This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Lots and lots of detail, but this article REALLY needs a good introduction. Why was Frederick I so famous? He was Holy Roman Emperor and King of Italy and Germany and had a red beard. But what did he DO? Many paragraphs later I think there's something about uniting Germany and a Crusade, but I lost interest by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Should be changed to Charles I..., Charles II... & Charles III..., IMHO. But the chances of that occuring is impossible. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
So Charles the Bald should be Charles II, Holy Roman Emperor for the two years he spent as emperor rather than the 34 years he spent as king of France? You are taking this current crusade you have going (which is the opposite of what you were saying only a couple of months ago) to ridiculous extremes. Shouldn't you be analyzing any given individual move based on the actual situation, rather than an ideal world that you yourself acknowledge isn't ever going to come to pass? john k (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The closing adminstrator shall decide on the merits of my argument. Also, if a consensus is reached to 'move' this article, then argument becomes moot. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The closing administrator shall decide the merits of my argument. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Barbarossa is just a nickname applied because he had a red beard, it is not his overwhelmingly used common name. The case is therefore similar to Richard the Lionheart and John Lackland and should not be the article title. — Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how your first clause relates to the second one. Whether or not Barbarossa is a nickname applies because he had a red beard, it is certainly considerably more commonly used for him than "John Lackland" is for King John. And Richard is problematic because there's no single form of "Lionheart" that is dominant - there's "The Lionheart", "The Lion-hearted", "Coeur de Lion," and so forth. I don't see, though, how this isn't an overwhelming form - virtually all references use Barbarossa; I'd say it's more common than even William the Conqueror, who is referred to as "William I" or by some other name (William the Bastard, William of Normandy) more frequently than you see "Frederick I" or any other name for Barbarossa. john k (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Support for now. The question of WP:NCROY is would it be surprising to see him called something else? For Barbarossa, I think the answer is yes; and John Kenny seems to have checked the reliable sources. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - In this case his full title and ordinal should be used. Frederick Barbarossa does not in any way indicate that the article is about the Holy Roman Emperor. Barbarossa was really just a nickname, not his common name such as Robert the Bruce or Mary, Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really grasp this argument. Why should the article title indicate that the article is about the Holy Roman Emperor in any way besides giving the name by which that emperor is commonly known? The title Barack Obama only indicates that it is about the president of the United States if you know who he is. Frederick Barbarossa would be the same. Harun al-Rashid and Akihito are already the same. The reason for including titles or geographic designators in articles on European monarchs is for disambiguation, not to identify the person to somebody who's never heard of them. john k (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose His "red beard" is hardly the most memorable feature of Frederick. His tirles should be more prominently featured. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment- Exactly. Barbarossa was his nickname, not Common name, and Frederick wasn't even part of the nickname.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Who said that common name had anything to do with memorable features? Is Charles the Bold's boldness his most memorable feature? What does that even mean? john k (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Charles the Bold is a Common name same as Robert the Bruce or Catherine the Great.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
So is Frederick Barbarossa. john k (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. Whether "Barbarossa" is a nickname or not is irrelevant. I never saw him referred to as anything other than Frederick Barbarossa while studying him at university. It's clearly his common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. It appears that none of the oppose arguments are based on anything but personal preferences and imaginary distinctions. "Barbarossa" is clearly quite commonly used for this Emperor; we should follow suit. In Google Books, for example, '"Frederick Barbarossa"' (with the quotation marks used in the query) occurs more often (71,000 to 46,000 in my search) than 'Frederick "Holy Roman Emperor"', even though the latter term also refers to the other Fredericks who were Holy Roman Emperror. Ucucha 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
