Talk:Free imperial city

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Should it not be "Free Imperial City"? -- 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


  • There is no reason to capitalize the "I" in the word "imperial" "C" in the word "city" in this article. It is not a name of a particular city (like Mexico City) and the adjective "imperial" is not and integral part of a name for something (like Imperial Palace Hotel and Casino), but both are merely constituents of a term for a type of city. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether to use capitalization or not is indeed problematic. In his English-language book (Society and Politics in Germany, 1500-1750), the German G. Benecke does not capitalize at all ("attempt to become an imperial free town"; "an imperial town") and don't even use the word city anywhere ("great towns like Nuremberg"), but he very seldom refers to that type of city anyway.
Recent English-language historians of the HRE who have dedicated sections/chapters on Free Imperial Cities tend to capitalize everything (Gagliardo: "the Imperial City of Weztlar"; "former Imperial Cities"); Whaley ("The Free and Imperial Cities" "the survival as independent entities of Imperial Cities, Imperial Counts, and Imperial Knights is to a large extend...;"The Imperial Cites, roughly fify of which remained after 1648"). But in a fairly recent article dedicated to those cities,C. Scott Dixon does not capitalize ("the imperial city of Nuremberg"; "the imperial cities").
I noticed that the word "Free" is often added at the beginning or used in the title of a chapter, but after that it disappears ("the Imperial Cities"). Maybe we could do the same. --Lubiesque (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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 move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Move According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), the title of this article should not be capitalized. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a proper name (and Imperial is a proper adjective within it, since it relates specifically to the Holy Roman Empire). Oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per the naming conventions, common nouns shouldn't be capitalized, and this is not referring to one free imperial city, but the concept in general. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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.

What does "regaining its immediacy mean"[edit]

The article indicates that one city, after loosing its rights "was able to regain its immediacy." Should this be immediately, eventually, or is immediacy a technical term? Stifynsemons (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I would posit this use of "immediate" means "umediated", i.e., directly ruled by the emperor, which is a rather arcane (but correct, I think) meaning of "immediate". But I don't know. mkehrt (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
My hometown Rostock was a `Mediat-Stadt´ (mediat city), which means that it had to appeal to the Duke of Mecklenburg first before it could go further and appeal to the `Reichsversammlung´ (Estates of the Holy roman empire of the german nation) and later to the emperor himself. But it was not ruled by anyone but the city-council. Free imperial cities - like Lübeck - were souvereigns by themselves and could reject any propositions, threats and orders (or whatsoever) from outsiders. Only the `Reichstag´ could state their unlawfullness in certain affairs and force a `Reichsschluss´ (conclusive act of the estates) to urge them.

Before You ask: I am a historian.-- (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)