Template talk:Holy Roman Emperors

Overlapping templates
There are currently 3 different templates that overlap one another: This should be corrected and the redundant template(s) deleted. - 52 Pickup   (deal)  15:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy Roman Emperors
 * German Empire 1871-1918
 * German monarchs

I believe that Holy Roman Emperors and German monarchs should both be kept because while they are similar they have technicalities which make them different. However German Empire 1871-1918 should be scrapped it has no point. I propose a vote on whether or not to delete template German Empire 1871-1918 Would those whishing to vote please put either agree or oppose on the point of deleting the above template. Please only vote once and every new vote should be placed at bottom of list. (If you change your minf about whether to agree or oppose please remove your agree or oppose sign however keep your point on the page to help make the debate make sense) {Electrobe (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)}


 * Agree starter of discusion reason explained above. {Electrobe (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)}
 * Oppose I believe that the 1871-1918 template should be changed to one that lists the Hohenzollern rulers of Prussia, which of course includes the 3 Emperors (eg. nl:Sjabloon:Heersers Pruisen). The HRE template is fine, but I believe that the German monarchs template is the one that should be deleted since it lists only the Holy Roman Emperors and the 3 Hohenzollern emperors. These are not the only German monarchs (there's also Kings of Bavaria, Saxony, etc. etc.). Also, listing all HR Emperors as "German" is IMO a little problematic. Therefore I think it is better to drop this template in favour of the other two. While the German monarchs template is not bad per se, the other two templates (once the 1871-1918 one is expanded and renamed) present the same information in a much stronger way. 52 Pickup   (deal)  22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the names for the German Monarchs and Holy Roman Emperors are in may cases different so those comments are false. Electrobe (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the German monarch template can be redone to present its information in a clear way (at the moment it is too cluttered) and properly demonstrate that it is significantly different from already-existing templates, then it would be worth keeping.
 * (forgot to sign before, but continuing) I see you've created Rulers of Prussia as recommended above. So now I would support the deletion of German Empire 1871-1918. But I am still not convinced of the separate need for German monarchs - that template must be cleaned up for it to be readable enough to worth keeping - 52 Pickup   (deal)  18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about we rename the German Monarchs Template, Monarchs of the German Kingdom? Electrobe (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But then you still need to make very clear that the old German Kingdom is not the same as the Hohenzollern-ruled German Empire if the Hohenzollern rulers are to be included. 52 Pickup   (deal)  07:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hohenzollern rulers are different frm the Monarchs of the Kingdom of Germany. Electrobe (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And so far, the German Monarchs template fails to make that distinction. Instead, it suggests to the uninformed reader that there was an uninterrupted line of succession from Louis II to William II, which is completely false. 52 Pickup   (deal)  15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have to say I'm unhappy covering both the Holy Roman Emperors and the Carolingian and Italian emperors in a template named "Holy Roman Emperors". Now I understand they used similar/same titles in the period closest to each other, but the Holy Roman Empire refers to a particular state which was not the state the latter ruled. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is another problem. Maybe we need to start afresh. 52 Pickup   (deal)  08:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The state doesn't matter. The dignity held by Otto I was not thought to be different in kind from that possessed by Charlemagne.  The imperial dignity something distinct from the mere rule of a state; it was usually (from 961 on) conferred upon a King of Germany, but that was not in principle a requirement, and it had been held by mere Italian princes.  Throughout the period 800-1493, it was an honor conferred by the Pope (or a substitute for him), that carried the highest prestige, but had no intrinsic political power depending on it.
 * From 1508-1806, however, it was merely an adjunct of the German kingship (and the idea of the latter came to be subsumed under the notion of Empire). Hence a good deal of confusion.  Hence also my effort to distinguish, in the template, the elective imperial dignity from the dignity conferred by the Pope.  Note that Charles V appears in both lists.  This is not an error.  He was "elected Emperor" from 1519 to 1530, and crowned Emperor 1530-1558.RandomCritic (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would propose to change the name of the template to "Emperors of the West".--RR (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Add to Category:Germany royalty and nobility navigational boxes?
I wonder if this should this be added to Category:Germany royalty and nobility navigational boxes given the Holy Roman Emperor was seen as the ruler of the Germans and the Empire included much of what would become Germany? Dunarc (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that this has now been done and think it makes sense. Dunarc (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)