Talk:King John
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why does 'King John' link here, rather than to the actual King John?
Isn't this a slight oversight. Surely the subject is more important? 82.40.163.5 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- There have been many kings called John, the page that the real King John of Englandis found at (John of England) is a lot more enlightening. To be honest this play is the only notable thing that is unambiguously called "King John" rather than "King John of England" or "King John IV" or whatever. ~ Mazca (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, if you look at the List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs and click on the names of various monarchs to go to their articles, you'll find that articles have titles such as Richard I of England, Mary II of England, Anne of Great Britain, Victoria of the United Kingdom, etc. And if you look at a list of Shakespeare's plays, and click on the links to get to the articles, you'll see that we use Macbeth, not The Tragedy of Macbeth (which is simply a redirect to Macbeth), etc. We use Richard II (play), simply because Richard II is a disambiguation page. So the answer is that even if Shakespeare had never written his play about King John, the article about the person King John would still be called John of England, and our articles about Shakespeare's plays generally use the simple title of the play (without "the tragedy of", "the history of", etc.) except in cases where we're forced not to because a page with that name already exists. Cowardly Lion (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)