This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Otto II. (HRR) from de.wikipedia. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexiga.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
David -- what's with the German ruler? The Saxon house were all Germans, kinda sorta -- and I think it could imply a Germany where there wasn't one... JHK
6/22/08: Deleted the ==Notes== section for the following reasons:
1. It wasn't a footnote. Neither was it the
it was formatted as. It was, at best, an external link.
2. It linked to a page in Italian with no translation available: that's not appropriate for an English language wiki.
3. The linked page appears to be part of a brief overview of Italian history, generally sourced from 8 other histories of Italy. The content page cite had no paragraph or sentence numbers, nor does the external page cite any specific references, making the material unverifiable.
4. My Latin is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure "Anni dal 983 al 1002" translates pretty close to "Years from 983 to 1002"; and "Il Periodo di Ottone III" is something like "The Life of Otto III". Since the topic of the wiki article is "Otto II", who died in 983, I believe the Italian article is concerned with his son and (aside from it's other problems) would be more appropriate in Otto III's wikipage.
AnonTech ( talk) 07:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The titles are not capitalized accurately.
Lexiga (
talk) 06:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Lexiga
It would be good to have a photo of his tomb for the article, if possible. Richard75 ( talk) 15:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
– Per WP:SOVEREIGN. "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. In the case of kings, queens regnant, emperors, and empresses regnant whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning, article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France; Joan II of Navarre." All of these titles are primary redirects. I do not support these changes as a matter of personal preference, but rather as a proper application of policy. UmbrellaTheLeef ( talk) 22:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
highly likely [...] to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that termand have substantially greater
long-term significance. It is true that the ruler of a historically prominent country is likely to have greater long-term significance than the ruler of a smaller territory, but that is not due to "imperialism" or other bias among Wikipedia editors, it is just the reality of history. Of course, if a hypothetical Otto III of Syldavia were to become demonstrably more significant and more commonly searched for than the Holy Roman Emperor of the same name, he would naturally become the primary topic and we would rename their respective articles accordingly! Rosbif73 ( talk) 13:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
"short descriptions do not appear by default when viewing an article in desktop view", and the great majority of our readers read on desktop. [2] As for the presence of shortdescs beneath the search suggestions, that seemingly varies by skin. ╠╣uw [ talk 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City(emphasis added; links deleted). House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 15:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The only thing I see that clearly supports the change is the NCROY convention itself — or to be more precise, the recent contentious change to NCROY that's prompting so many royalty-related RMs. The results of those RMs have been scattershot, with many resulting in the clarifiers being retained despite the change to the convention. ( Mary I of England, Maria I of Portugal, Edwards, Richards, Christians, Fredericks, etc.) The lack of consensus apparent in such results strongly suggests that we need to revisit NCROY before going any farther or making things even more jumbled. ╠╣uw [ talk 14:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I said in the discussion on this page that I would do a separate RM for Rudolf II and Joseph II. I did not clarify that I would only do that if there was consensus for this move, which there clearly is not. I will not be doing any such RM, as this RM, which was of a similar nature, was rejected by overwhelming consensus. UmbrellaTheLeef ( talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Otto II. (HRR) from de.wikipedia. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexiga.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
David -- what's with the German ruler? The Saxon house were all Germans, kinda sorta -- and I think it could imply a Germany where there wasn't one... JHK
6/22/08: Deleted the ==Notes== section for the following reasons:
1. It wasn't a footnote. Neither was it the
it was formatted as. It was, at best, an external link.
2. It linked to a page in Italian with no translation available: that's not appropriate for an English language wiki.
3. The linked page appears to be part of a brief overview of Italian history, generally sourced from 8 other histories of Italy. The content page cite had no paragraph or sentence numbers, nor does the external page cite any specific references, making the material unverifiable.
4. My Latin is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure "Anni dal 983 al 1002" translates pretty close to "Years from 983 to 1002"; and "Il Periodo di Ottone III" is something like "The Life of Otto III". Since the topic of the wiki article is "Otto II", who died in 983, I believe the Italian article is concerned with his son and (aside from it's other problems) would be more appropriate in Otto III's wikipage.
AnonTech ( talk) 07:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The titles are not capitalized accurately.
Lexiga (
talk) 06:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Lexiga
It would be good to have a photo of his tomb for the article, if possible. Richard75 ( talk) 15:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
– Per WP:SOVEREIGN. "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. In the case of kings, queens regnant, emperors, and empresses regnant whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning, article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France; Joan II of Navarre." All of these titles are primary redirects. I do not support these changes as a matter of personal preference, but rather as a proper application of policy. UmbrellaTheLeef ( talk) 22:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
highly likely [...] to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that termand have substantially greater
long-term significance. It is true that the ruler of a historically prominent country is likely to have greater long-term significance than the ruler of a smaller territory, but that is not due to "imperialism" or other bias among Wikipedia editors, it is just the reality of history. Of course, if a hypothetical Otto III of Syldavia were to become demonstrably more significant and more commonly searched for than the Holy Roman Emperor of the same name, he would naturally become the primary topic and we would rename their respective articles accordingly! Rosbif73 ( talk) 13:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
"short descriptions do not appear by default when viewing an article in desktop view", and the great majority of our readers read on desktop. [2] As for the presence of shortdescs beneath the search suggestions, that seemingly varies by skin. ╠╣uw [ talk 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City(emphasis added; links deleted). House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 15:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The only thing I see that clearly supports the change is the NCROY convention itself — or to be more precise, the recent contentious change to NCROY that's prompting so many royalty-related RMs. The results of those RMs have been scattershot, with many resulting in the clarifiers being retained despite the change to the convention. ( Mary I of England, Maria I of Portugal, Edwards, Richards, Christians, Fredericks, etc.) The lack of consensus apparent in such results strongly suggests that we need to revisit NCROY before going any farther or making things even more jumbled. ╠╣uw [ talk 14:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I said in the discussion on this page that I would do a separate RM for Rudolf II and Joseph II. I did not clarify that I would only do that if there was consensus for this move, which there clearly is not. I will not be doing any such RM, as this RM, which was of a similar nature, was rejected by overwhelming consensus. UmbrellaTheLeef ( talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)