Shardan (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
OK - you seem to have a slightly different perspective than Srnec. Going back to my earlier post - in terms of common usage (i.e. "most people"), not the specialist sources you refer to, which of the options I suggested do you agree with (you obviously don't think Option 3):
(1) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" mean the de jure Kingdom (containing only the island of Sardinia) throughout its history back to the 13th century; OR
(2) most people when they refer to the "Kingdom of Sardinia" may well mean the Kingdom under the House of Savoy only, but they would be wrong because specialist reliable sources say that the Kingdom of Sardinia has been in continuous existence since the 13th century.
DeCausa (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
What is my personal opinion is not at all relevant on Wikipedia. My POV doesn’t change anything. What is very important, imho, is the historians' POV, the only one accept on Wikipedia. For that reason I ask to cite sources. About Srnec, I agree with him: he knows very well the history of the Kingdom of Sardinia, and he’s able to write about it in a better way than mine. I am agree with the version proposed by him, that one continously reverted by Jonny Bee Goo.--Shardan (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
With respect, I think this is a big part of the problem. Naming articles in Wikipedia isn't about technical accuracy - it's in large part (but not only) about common usage (and that common usage might even be technically incorrect - but that doesn't matter). In order to advance a argument for what you think this article is about, you need to have a view, supported by evidence of course, of what is commonly meant in the sources and by readers by "Kingdom of Sardinia". See WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. here my POV: if during period 1720-1861 the Kingdom was Know as Kingdom of Sardinia by international treaties and from people inside and outside its boundaries (the official name), so this name should be the one accepted by Wikipedia. Piemont Sardinia (or Sardinia Piedmont) came later, used by some historians, becouse of the weight of Piedmont (region) inside the Kingdom was more relevant, more that Sardinia (island). In Italy is often used Piedmont as sinonimous of Kingdom of Sardinia in an informal way, but we are far to use that term in a formal way to indicate the kingdom during the period 1720-1861. I think that Piedmont-Sardinia is an informal way to call that kingdom in English language too. If it is the most common name, I don't Know, but I don't trust Google books research as a way to give names to Wikipedia articles. --Shardan (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with saying, as DeCausa does, that "we are talking about two different but overlapping topics" is that we are always talking about two different but overlapping topics. We can always draw lines and make distinctions and call the things on either side "different topics", and then we can invariably finding stuff in common between them and call them "overlapping". I would even say that "Kingdom of Sardinia" has more than two different meanings depending on the context. It might, for instance, refer to the kingdom of Barisone II (12th century) or Enzo (13th), and there are constitutional differences between the kingdom in the 15th century under Aragon and the kingdom in the 19th under Savoy, besides the fact that the "kingdom of Sardinia" at one time and in one sense included Genoa and at another time did not.
Note how the article on Byzantine Empire starts: by telling us that it was the same thing as the Roman Empire! If this article started that way (by saying that the kingdom of Sardinia, also called Piedmont-Sardinia, was the Savoyard state after the acquisition of the island kingdom of Sardinia), then there wouldn't be a big problem, although it could probably start better. I have no problem with informal pars pro toto usage, but it has a major danger, which is summed up well by Christopher Storrs:
One final point needs clarification, by way of introduction: the proper designation of the Savoyard state. This causes many problems to those unfamiliar with the state, who seek to identify it with a variety of labels which it is felt reflect power realities. Thus, it is often called Piedmont-Savoy to indicate the fact that, although Victor Amadeus was duke of Savoy, the most important part of his territories (in terms of extent, population and revenues yielded) was the principality of Piedmont. These efforts to give the Savoyard state an adequate name reflect the degree to which this typically composite early modern state fitted (and continued to fit after 1713, with the added complication of the acquisition of the Kingdom of Sicily and later Sardinia) ill into our 'modern' notions of statehood. For the most part, it will be referred to in this book as the Savoyard state, unless otherwise appropriate. (War, Diplomacy and the Rise of Savoy, 1690–1720 [Cambridge University Press, 1999], 19)
Let's not succumb to the temptation of "reflecting power realities" at the expense of what was actually going on. The infobox in the current article is particularly useless, but the most offensive and inaccurate phrase is "the new kingdom". There was no new kingdom in 1720, not in Sardinia, not in Piedmont, not in Savoy, not anywhere. Then there's the ridiculous "officially, the nation's name..." The "power reality" being grasped at here had no official name, it was usually just "the states of his Majesty the King of Sardinia", sometimes in royal decress just "our ancient states" (antichi stati nostri). In other words, the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" in its common and informal sense is more like "British Empire" than it is like "Kingdom of Italy". But let me stress again that that's no problem so long as the article makes it clear. It is unfortunate that the topic here is relatively obscure, especially if you're looking for information in English. That makes it all the more difficult to represent what the actual constitution of the Savoy domains was without oversimplification or error.
