Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexiga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

old comment
David -- what's with the German ruler? The Saxon house were all Germans, kinda sorta -- and I think it could imply a Germany where there wasn't one...JHK

Deleted
Notes== ==

6/22/08: Deleted the ==Notes== section for the following reasons:

1. It wasn't a footnote. Neither was it the it was formatted as. It was, at best, an external link.

2. It linked to a page in Italian with no translation available: that's not appropriate for an English language wiki.

3. The linked page appears to be part of a brief overview of Italian history, generally sourced from 8 other histories of Italy. The content page cite had no paragraph or sentence numbers, nor does the external page cite any specific references, making the material unverifiable.

4. My Latin is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure "Anni dal 983 al 1002" translates pretty close to "Years from 983 to 1002"; and "Il Periodo di Ottone III" is something like "The Life of Otto III". Since the topic of the wiki article is "Otto II", who died in 983, I believe the Italian article is concerned with his son and (aside from it's other problems) would be more appropriate in Otto III's wikipage.

AnonTech (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and Titles
The titles are not capitalized accurately.

Lexiga (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Lexiga

Photo of tomb
It would be good to have a photo of his tomb for the article, if possible. Richard75 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

– Per WP:SOVEREIGN. "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. In the case of kings, queens regnant, emperors, and empresses regnant whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning, article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France; Joan II of Navarre." All of these titles are primary redirects. I do not support these changes as a matter of personal preference, but rather as a proper application of policy. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor → Otto II
 * Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor → Otto III
 * Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor → Conrad II
 * Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor → Lothair III
 * Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor → Otto IV
 * Conrad III of Germany → Conrad III
 * Conrad IV of Germany → Conrad IV
 * Note: WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject Austria, WikiProject Former countries/Holy Roman Empire task force, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Middle Ages, and WikiProject Germany have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Any reason you excluded Rudolf I, Rudolf II and Joseph II? Srnec (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I planned to do them in a seperate RM to avoid creating a WP:TRAINWRECK, but never got round to it. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. If the proper application of policy prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Shortening the titles adds no value, since it only makes them inconsistent with other emperors and kings of Germany. As it is, all emperors from Otto II on save one (Frederick Barbarossa) are at titles of the form "Name, Holy Roman Emperor". I am strongly opposed to the notion that we should look at these title in isolation and not as part of a series. WP:CONSISTENT says, strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. This has nothing to do with disambiguation and everthing to do with predictable, consistent titling. Srnec (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Lothair III is consistent with Lothair II and Lothair I. These overly long titles do not improve WP:RECOGNISABILITY as anyone who sees the shortened titles with a knowledge of these monarchs will know who they are. They do not improve WP:CONCISION or WP:NATURALNESS, since the average reader is unlikely to search for the full title "X, Holy Roman Emperor." We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical, not just for the sake of it, and not in lieu of everything else. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. There are TONS of other Conrads, Ottos, etc. e.g. Otto II (disambiguation) list is ENORMOUS.  So too with the others.  Definitely does NOT fulfill NCROY's conditions.  Walrasiad (talk)
 * Strong support for moving the Holy Roman Emperors as clear WP:PRIMARYTOPICS for which disambiguation is not needed per WP:NCROY. Weak support for Conrad III and Conrad IV who, while they are indeed primary redirects, are less clear cut as primary topics. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you argue they're primary topic and on what evidence? Walrasiad (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fact that the Ottos have been undisputed primary redirects for more than 20 years, and the Conrads for more than 9. They consistently get far more pageviews than other monarchs with the same name. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikinav doesn't seem to work on dab pages, but pageviews is a pretty good start. Unfortunately it can only compare up to 10 pages at a time, but it is still possible to work through all the pages listed, eliminating the least viewed so as to keep no more than 10. For example, for Otto III: |Otto_III,_Duke_of_Swabia|Otto_III,_Count_Palatine_of_Burgundy|Otto_III,_Margrave_of_Brandenburg|Otto_III,_Count_of_Weimar-Orlam%C3%BCnde|Otto_III,_Duke_of_Bavaria|Otto_III_of_Carinthia|Otto_III,_Prince_of_Anhalt-Bernburg|Otto_III,_Duke_of_Pomerania|Otto_III,_Count_of_Rietberg. Feel free to repeat the exercise for the others, though I'm confident the results will be comparable. