Talk:Lothair II

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lothair II article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Waldrada link

The link to Lothair's consort, Waldrada, takes the reader to a Waldrada who lived in the 6th century. Since Lothair II lived in the 9th century, I have to assume that this is not the same Waldrada. The link should be removed.

Chickadeebro (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As things now stand, Waldrada (concubine of Lothair II) redirects to this page. I see that the lack of a page for the woman herself has attracted some attention from a historian of the period, and there's clearly a good case for her having her own entry: http://turbulentpriests.group.shef.ac.uk/the-erased-history-of-queen-waldrada/. Alarichall (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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 moved. Convincing case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that the disambiguation was both unnecessary and awkward enough to warrant an exception from WP:NCROY. -- Hadal (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lothair II of Lotharingia → Lothair II — So long as it redirects here, there is no point in the awkward disambiguation. Srnec (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose See WP:NCROY. There are several examples where a monarch is the primary meaning of the name + number combination, which redirects there, but we have retained the disambiguator, e.g. George IV of the United Kingdom, James IV of Scotland, George VII of Georgia. PatGallacher (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. A google books search shows that his common name is simply Lothair II and moving it there would also be in accordance with WP:PRECISION. Both of those links are to the article titles policy, yet that is completely at odds with the subject-specific guideline and consistency is also recommended at the article titles policy (as well as following the guidelines). With the policy in direct contradiction of itself, it would seem that common sense is the way to go. Personally, my common sense is telling me to support the move, as there is no need to have the extra "of Lotharingia" at the end, but I'm still not 100% sure. I'll reflect on this for a bit and make a decision later. Jenks24 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Srnec makes a sound case that "of Lotharingia" is undesirable here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lotharingia was simply Lothair's share of the Frankish Empire. There were no other rulers of Lotharingia. So it is not necessary treat it as a country under WP:NCROY. The matching names create redundancy; It's like having a title at "Henry of Henryland". Kauffner (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are more than one Lothair II.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lothair II redirects here, so the question of primary topic is already decided. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment I feel I should point out that the whole issue of pre-emptive disambiguation of monarchs has been chewed over at considerable length, but the consensus seems to be that we should keep it in the absence of some good reason to the contrary. See some discussions on the talk page at WP:NCROY. Some of us are well aware that this policy may conflict with the policy of using the common name. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I called the current title awkward because (a) no other king is disambiguated by "of Lotharingia" because none need to be, (b) plenty of Lothair's contemporaries and relatives are not preemptively disambiguated and (c) the term Lotharingia comes from this guy's name, thus making the title read like "Lothair II of his very own kingdom". Srnec (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one Lothair II though, Lothair II (disambiguation). 65.94.44.141 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that, but this is the primary topic, as the existing redirect shows. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lothair => Lothar?

In English-language history writing, Lothar II (and Lothar I) are almost always spelled thus, without the inserted 'i' in Lothair. This spelling is I think a hangover from the original Encyclopedia Britannica entry. Would it be feasible to change the article title? Charleslincolnshire (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]