A final note to DeCausa: his B is a subset of A for the period from 1720 to 1847, but B was a subset of other entities before that, and A (the Savoyard state, in existence since the 11th century) has had many changing subsets, and for a time included only Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaving a conclusion, before I drop out of discussion[edit]

Let's not succumb to the temptation of "reflecting power realities" at the expense of what was actually going on. My reading of this debate is that you and Shardan are effectively trying to argue "let's not succumb to the temptation of common (mis)usage at the expense of what was actually going on." But that's not how WP operates in the context of titling and scoping of articles. I think that's the crux of it here. As with Byzantine Empire, "what was actually going on" can be explained in the article - not through the title. So the article title aligns with general (mis)usage ("Byzantine Empire") but the article explains why that title does not necessarily align with "reality" as determined by the specialist sources (hence Byzantine Empire#Nomenclature).

To me, the arguments here aren't following WP policy. It shouldn't be about the "reality" it should be how it is generally reported in English language sources. I referred to a Google Books search and Shardan, quite rightly, began pointing out the problems with Google Books results. That's the sort of issue where there should be focus, not which is the technically correct interpretation. Another way of considering it is if one where to open one of the standard English language general histories of Italy, does references to "Kingdom of Sardinia" focus on Piedmont-Sardinia or is it consistently used for Sardinia in the medieval/early modern periods as well as for Piedmont-Sardinia? (And by the way, policy requires it to be English language sources - Italian won't be relevant to determining usage.) The argument should be about the best way of determining what readers and English-language sources generally take to be meant by this title, not what is literally accurate. I don't think there's anything more I can usefully add to this discussion, and will now drop out. DeCausa (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is primarily a dispute about naming. It is not a question of "What is this called?" or "What is that term used for?" I will quote two question that I suggested, months ago, got to the nub of the issue:
  1. Should this article say or imply (as by dates in the infobox) that the Kingdom of Sardinia was created, was new, began, or came into existence in or around 1720?
  2. Should this article cover some part of the history of Sardinia before 1720 as part of its main topic, as opposed to background?
My answers are no and yes, respectively. The problem with the article as it stands is that it is false and misleading, not that it is incorrectly named. It would be equally false and misleading under any title. Fundamentally, it misrepresents both what happened in Sardinia circa 1720, what the kingdom of Sardinia was before that and what the Savoyard state was after. The mistake is in the same class as "The UK was formed in 1603", or "France was created in 1958", or "Navarre became a part of Aragon in 1076". I do not believe consulting general histories will solve the problem, especially since the last assertion is of the kind you will occasionally find in English-language works that are sloppier about political arrangements the more remote they are from English lands. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - the 'protection' at the current state of the article is, obviously, at m:the wrong version - the discussion here should not be regarding 'should we revert to the other version, the discussion here should be to get to somewhere which would satisfy both camps. If you think that the other version is a better starting point for that, then I would suggest that you document that decision here, and ask an independent editor to 'revert' it to that version (or implement another version you agree upon). Reading through this discussion I have the feeling that you are focussing too much on the 'this version is incorrect', and not enough on 'how do we get to a point that satisfies both sides' (do realise, that when it is decided to revert to the other version as a better starting point, the other side will return here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
There aren't two camps, but only a vandal on one side, and on the other side only secondary specific sources. On wikipedia should speak sources, not vandals. last version is not correct. Srnec version is much better and exhaustive --Shardan (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
DeCausa clearly understood the problem about this page, realizing the same conclusions of many other users. There's a sole, largely dominant meaning of the term K.o.S. in English (and also Italian) literature.
