Talk:Charles I of Austria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the {Template:Type. 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 debate was no consensus, leaning on don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 14:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Karl I of Austria → Charles I of Austria - Rationale: The late Emperor Charles of Austria is one of several monarchs who is commonly referred to by an Anglicised name. Typing "Charles I of Austria" - wikipedia into Google yields more results than "Karl I of Austria" - wikipedia. In the effort for and for the sake of consistency, I feel that this page ought to be moved to the Anglicised form of his name as all other Austrian sovereigns are treated, with the exception of Francis Joseph, whom I shall bring up for a requested move. Charles 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Support I feel that this move with bring the title into consistency with the greater number of rulers of the Austrian and Holy Roman Empires. Charles 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose See my reasoning on the same question at Franz Joseph I of Austria. john k 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Neutral (see below) john k 19:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)- Oppose same reasoning as John. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - The argument put forth sounds reasonable, but doesn't address how the proposal complies with the relevant Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Lethiere 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Shilkanni 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose "Emperor Karl" may be slightly more common. Septentrionalis 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Please see my above comments in the survery and request for move. Thanks. Charles 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Responding to the comments of John and Jtdirl above - Franz Joseph seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. There is a much stronger case for the use of Charles in English, from the beatification website to the number of Google hits to the use of Charles in the article for the Hungarian and Bohemian titles (rather than Karol/Carol/Karoly/etc). Charles 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- We should perhaps resort to looking and seeing what standard textbooks use. I'm open to being convinced to change my mind on this one. john k 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I can't easily access a library, however Google Scholar seems to favour Charles over Karl. 18 for Charles of Austria vs 4 for Karl of Austria. Charles I of Austria yields 6 vs 5 for Karl I of Austria. The latter pair is close, but convincing enough to follow English usage in my opinion. Does anyone know where else to look? Charles 02:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I utilized the book search as well: 34 for Charles I of Austria vs 3 for Karl I of Austria and 45 for Emperor Charles of Austria vs 24 for Emperor Karl of Austria. Charles 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of the Google Scholar results are from articles more than 50 years old. At that time, Charles was definitely in more common usage. I don't think that's conclusive. In terms of textbooks, John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, Volume Two: From the French Revolution to the Present, refers to him as Charles. So does Felix Gilbert and David Clay Large's The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present (5th Edition) Norman Davies's Europe: A History also uses Charles. All are fairly recent. Unfortunately, that's about all I have at hand that is relevant. I'd still like to look at more books, particularly textbooks on Austria specifically but as such, I'm going to withdraw from opposing the move. john k 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I utilized the book search as well: 34 for Charles I of Austria vs 3 for Karl I of Austria and 45 for Emperor Charles of Austria vs 24 for Emperor Karl of Austria. Charles 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Charles was also monarch of Hungary, where his name was officially Karoly. And king in other titular kingdoms, too, and of many nations. As I believe the English wikipedia should not be German-centric, I support the neutral name, that is in english. Shilkanni 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- He is certainly never called Karoly in English. And he is certainly sometimes called Karl in English. Whether he's called Karl or Charles his a matter for debate, but his status in Hungary is completely irrelevant. john k 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- You mised the point completely. I try in other words: since he was not Karl in his other kingdoms such as Hungary, since all those other nsations used a translation of the name, therefore his name is best to translate into English here. Shilkanni 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- But this is not how we decide these matters. Septentrionalis 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the fractured use is unacceptable though. Calling him King Karl of Hungary and Bohemia would be a bit sketchy, but calling him Charles in reference to those kingdoms is okay with Karl in use for Austria? Charles 02:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- At the moment, we call him King Karoly of Hungary at the beginning, but just call him Karl thereafter. His role as King of Bohemia was not independent, so there's no more need to mention his Czech name than his Polish, Serbo-Croat, Italian, Slovak, Slovene, or Romanian name. john k 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- For the sake of "unity" of these different names though, shouldn't the umbrella name Charles, which is arguably common, be applied to this emperor? Charles 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- As I said above, I'm pretty neutral about a move, but I don't think this is a good argument. We should use the name most commonly used. If that name is Charles (which it may well be), then the article should be moved. If the most common name is Karl, then it should stay where it is, whether or not this detracts from "Habsburg unity" or whatever. But I'm leaning towards moving to Charles just on the basis of common-ness - as far as I can tell, he is called by the English version considerably more frequently than Franz Joseph. john k 06:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- For the sake of "unity" of these different names though, shouldn't the umbrella name Charles, which is arguably common, be applied to this emperor? Charles 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- At the moment, we call him King Karoly of Hungary at the beginning, but just call him Karl thereafter. His role as King of Bohemia was not independent, so there's no more need to mention his Czech name than his Polish, Serbo-Croat, Italian, Slovak, Slovene, or Romanian name. john k 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the fractured use is unacceptable though. Calling him King Karl of Hungary and Bohemia would be a bit sketchy, but calling him Charles in reference to those kingdoms is okay with Karl in use for Austria? Charles 02:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- But this is not how we decide these matters. Septentrionalis 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- You mised the point completely. I try in other words: since he was not Karl in his other kingdoms such as Hungary, since all those other nsations used a translation of the name, therefore his name is best to translate into English here. Shilkanni 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
[edit] Talk Material up to April 17, 2006
I removed following section: and the last king of The Czech Kingdom. His titles claimed of course that he was king of Bohemia, king of Croatia, duke of Carinthia asf, but he reigned in Cisleithania (which included Bohemia and Carinthia) in his right as emperor of Austria and in Transleithania (which included Croatia) in his right as king of Hungary. Either we add all of his titles or we just restrict ourselves in stating that he was the last emperor of Austria and last king of Hungary (since those were the constitutionally "important" ones). Gugganij 16:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Addition to the infobox about his being Provisional President of Hungary
At the bottom of the Mihály Károlyi infobox, it reads that Károlyi was preceded by Karl I of Austria as "Provisional President of Hungary". This thread completely gets lost in this article. Could somebody please add this infobox (completed) to the article?
