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.
What was wrong with the image layout as before (left aligned)? Personally, I preferred it that way and it seems such a insignificant edit to make for no other reason than taste. Srnec 18:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Casimir 1 of Poland was surely "King" and not "Duke"?
Why does someone keep changing that date at which he ceased to be King of Germany? All of his other royal and imperial titles say he was ruler until 1056. It was my understanding that a Holy Roman Emperor was also King of Germany until he died/abdicated. Just because his son was elected as king under Henry III doesn't mean that Henry III was no longer King of Germany. Emperor001 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe it does. Henry IV was crowned king. Henry III remained emperor while his son was king in Germany. This situation happened with Henry III and his father, Conrad II, in the 1030s, leading to some headaches for Conrad (see article). Srnec (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree to Emperor001. He was king and stayed it. His authority/power as king and emperor was the same. Otto II was crowned emperor when Otto I was still in charge.--MacX85 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is this the English form of the name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Given (first) names are typically anglicised in pre-modern contexts. Other languages follow this same general practice: this is Enrique III in Spanish, Enrico III in Italian, and Imre III in Hungarian. Besides Heinrich is modern German and is almost as far from his actual name in his own language (or contemporary Latin) as English. Srnec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why we "must Anglicize it". Isn't a name a name? I mean, I've traveled to many countries, and didn't change my name depending on the language of the locals. My name was always my name.Presidentbalut (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that articles should be named based on how the subject is generally referred to in reliable English-language sources. That would be Henry in this case. Indrian (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Why would "Henry" be how this person is "generally referred to"? We commonly refer to Konig Heinrich as such. Additionally, we generally call former US President George W. Bush "Dubya", but under wikilaw, should his article be changed to that? Sounds retarded to me. Presidentbalut (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to persuade us to start calling him Konig Heinrich? And to do so on the basis that that was "his name"? Even the word "König" did not exist as such during his lifetime. Please move on. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, if anything he would be Heinricus given that names back than were written down in Latin. A name in pre-modern times changed depending on where you were and with nobility it's still the case today.--MacX85 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The infobox is of no help to the reader. It needlessly repeats the dates that appear in the very first line of the article at the bottom of the box; it confusingly separates his "reign" and "coronation" as King of the Romans from his "predecessor" and "successor" as Emperor and King of Italy, without even mentioning his rule of Burgundy; it gets the date and place of his coronation as King of the Germans wrong (it should be 1028 in Aachen); it prioritises his "consort", "issue", "house", "father" and "mother" over anything he did while king or emperor, clearly establishing the concern of its creator as primarily genealogical. Henry's genealogy is important, but why is it more important that legislation he promulgated, popes he instituted or wars he fought? Srnec (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)