Unfortunately, times ago a small group of vandals thought that starting an endless debate could impose their own unreferenced version. Many users that opposed this vandalism left this debate for exhaustion. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The answer is easy: when sources talk about the kingdom of Sardinia, they relate to the State that bore that name. If the source is about middle age or modern age, it refers to the KoS within the crown of Aragon and later of Spain, if it talks about "contemporary" after-1720 history it refers to the Savoy-ruled kingdom (separate from other Savoy-ruled states before 1848 and together with them since that date). If we write an article from this point of view, we can choose the name most suitable: but limiting the article to last 200 years out of 500 is actually misleading. Vadsf (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Besides misleading, I would say "arbitrary". Srnec (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I see what has been written just now. Even for me the current version is clearly arbitrary and devoid of specific sources. I restore the previous version.--URBIS (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
... I am not sure if that is getting to a middle ground, URBIS, it is NOT a version that both sides agree upon. I asked that if that decision was made, that a discussion here should come to that consensus, and that an uninvolved, independent editor then implements that version, not one of the involved editors. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no middle ground: Wikipedia does not have to distribute candy to both parties. For me, it can be inserted well as the other version, but that version must be provided with specific sources (Sources are the most important things for Wikipedia). If there are historians who support that Kingdom of Sardinia was a flatus vocis ante 1720, then these historians actually have to be mentioned.--URBIS (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
All I say is, that the restore of the version that you restored is a prolongation of the long term edit war which resulted in the previous protection. I again suggest, if this is really the version that is should be reverted to, then get to that conclusion here, and ask an uninvolved editor to close that discussion and implement the version. Then that version is defendable, now it is not. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There is only one person against the current version: Jonny Bee Goo; others follow without knowledge of history and uncritically. I also agree with Srnec. Let Srnec write the article.--URBIS (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Then establish that here, and let an uninvolved editor implement that version. If then Jonny Bee Goo reverts, it is against that consensus. Now it is still the same edit-war. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected .. again[edit]

I have again protected the page (yesterday) after there were again undiscussed reversals by one of the editors who also was active in the edit war in the past. The editor is clearly aware that they is behind a rotating IP, and that blocks will not help in their case.

I am asking, again, whether the regulars here can please come to a consensus on this talkpage regarding a version, and let an uninvolved editor make that change. If that is needed, go through dispute resolution (an RfC to get external input on the situation?). Blind and continuous reversion is not going to stop the edit-war, and if the editors here are unable to get to a consensus before the page protection expires that edit war will also continue, probably resulting in an even longer protection. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica into Kingdom of Sardinia. Michael! (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


Well, I propose to merge Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica into Kingdom of Sardinia. Reasons for merging: 1. Duplicate and 2. Overlap. Both articles are about the same kingdom on the same island in the same period ("1297–1848" and equivalent "from the early 14th century until the mid-19th"). Both articles have a section about the conquest of Sardinia/formation of the kingdom under the Aragonese, and both articles have a separate subsection about the Spanish succession war and subsequent exchange of Sardinia and Sicily between Austria and Piedmont. Yes, there are certainly differences between both articles, but since both articles are within each other's scope, I think a merge would be the best option. Michael! (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: What a mess! Piedmont-Sardinia is a distinct, separate article, but it is almost exactly the same (structure, texts, images) as this article, Kingdom of Sardinia. However, Sardinia Piedmont, Sardinia-Piedmont, Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, and Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia all redirect to Kingdom of Sardinia and not to Piedmont-Sardinia, as you would expect.Michael! (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
After checking the revision history of Piedmont-Sardinia, I decided to change it back into a redirect to Kingdom of Sardinia, just like those aforementioned articles. PS was originally a redirect to Kingdom of Sardinia. That suddenly changed on 21:56, 28 May 2011‎ by User:Kotniski, his comment: "temporarily recreating article under this title due to disruption - for edit history see that of Kingdom of Sardinia". This action was followed by some edit war, but the article hasn't been changed significantly ever since and seems to have been forgotten afterwards. Since it was created only temporarily, hasn't been changed signifacntly, and still is a duplicate of Kingdom of Sardinia, I think it's completely justified to return PS to its first version, i.e. a redirect, just like SP, KoSP, and KoPS are. Michael! (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