Preceded by ? |
Provisional President of Hungary ?–1918 ? |
Succeeded by Mihály Károlyi |
Thanks, Adam78 00:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He was not provisional president of Hungary. Karl preceded Karolyi as Hungarian Head of State. Perhaps the succession box on Karolyi's page could be better laid out? john k 00:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you – I could have guessed it. ;-) I was doing this job a bit too automatically... Anyway, I've corrected Mihály Károlyi's infobox. Adam78 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
does anyone know why he died so young? and of what the cause of death was?
[edit] Title Naming
Shouldn't the article's title be "Charles I of Austria", following the convention to anglisize the names? Karl is his german name, the translation of Charles into german. Alex 12.220.157.93 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that this should be at Charles I of Austria. Charles 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about this. How would you explain Wilhelm I of Germany and Ludwig II of Bavaria in that case? Gryffindor 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Usage, for Ludwig. Wilhelm should be moved. Septentrionalis 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about this. How would you explain Wilhelm I of Germany and Ludwig II of Bavaria in that case? Gryffindor 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
In any books, incl. schoolbooks, in which I've read about Billy (1 & 2) of Germany, it's always referred to them with the name "William". -Alex, 12.203.169.186 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
[edit] King of Bohemia
The article says "He reigned as Emperor Charles I of Austria, King Charles III of Bohemia and King Charles IV of Hungary from 1916 until 1918". Karl was certainly titular King of Bohemia but he did not reign as such as Bohemia was included in Austria. I'll remove the reference.Gerard von Hebel 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- 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.--Húsönd 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Karl I of Austria → Charles I of Austria — The last Emperor of Austria is commonly referred to by the name "Charles". Not only is this name more prevalent online, it is used by the website for his beatification. The last discussed move request seemingly failed because a misunderstanding in the vote (it was not requested because of WP:UE) and one vote in agreement to another which was later withdrawn. Regardless, the use of Charles is prevalent and has the added effect of bringing the names of the emperors into their anglicized forms. Charles 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
[edit] Survey - in support of the move
- Support As nominator. Charles 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support as best known in English. Gene Nygaard 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
[edit] Ancestry Section
Since Charles can either be refered to as Charles of Austria or Charles I of Austria, his grandfather and great-grandfather ought to be refered to the same way.
Since titles are generally not are used, for consistancy's sake, use titles for all entries in the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect, when the ancestry charts were first being implemented, they were being linked as the article titles did or should appear, according to WP:NC(NT) and also to avoid redirects. They are going to be changed back to that form for the sake of consistency with article titles and with WP:NC(NT), which is a standard for article titles. Wikipedia is not consistent for all royals and WP:NC(NT) only gives consistency for groups of royals, such as monarchs, consorts and other royals. Charles 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Summary of my edits on March 27, 2008
Summary - I have removed the many un-needed & "space-waisting" info boxes, which are rather silly. I removed the section on the Emperor's issue, which is listed twice in the article. Should one need to see if his issue has issue of their own, one can access that partiocular subject's respective article.
In an affort to improve lay out, I put all images into a gallery - these images really didn't look right where they were placed.
I have always felt that one of the resons that wikipedia gets an occasional bad reputation is due to the complete disregard for layout. Many articles look horrible.
--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Crown Prince
Since Charles was heir presumptive did he ever hold the title of Crown Prince-Croix 129
- No, that title was reserved for the eldest son of the Emperor. It had been vacant ever since the death of Crown Prince Rudolf in 1889 -Lec CRP1 (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why is Empress Zita called crown pincess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.27.64 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)