:Sancho himself, and his ancestors, called themselves kings of Pamplona, not of Navarre. That is the way they appear in medieval charters. It was not until Sancho VI that the kings started to be known as Kings of Navarre. One of the best biographies on Sancho III was written by Gonzalo Martínez Díez, and the title of the book is Sancho III el Mayor, rey de Pamplona, Rex Ibericus. First chapter of the book: "Orígenes del Reino de Pamplona" and on p. 17 of that chapter:  "En esas montañas del norte de España surgirán diversos focos de resistencia (a los musulmanes) que darán lugar al nacimiento de los futuros reinos cristianos, los cinco reinos de España de la época medieval, uno de los cuales será el núcleo del reino de Pamplona primero y de Navarra más tarde". I could come up with more sources to back this, not just Gonzalo Mtz Díez.  It would be as misleading to call him King of Navarre as if we called Fernán González King of Castile when at that time, Castile was a county which would later give rise to the Kingdom of Castile. And the reason nobody complained when the article was moved prior to your move was that the user who did so, is one of the main contributors to this article and I agreed with the move. Your only contribution here has been to move it and it appears because as you say, King Sancho "is a very important person in my patrimony" and that is not a very convincing reason to move the article.