PS: For clarity, I'm not at all opposed to a separate article on Piedmont-Sardinia, but it shouldn't be a duplicate. Michael! (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A week has past and nobody seems to object to a merge. Therefore I assume there's no opposition to the proposal (per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus) and I'll proceed to merge Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica into Kingdom of Sardinia. Michael! (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Actually, I don't think this article is still controversial. There hasn't been any conflicts or discussions in the past few months, nor has anybody reacted to the merge proposal (above). After having a look at Talk:Byzantine Empire (which seems to be far more controversial) I decided to replace the "controversial" banner (date=April 2012) with a new, more relevant banner. Michael! (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are right. I also think this goes to show how much the controversy was driven by one editor, who now appears to be gone. Srnec (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This article does need lots of work. So wouldn't it make more sense to add an infobox once that work is done? So that we don't waste time debating what the infobox should say? By then maybe the information will be in the article, well-sourced, and we can add it to an infobox. But for now, what good purpose does it serve? Srnec (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this article certainly needs lots of work. The infobox and other abundant/inappropriate features/texts are results of the merge. Feel free to delete anything, including controversial banners. Any improvement is welcome! Michael! (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
This article does need lots of work, so please don't start like this. This article need a {{Infobox former subdivision}} or {{Infobox former country}} template, just like the Italian version, and any other article on Wiki. If there is an error, correct or challenge it, maybe one at a time. --Felisopus (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No, not every article needs a disinfobox. This article does not need to mimic the Italian one or any other one. I strongly oppose the inclusion of an infobox in this article, and I can see no consensus for one. It is a total distraction for both editors and readers. The real information should be in the text. Srnec (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
"improve content, don't remove the "container"". Felisopus, was it necessary to revert Srnec's edit? He did more than just removing the infobox. Yes, I'm the first one to admit that this article needs a lot of work, but don't you think every improvement is welcome? If you're willing to rewrite the article yourself, that would be great, if not, than please allow others to make minor improvements. Michael! (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
More restored. No problem with minor improvements, I've done a lot of these. --Felisopus (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The infobox is still a misleading mishmash of stuff from different eras that does nothing to help the reader get oriented. Srnec (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
We just combined two kingdoms of different eras, so i'm sorry, the infobox must combine infos about different eras! In the Italian version there's exactly the same template with stuff from different eras and no one considers it a misleading mishmash. --Felisopus (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


In my judgement, there was a consensus that this article ought to be about the kingdom of Sardinia in its evolution from the 13th century to the 19th. The one user strongly opposed to that consensus hasn't been with us since mid-2012. All other involved editors, that I can see, favour the 2012–14 status quo. (The infobox is a separate issue.) Herewith, for AcidSnow, the reasons for the current setup:

  • The Kingdom of Sardinia was not created and did not come into existence in or around 1720.
  • The term "Kingdom of Sardinia" does signify the entire Savoyard state from 1720 on. The King of Sardinia was ruler of Piedmont, but that does not mean that Piedmont was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia. That secondary usage developed gradually.
  • Sardinia had its own institutions before 1720 and these did not suddenly change after the Savoyard takeover. There is institutional continuity from the Spanish to the Savoyards.

Srnec (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasons for reverting all my edits on this article. I have responded to your reasons bellow:
1.There was only one "Kingdom of Sardinia" and it was established in 1720.[3][4] If this is wrong, could you please provided a ref? This article needs more refs to begin with.
2. The term "Kingdom of Sardinia" refers only to the former Italian kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy from 1720–1860. It included: Sardinia, Savoy, Piedmont, and Genoa.[5][6][7][8][9][10] "The King of Sardinia was ruler of Piedmont, but that does not mean that Piedmont was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia.", what? I am not sure as to what you mean because you contradict yourself. The region of Piedmont was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1748 to 1798, then again from 1814 to 1861.[11]; hence also being called "Piedmont-sardinia, or Sardinia-piedmont".[12]
