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 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
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.
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
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
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
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