That's surprising, considering the fame of Frederick II! Srnec (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Question. Will the nominator be proposing moves for Otto the Great or Lothair of Supplinburg also? There is perfect consistency of naming from Otto I to Francis II that I don't want to break just for old Redbeard. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd support a move for Otto the Great. I'm not sure about Lothair - I'd certainly think about it, but then I'd add Adolf of Nassau to the mix. I'd also consider the possibility that Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor should be moved to Francis I of Austria. He was Emperor of Austria for over twice as long as he was Holy Roman Emperor. john k (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought about Francis, but I decided that he is more well-known as the last Holy Roman Emperor than as the first Austrian Emperor. I could be wrong. The issue with Lothair is that he could be numbered Lothair II (and sometimes is), kind of like Frederick III of Sicily, who may also be numbered Frederick II. Adolf is not a big deal to me because the kings of Germany are all over the map. For example, we have Wenceslaus, King of the Romans right beside Rupert, King of Germany. The numbered, non-imperial German kings are somewhat consistent but there are a lot of exceptions, like Henry Berengar, Frederick the Fair and Henry II of Sicily, which I'm pretty sure is a Wiki-invention for a name. Srnec (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Nicknames were attached to many early medieval rulers because the chroniclers needed some way to identify a particular ruler who only had a single given name in most cases. So in the case of the Frankish Charles', you had the Great, the Bold, the Fat, the Simple and so on. Modern conventions have it that you identify a particular ruler by simply numbering them, and the fact is that the title of "Roman Emperor" was the most prestigious and in medieval political theory at least, the most important ruler in Christendom. That being said, I would not be opposed to a renaming of Frederick to become “Frederick I Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor” Oatley2112 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support. My Google Books searches also confirm that "Frederick Barbarossa" is the common name of the subject. And I'm with john k - I don't understand how "Frederick Barbarossa" is qualitatively different than "Catherine the Great" or "Charles the Bald" - they all seem to be cognomens and common names for these rulers. Dohn joe (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oatley2112's suggestion is a good one as it includes the nickname without losing the all-important title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per WP:COGNOMEN: 2. Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. For Holy emperors, this is clearly the case for Frederick Barbarossa, just as much as Henry the Lion and Henry the Fowler. walkvictor falktalk 10:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, this is the common name which would tell readers who the article is about and what he is most usually called in sources.--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - per GoodDay. There is no reason to change the title as this naming convention is very common and should reflect consistency across the project. As far as one name being more common than the other, is this really a topic that is so well known that most people reading the article will care?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Frederick Barbarossa does not indicate that it's the Holy Roman Emperor that is the subject. What's next on the menu Richard III of England being moved to "Richard the Hunchback" or Charles II "the Merry Monarch"?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Neither does Germany indicate that it is the country that is the subject. Your point? (Besides, unlike your examples, "Barbarossa" is very commonly used for this emperor.) Ucucha 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
My point is that his title needs to be part of the article's name or is the fact that he was an emperor of the Holy Roman Emire being disputed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I should point out that Italian Wikipedia's article on him is entitled: Federico I sacro Impero Romana and in the opening sentence is has detto Barbarossa-hence his nickname.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does the title need to say that he is Holy Roman Emperor? Does our article on Germany need to say in the title that Germany is a country, or that it is a Federal Republic? Does our article on Charlemagne need to be renamed to say that he was emperor? Ucucha 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay has already explained that quite succintly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
He asserted it; that is something different from explaining. Ucucha 18:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
When he said we have Frederick II Holy Roman Emperor and Frederick III. Holy Roman Emperor. Honestly, Frederick Barbarossa could be an actor, singer, writer, wrestler, anything. The current title explains exactly who he was.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
But the purpose of a title is only to identify the subject, not to describe it. And "Frederick Barbarossa" is the title that is most likely to identify him, because that is the name by which most people know him. If you don't know who he was, then the first sentence of the article tells you right off. Dohn joe (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Barack Obama or David Cameron could be an actor, singer, writer, or wrestler, too. Titles are supposed to identify subjects to people who have heard of the subject, not to people who haven't. john k (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
The article says Frederick suffered from the effects of the unhealthy Italian summer. What's that about? Sca (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not the Italian summers per se, wich are unhealthy, but the effects of the warm weather. During the summer the swamps and rivers in the lowlands were a breeding area for insects that spread diseases like malaria. Whole armies died by the epidemics caused by this circumstances. Therefore the emperors stopped or paused their campaigns in Italy during summertime and retreated to more mountainous areas. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The article currently relates the treaty to the famous events at Canossa in 1077. I proposed deleting this sentence as it is misleading in the extreme. Please comment if this change bothers you.Ph8l (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)ph8l