3. I am not sure as to what institutions have anything to do with this.
Although part of the kingdom was on the island of Sardinia, the vast majority of the article is about the islands history and the various other countries that ruled it. Until I receive consensus to change this and reflect what the article should be about I will keep my edits on my sandbox. AcidSnow (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow, you've stumbled into a slow burn edit war that's been going on for years - see tye edit history. There are three editors who want to see the article as it currently is (they've posted on this page) and there were a couple who took the view that you take. The latter seem to have dropped out of the picture in the last year or so, hence Srnec's claim that this is the consensus version. I joined the talk page (see above) from seeing the dispute at a noticeboard with the initial intention of trying to mediate in some way. I came to the conclusion, however, that the English-language literature was firmly supportive of the view you expressed and contrary to the Srnec/URBIS/Shardan view. But to be honest, I couldn't be bothered engaging in a dispute with these SPAs (that's what they are - see their contribs) who have relentlessly pursued their agenda over multiple years. Good luck!DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
SPA? Please do look at my contributions since October 2005, especially the 2,500+ articles I've created. All on Sardinia, of course. The really SPA was Jonny Bee Goo—look at his contributions. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I know, he said I was free to open it and thank you for your support!. AcidSnow (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
For starters, for sources, please look at the articles I've created at Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–20), Kingdom of Sicily under Savoy, Reale Udienza, Stamenti and Duchy of Aosta.
A good talk I had with another user over the significance of 1713/20 can be found here. Pay particular attention to the quotations from Christopher Storrs, War, Diplomacy and the Rise of Savoy, 1690–1720 (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
To your point (1), I would say that the Britannica article does not answer the question what Sardinia was prior to its cession in 1720, instead only affirming that it was Savoyard after 1720, which is not in dispute. The answer is a kingdom, which is why it could reasonably be exchanged for another island kingdom (Sicily). Storrs addresses this, but it's a commonplace. Anybody discussing the medieval crown of Aragon touches upon it. Sardinia was just one of the components of the Spanish Empire prior to the war fpr the its succession, along with Aragon, Castile, Navarre and several other places in Italy.
Many sources speak of the Kingdom of Sardinia (Reino de Cerdeña) prior to 1720 and not under Savoyard rule. See, e.g., Francesco Manconi, "The Kingdom of Sardinia: A Province in Balance between Catalonia, Castile and Italy", Spain in Italy: Politics, Society, and Religion 1500-1700, eds. Thomas James Dandelet and John A. Marino (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 45–72. Or see his "El reino de Cerdeña de Fernando II a Carlos V: el largo camino hacia la modernidad", De la unión de coronas al Imperio de Carlos V: Congreso internacional, Barcelona 21–23 de febrero de 2000, ed. Ernest Belenguer Cebrià, vol. 2 (2001): 15–54. For Lluís Guia Marín, "Un destino imprevisto para Cerdeña: De los Habsburgo a los Saboya", La pérdida de Europa: La guerra de Sucesión por la Monarquía de España, eds. Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio, Bernardo J. García García and Virginia León (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 2007), 757–84, see Here.
Regarding point (2), see what I've already said and cited. My point about Piedmont was that it was not part of the Kingdom of Sardinia which Victor Amadeus received in 1720. And it is not as if immediately everybody began referring the Savoyard composite state as the Kingdom of Sardinia. That took a little time.
My point, re: your (3), about the instutions was the the K. of S. that pre-existed Savoyard rule was the same as the one under the Savoy. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
What you've never understood, and what I'm not going to get into again (after this post) is that the issue is not some technical continuity in the Kingdom of Sardinia, but what is meant by "Kingdom of Sardinia" in the English-language literature. This issue revolves around WP:COMMONNAME. May be there should be an article with the scope you want (although I doubt it because it would overlap too much with other articles) but the point is it shouldn't be under this article title. It misrepresents the position of this name in English scholarly sources (and I suspect in other languages too, but that's not relevant). A search of google books quickly reveals that references to the Kingdom of Sardinia are to the Savoyard polity in it broad political sense, and not to the narrow and historic institution created in the middle ages. If this article is to exist it should have a distinguishing title such as Crown of Sardinia, Kingdom of Sardinia 1324-1861 or Monarchy of Sardinia leaving this article title to the narrower topic because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to it. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have never opposed the division in coverage you are suggesting, or using this title for the Savoyard state post-1720. I have only opposed misleading statements in the article itself, and it seems nobody is capable of writing an article on the Savoyard state post-1720 without committing basic errors. The state was, prior to 1847, a composite one. What happened in 1720 was that the House of Savoy acquired a kingdom. Unlike you, I am not convinced that this division in coverage is necessary or that this title ought to be for the page on the Savoyard state, rather than, say, Piedmont-Sardinia. The debate has never been about a primary topic, but about what is true and what is false about the Kingdom of Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