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All you have discovered is that more people are interested in general German history than Bavarian history. Does that mean rulers of large countries don't need disambiguation, and only rulers from small countries do? So large countries are "more important" than small countries?  Is imperialism the criteria then? Walrasiad (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are clear: to be considered as a primary topic, a subject must be highly likely [...] to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term and have substantially greater long-term significance. It is true that the ruler of a historically prominent country is likely to have greater long-term significance than the ruler of a smaller territory, but that is not due to "imperialism" or other bias among Wikipedia editors, it is just the reality of history. Of course, if a hypothetical Otto III of Syldavia were to become demonstrably more significant and more commonly searched for than the Holy Roman Emperor of the same name, he would naturally become the primary topic and we would rename their respective articles accordingly! Rosbif73 (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Compared against a mere five other pages that start with "Otto II", the emperor gets less than half of |Otto_II,_Count_of_Nassau-Siegen|Otto_II,_Duke_of_Bavaria|Otto_II,_Margrave_of_Meissen|Otto_II,_Duke_of_Brunswick-L%C3%BCneburg|Otto_II,_Count_of_Habsburg page views. The German Wikipedia has even longer lists of numbered Ottos and Conrads: de:Liste der Herrscher namens Otto and de:Liste der Herrscher namens Konrad. —Srnec (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Argh. Edit conflict trap. @Rosbif73 You're confusing things.  No, Holy Roman Emperor Otto II does not have "more long-term significance" than, say, Otto II of Bavaria, who is just about as old. They both have proven long-term significance. As to what readers are searching for when they enter "Otto II", you have provided no evidence, just speculation. Those that are searching for Emperor Otto II find "Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor" with no problem.  That doesn't say anything about the shortened version. So your declaration meets neither criteria nor evidence.
 * As to large vs. small countries, no, it is not the "reality of history", that is just the POV prejudices of editors. For Bavarians, their Otto is very significant.  So your answer is tantamount to "Bavarians don't really matter". It is in this vein that Wikipedia editors decided that George III of Britain doesn't need to be disambiguated, that he was "more important" than George III of Georgia, because mighty Britain is "more important" than piddly Georgia. Yes, Georgia is smaller, Georgians are less numerous, Georgian history is not as much searched but that should not mean "Georgians don't really matter". Because this is what your "reality of history" kind of reasoning amounts to. This kind of POV is really not acceptable for an encyclopedia with a WP:GLOBAL audience..
 * Deciding which country is or is not important is not the kind of judgment calls we should be making. Indeed, one of the great benefits of retaining the country in the titles in NCROY was precisely that it puts all on an equal neutral NPOV level. We won't get drawn into the unsavory nationalist-imperialist games of deciding whether Germany is more important than Bavaria, whether Britain more important than Georgia, whether Russia more important than Ukraine. There is no upside to this.
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is for genuine article titling problems, when there happen to be more two Holy Roman Emperors Otto II. Happily, there is only one Emperor Otto II, he is already disambiguated "Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor".  Simple, straightforward, clear, beneficial to readers, and with no POV prejudices or implications. Walrasiad (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By making a particular subject the primary topic, Wikipedia is not making any kind of POV judgement about other topics with the same name, but merely acknowledging that its readers are far more likely to be searching for one than the others, and improving the reader experience by directing them towards that most likely topic. We have other mechanisms (hatnotes, dab pages and short descriptions) to make sure that readers interested in the other topics can still find them easily. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How does it help readers find it if you're making the article title less WP:RECOGNIZABLE?  It's worsening the reader's experience and making it more complicated.   I wouldn't know which "Otto III" this article is talking about, but "Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor" is instantly clear.  Walrasiad (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It says in the infobox and in the the first sentence that Otto III was Holy Roman Emperor. