Talk:Frederick the Fair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

If Elisabeth the wife of Frederick I Habsburg of Austria, was the daughter of James I of Aragon, why does she not appear in the list of children when you click the hyperlink for her suposed father James I of Aragon?

I believe this link is incorrect for a couple of reason;

1. I believe Elisabeth is the daughter of James II of Majorca, the son of James I of Aragon. 2. The Time frame does not fit for Elisabeth to be the daughter of James I of Aragon, seeing how Elisabeth and Fredrick I Habsburg of Austria were born 1286 to 1291. 3. James I of Aragon would have had to been somewhere around 80+ years old when Elisabeth was born? >R.M.

  • You are probably right. I just copied that information from the German Wikipedia when I created the article. I have now found some websites saying that Elisbeth's original name was Isabella, and she was the daughter of Jakob (Jaime) II, King of Sicily and Aragon, Count of Barcelona. Presumably that is James II of Majorca. Martg76 09:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frederick I => Frederick III?[edit]

I've changed some references to this guy from Frederick I to Frederick III. Apparently there is no disagreement that he was Frederick III of Germany. The concept that he was Frederick I of Austria (I've seen the Austrian numbering both ways, although the Britannica has Frederick III) doesn't make a lot of sense, since there was a Frederick II before him. Apparently, he was Frederick I of the Habsburg line, but not of Austria itself. There is also a Frederick IV who is the next Austrian ruler, and the next Habsburg, after him.

Can anyone think of a good reason why the name of the article shouldn't be changed to Frederick III?Eldred 12:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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 to Frederick the Fair. JPG-GR (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick I of Austria (Habsburg) → Frederick III of Germany — He was a king of Germany, so the current title is non-intuitive, as is the parenthetical disambiguation. He is called "III of Germany" in other encyclopedic sources, such as the Britannica: "Frederick (III) (king of Germany)". The 1911 used "Frederick III of Germany". Only Frederick III, German Emperor, may be a problem, but I think a hatnote will do. Frederick the Fair is preferable to the current title. — Srnec (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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 naming conventions.
"King of the Romans" is a formal title that I have rarely seen used to differentiate persons. Causes no confusion with the Emperor Frederick III, since he was not Frederick III of Germany. Only possible confusion is with the Emperor Frederick III of Germany, who was not really the third Frederick of Germany, but of Prussia. "Frederick of Habsburg" is also the Emperor Frederick III. What evidence is there that Frederick the Fairs is the primary meaning of "Frederick of Habsburg"? Encarta uses "Frederick III (of Germany)". The Columbia prefers "Frederick the Fair". Srnec (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR finds Frederick the Fair slightly more often than Frederick of Habsburg or Frederick the Handsome. (7 versus 5 for each of the others.) Frederick the Handsome would avoid the English ambiguity between fair "handsome", fair "even-handed", and fair "blond", which would be nice, since the first is meant; but I can accept Frederick the Fair. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frederick the Fair is the best option if Frederick III of Germany is unacceptable. I still think the German numeral is clear and unambiguous and it is pretty common, as my sources indicate. Any confusion with the Emperor is necessary confusion, because clearly the person is already confused about the distinction between Germany and the HRE: this could serve to clear it up. Srnec (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. It's not necessary; we don't have to call both Fredericks Frederick III, any more than we call Charles the Fat and Charles the Simple both Charles III although both can be. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any confusion between "Charles III, Holy Roman Emperor" and "Charles III of France" would be bizarre. Using just "Charles III" would be more bizarre. Any confusion between two Frederick III's is hardly less bizarre, except perhaps in this case. But I said I think creating such confusion—if it would create it, but I don't think it would—is in not our problem, since there is no confusion in usage and other reference works make the distinction the same way. Anybody who gets confused has only himself to blame for thinking that the HRE and Germany are the same thing, for which I can see no excuse besides ready bad history books. (And please note the Charles the Fat is the Emperor Charles III and Charles the Simple is Charles III of France, whether we title their articles that way or not. I have redirected the proposed title here already, do you propose making it a dab page?) Srnec (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Charleses were King of France - hence the possibility of confusion; we avoid it by using the common nicknames. Both Fredericks were Kings of Germany, and (at this date) really only ruled Germany; more seriously, both are Frederick III as successors to the Hohenstaufen Fredericks. A dab page may be desirable to avoid errors, although the Emperor will be linked far more often. (Or perhaps not; Frederick III is a dab page already.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the emperor wasn't the third Charles of France. Charles the Simple is always called Charles III. At present there are no meaningful links to Frederick III of Germany. The emperor's article makes it clear, in boldface, that he was Frederick IV of Germany. I don't see how any confusion can be excusable, if such confusion would occur. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Emperor was Charles III, and he was King of France.
  • I'm sorry you don't. I've done my best to explain. (Perhaps it will help to say that we are not here to demonstrate that "it's not our fault"; we are here to active avoid confusing our readers. The Britannica tries Frederick (III), which is a good try, but not much preferable to the present title.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can't stay here. Either it should be Frederick I, Duke of Austria, Frederick III of Germany, or Frederick III, King of Germany. Frederick of Hapsburg is better than the current title too, but not "as better". It's reasonably transparent that numbers are the because one was King of Germany only and one was emperor. Doesn't confuse me anyway, and is not like Charles V of Spain, which seems to confuse everyone. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the dab page reminds me: Frederick III of Germany is fatally ambiguous with the Hohenzollern Frederick III, German Emperor. How are you on Frederick the Fair or Frederick the Handsome, which are what a reasonable number of scholars actually call our subject? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, didn't notice this response. You have a point. I suppose we can go with Frederick the Fair, that seems to be more common than "the Handsome". The more time I spend on this stuff on wiki, the more I think Wiki really needs to go with the "X N, King of Y" format rather than "X N of Y". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mentioned the German Emperor in the initial request, but as he was only the third Frederick of Prussia and not of Germany, I figured I could make a case to ignore him. Other encyclopedias did. Srnec (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know. But if PMAnderson is prepared to support using the common nickname, then I think this solves the problems as well as we can ever expect. Perhaps Frederick III the Fair? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just plain "Frederick the Fair" suits me fine. His opposition to "Frederick III of Germany" on grounds of ambiguity just frustrates me. Srnec (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Relisted. There appears to be consensus above that a move is desirable, but we still need to decide on a new name. Andrewa (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you feel like relisting again; I may propose a move to one of the epithets instead. Any opinions as to which? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the above, it seems the best consensus would be for Frederick the Fair. Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Name[edit]

Apart from the obvious, why did he get this name (nickname?)? There must be a story behind it. E.g. when did he get it and by whom?

I am missing information about this in the article.

Another article, Charles the Fat, has a section on it, Nickname and number.

--Mortense (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_the_Fair&oldid=1207294786"