No, that's what it's been about in your mind. But what I was trying to point out (and failed to get across) when I participated a while ago is that the real issue is WP:COMMONAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: what should be covered by an article that bears the title "Kingdom of Sardinia" given how that term is used in English-language literature. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a very strong bias to a very short span of time when we talk about "how that term is used in English-language literature". That's becaue (a) as a shorthand for the entire Savoyard state the term was mainly in use after 1815 and (b) the Kingdom of Sardinia reached its apogee after its fusion in 1847. Thus, the periods 1815–61 and especially 1847–61 are the subject of far more English-language study (or any language study, for that matter) than earlier periods—because that's when Sardinia was becoming a great power. It is not as if in 1720 the Savoyard state suddenly became the Kingdom of Sardinia. Also, because the period of most interest postdates the Holy Roman Empire (†1806) and largely also postdates the fusion and the Albertine constitution, the composite nature of the monarchy prior to 1847 is less relevant or not at all relevant. For example, the Sardinia that fought in the Crimean War was a unified state—but had only been so for less than a decade. Read the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (on French Wikisource), however, and you will find that at that time Sardinia was always referred to as the States of His Majesty the King of Sardinia, because they were not unified into a single Kingdom of Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
And there's the problem. You don't understand that none of that has the slightest relevance to Wikipedia policy except the first two sentences. If there is "a very strong bias" in the English language literature, the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect that bias. We are not here for the "truth" and we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The problem is that you appear to be here at Wikipedia for a very narrow purpose and you don't get the broader Wikipedia context. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
So, DeCausa, tell me "what should be covered by an article that bears the title Kingdom of Sardinia given how that term is used in English-language literature"? Srnec (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The same as is covered by mainstream English-language literature of course, whether it is "right or wrong". DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
If I had multiple statements from the (mainstream English-language) secondary literature that contradicted a statement in the (mainstream English-language) tertiary literature, what, according to our polices, should we do? I am not, of course, calling the Britannica's account of Sardinia into question. (There's nothing wrong with saying that "Sardinia [was a] kingdom of the house of Savoy from 1720.") Srnec (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
We should delight in their quixotic eccentricity...and then ignore them because they are outweighed by the bulk of the sources, of course. Any other questions? DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and you've already said "There is a very strong bias to a very short span of time when we talk about "how that term is used in English-language literature". That's becaue (a) as a shorthand for the entire Savoyard state the term was mainly in use after 1815 and (b) the Kingdom of Sardinia reached its apogee after its fusion in 1847. Thus, the periods 1815–61 and especially 1847–61 are the subject of far more English-language study (or any language study, for that matter) than earlier periods—because that's when Sardinia was becoming a great power." So, I'm sure you won't come back and say actually that bias doesn't exist after all. You wouldn't be that inconsistent, would you? DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Huh? The bias is to a time period. As in, a lot more is written about Savoy–Piedmont–Sardinia in the periods I mentioned than about it in the period before. My point was that a shorthand usage, perfectly acceptable in itself, should not be anachronistically projected back in time. All the sources that talk about the Kingdom of Sardinia in the Crimean War, for example, are irrelevant to this debate, unless you think this article should only cover the time period 1847–61. As I've said before, in direct response to you, I believe, the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" refers to whatever that was at the time referred to. I do not know how much 20th- and 21st-century English historiography favours that term for the entire Savoyard state in 1720–1815. I really don't; but I do know that, from my research, contemporary 18th-century English sources appear to distinguish between Sardinia and the rest of the Savoyard state. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Besides the low quality of the article generally, do you have a specific problem with it, particularly with the lede, which lays out what it's about? Srnec (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If I am allowed to enter the discussion, the article now is very clear and respects what sources say: I judge the incipit. Of course, if you talk about the Kingdom of Sardinia, you refer to the institution that lived several centuries and obviously assumed different forms: so the exact meaning of the term depends on the time you are talking about. The article should explain all these phases and let the reader focus on the phase he or she is interested by, not because of a specific point of view in the literature but because it is the aim of a well-written article. If contemporary English literature focuses on the 1847-1861 period, of course most readers will look for that part of the article, but it does not prevent me - if I encounter a Middle Age source - to find what actually the Kingdom of Sardinia was at the time. Thank you to all contributors, I encourage you to keep working on the subject. --Vadsf (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)