The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was "Frankish Emperor" is anachronistic and "Lothair I" is unambiguous. I am happy to hear what you think about alternatives though, like "Lothair I, Holy Roman Emperor", "Lothair I, Roman Emperor", or "Lothair I of Italy". Srnec (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about Emperor Lothair I, on the model of the Popes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This move is an improvement, and I support it over not moving, but we may be able to improve on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Holy Roman Emperor is anachronistic. Roman Emperor would be misleading to many. (Do we want Frederic II, Roman Emperor? Perhaps. Francis II, Roman Emperor? Surely not.) On the other hand, he was Emperor, and should be called that; and of Italy is misleading for the possessor of Aachen and all Lotharingia. Plain Lothair I is probably fine for him; but pre-emptive disambiguation is not a bad idea, and many of his successors need real disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I support some move. Does anyone else call him Frankish Emperor? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Frankish Emperor" is just a description, in my opinion, and can never be considered anything more. To capitalise "Emperor" makes it a problem. My only beef with "Emperor Lothair I" is that it puts him out of line with all other Western emperors. But it may be the only not "misleading" solution, if "Lothair I" is discredited as too "plain" (and how many readers will be asking themselves "Lothair I of what?"). That said, "Emperor Lothair I" demands the same question: emperor of what? Other encyclopaedias look happy with just "Lothair I" (Columbia, 1911 Britannica, Encarta, encyclopedia.com) and Britannica (online) is even content with "(Holy Roman Emperor)"! "Holy Roman Emperor" may be anachronistic, but it is also anachronistic for Otto I, II, and III and all emperors until Barbarossa, but it is universally used anyhow. We shouldn't be too afraid of historiographically useful terminology when it is not too misleading, which it really isn't: Lothair was "Roman Emperor" officially and he was a Christian crowned by the Pope ("holy"). Srnec (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I thought this was a test case. If we agree on Emperor Lothair I, I will support a similar move (for those not conventionally known by nicknames, up to 962. (From my POV, it could easily go further, even down to the point when there are two Empires within the area of Western European names.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't object to Lothair I because it's plain, but because there is a consensus that we should pre-emptively disambiguate; this is a weak objection, a reminder that there is something to discuss. (And dabbing probably a good idea anyway; there must be another reigning Lothair out there somewhere.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'd prefer Lothair I. I would dislike Lothair I, Holy Roman Emperor. It's true but obscure that Otto I's style of Holy Roman Emperor is anachronistic, but in his case and others he rules the state universally called the "Holy Roman Empire". Lothair's state is not called that, so it's very confusing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • To PMA: the only other emperor who has this sort of naming problem is Louis II. We would not move Arnulf, Guy, Lambert, or Berengar, I don't believe. And we certainly shouldn't touch Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Charles the Bald, or Charles the Fat. I don't think "Emperor Lothair I" and "Emperor Louis II" in the midst of these other fellows is an improvement. Srnec (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree on Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Charles the Bald, and Charles the Fat; but Guy III of Spoleto? He is III, I presume, as lord of Spoleto; surely his article title should mention his claim to be Emperor; Charles VII does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The Spoletans and Berengar were at "X, Holy Roman Emperor" titles after unilateral moves by Michael Sanders until Deacon recently moved them back. I did not much care either way, though "Lambert, Holy Roman Emperor" sounds a little excessive (not to mention anachronistic) to me, though he was in fact very energetic and successful, with a sense of his imperial dignity: he was the last emperor to issue capitularies and continued his father's "programme" of renovatio regni Francorum. Do you propose "Emperor Guy", "Emperor Arnulf", "Emperor Lambert", and "Emperor Berengar" alongside "Emperor Lothair I" and "Emperor Louis II"? Notice that Louis II could justifiably be moved to "Louis II, Emperor of Italy", since that is the term used for him by his West Frankish contemporaries, his position in reality, and a convenient descriptor sometimes employed by historians. If that were done, then only Lothair I presents a real dilemma of nomenclature. Frankly, considering the difficulties all this presents, I can (ultimately) stomach any decision and so I would just prefer a consistent standard (if that is at all possible). Srnec (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is what I propose. If I am shouted down by consensus, oh well. If this much passes, I would be willing to consider Emperor Otto I; why not? It redirects to him now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Emperor X [ordinal]" is the form I almost invariably use in prose, but I hesitate to make it an article title. I don't want people asking themselves "emperor of what?" It would just appear very ambiguous and vague, as if there were no other emperors out there. Where could a discussion sufficient to achieve consensus one way or the other (not like Talk:Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden) be initiated? Talk:Holy Roman Emperor? Or some policy page? Srnec (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Was there one? Does Michael III count? Are Byzantium (and China) in the same universe of discourse? Maybe.
      • WT:NCNT. If that's not enough for you, try additional announcements (WP:RFC; Village pump (policy)). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved the article. Any wider changes to the Holy Roman imperial nomenclature can be pursued by those who find the current format less than satisfactory. Cheers. Srnec (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.