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Explaining a title in the body doesn't excuse us from having good titles that prioritize reader benefit. Plus there are various places — notably the search — where a reader will see only the title. Try this: type "Otto II" into the search box and see what it suggests, then tell us with a straight face that dropping the clarifiers would improve the reader's experience. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which interface you are using, but on desktop and in the mobile app I see the short descriptions (namely "Holy Roman Emperor from 973 to 983" for Otto II) beneath the suggestions. Dropping HRE from the article title isn't going to hinder that experience in any way. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good for you, but it's not what most readers see. Per WP:SHORTDESC, "short descriptions do not appear by default when viewing an article in desktop view", and the great majority of our readers read on desktop. As for the presence of shortdescs beneath the search suggestions, that seemingly varies by skin. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Confusing titles. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as they are clearly the primary topics, and WP:SOVEREIGN is clear on this point. IAR is meant for exceptions, not for rewriting rules (c.f. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). WP:CONSISTENT does not support using preemptive disambiguation. It explicitly says it does not apply to disambiguation: just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City (emphasis added; links deleted). House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 15:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Isn't the general idea to keep "Holy Roman Emperor" in the bios of Holy Roman Emperors? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Per . The domino effect of a semi-local (7 titles) proposed name changes, if successful, would create a super train wreck, especially since future "seperate" (sic) RM[s] has been admitted. There would have to exist an almost guarantee that consensus on all the articles would be an agreement to shorten the titles. If that were possible, and until such time, we would be disrupting current consistency among article titles. How could that be a benefit? I submit this is not the place to try to make such a sweeping change.
 * Other titles (possibly not complete):
 * Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Ferdinand IV, King of the Romans
 * Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Joseph I, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Charles VII, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor --  Otr500 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - Those titles (with the exception of Joseph II, and Rudolf I/II) are all ambigious and not the clear primary topic. WP:CONSISTENT specifically does not apply to disambiguation. I will not be opening any RMs for any of the other ones, apart from Rudolf I, Rudolf II, and Joseph II, because they do not meet the threshold for primary topics and need disambiguation per WP:SOVEREIGN.
 * "There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City." UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per all the above. WP:AT instructs us to favor titles that put the interests of our readers first, that fit within an encyclopedic register, and that best balance our title WP:CRITERIA. I see nothing to suggest that removing the "HRE" better achieves any of those goals, but certainly do see reason to think it would worsen the reader experience. For one thing, and as others have already noted, royal names like Otto and Conrad are common and unclear; even Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor from 962-973, was himself also Otto II, Duke of Saxony from 936-961, but was also succeeded by Otto II. Clear as mud? That including a clarifier aids readers may also be seen in the fact that other encyclopedias often see the need to do the same.. The only thing I see that clearly supports the change is the NCROY convention itself — or to be more precise, the recent contentious change to NCROY that's prompting so many royalty-related RMs. The results of those RMs have been scattershot, with many resulting in the clarifiers being retained despite the change to the convention. (Mary I of England, Maria I of Portugal, Edwards, Richards, Christians, Fredericks, etc.) The lack of consensus apparent in such results strongly suggests that we need to revisit NCROY before going any farther or making things even more jumbled. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 14:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Векочел (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not regard the move as an improvement. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Best we keep "Holy Roman Emperor" in the article titles of all the Holy Roman Emperors. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose as per the reasons given by others above. These 'dropping the titles and countries' move requests are getting out of control now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've requested closure for this at Closure_requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addendum on RM
I said in the discussion on this page that I would do a separate RM for Rudolf II and Joseph II. I did not clarify that I would only do that if there was consensus for this move, which there clearly is not. I will not be doing any such RM, as this RM, which was of a similar nature, was rejected by overwhelming consensus. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)