Talk:Carloman I

Untitled

Yep -- that ws supposed to be brother -- thanks! JHK

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 moved to Carloman I. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No other Frankish king has the disambiguator "of the Franks" at en.wikipedia. It is unnecessary, there is no other Carloman I. Srnec (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mayor Carloman I? Michael Sanders 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Carloman of Bavaria, although he'd probably be Carloman II...Michael Sanders 16:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no other Carloman I, so there is no need for disambiguation. (Why did you move the page during a move request?) Srnec (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This Carloman could be Carloman I in Germany (just as Louis the Pious is Louis I in Germany). (I realised when I referenced Pippin the Short's brother that he could be construed as "Carloman I of the Franks". Whereas this Carloman was the first King of the Franks so-called, so this title is less ambiguous). Michael Sanders 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That "could" is called original research. He isn't. Srnec (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

He isn't what? Michael Sanders 23:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. He isn't Carloman I in Germany. I prefer the current name to the one which I wanted moved, but I think that it is mighty odd that there is no other king of the Franks at Wikipeida who requires this method of disambiguation. Srnec (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

Could someone please explain how a lack of consensus results in the protest being carried? Particularly when there is a risk of confusion with the (unenumerated in Wikipedia) Carloman of Bavaria. Michael Sanders 19:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What lack of consensus? Srnec says that this is the only Carloman I. It is the only Carloman I. You didn't marshal a coherent objection: Carloman of Bavaria would be Carloman II, which is indeed ambiguous. If it had been a case of implementing my preference, the article would be at Carloman, son of Pippin III, a name which, allowing for commas and parethenses being more or less equal, it lived for five years. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I could easily end the argument for good by moving the page and protecting it, but that might be considered inappropriate. Almost as inappropriate as moving it again without discussion, which comes as no surprise really. Rather than edit-warring over this, you'd be better of showing exactly how this is ambiguous, which I still do not see. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with his uncle Carloman and great-great-nephew Carloman, perhaps? Michael Sanders 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Carloman, Mayor of the Palace might be confused with Carloman I? Carloman II of France might be confused with Carloman I? Reductio ad absurdam: Henry I of England might be confused with Henry II of England. I disagree with the method chosen to disambiguate, as do the New Cambridge Medieval History and Riché's Carolingians, but it seems to work and can be reduced to simpler forms. Still no ambiguity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I had not problem with the original page name, either. I just was hoping to find one more consistent with the other Frankish kings and that Sanders would accept. Seems I failed. Srnec 23:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, given the reference to Pippin the Short as Pippin III, one might look for Mayor Carloman under 'Carloman I'. Or one might look for Carloman of Bavaria under 'Carloman I', since the Carolingian monarchs can be confusing in their enumerations (Charles the Fat is not Charles III of West Francia, Louis the Child is generally not Louis IV of East Francia). Michael Sanders 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet the names of the articles before you moved them were less ambiguous: Carloman, son of Charles Martel and Carloman, son of Pippin III. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who looks for articles with those titles? Michael Sanders 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The same people who look for them at Carloman, Mayor of the Palace and Carloman I, King of the Franks? Everyone else will type in Carloman and pick the one they want from the list. Well, that's what I'd do anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why does it matter what title the article is under, so long as it is appropriate? At least this title is unambiguous. Michael Sanders 12:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The original title was unambiguous. The point was that this title is out of step with all other Frankish monarchs and doesn't need to be. The point of a title is not to be searchable. Who searches for "Carloman I, King of the Franks", really? Srnec 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If they want to search for it, it's easier than searching for less obvious names, or getting bogged down in confusion over who is who. Furthermore, the other Frankish monarchs are only so named because their names are entirely unambiguous - there've never been any rulers named Childeric III other than the King of the Franks, whereas that is not the case with Carloman. Michael Sanders 08:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anybody would perform a search on anything other than "Carloman", so this is all irrelevant. This figure has no one "obvious" name besides Carloman. Srnec (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But if, as you say, confusion isn't an issue, the only issue is precision, in which case this title is entirely appropriate, and more so than simply 'Carloman I'. Michael Sanders 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says the only issue is precision? I say consistency matters, as well as simplicity, and non-redundancy. My suggested title is equally precise, more simple, and less redundant than yours. The original "son of Pippin III" title was also equally precise. So what is your point? What advantage does this title have over Carloman I? None. Srnec (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you argue that consistency is important, perhaps you should note that all the other monarchs on wikipedia are disambiguated by ordinals and countries/peoples, unless they are the only one on wiki of that name...Michael Sanders 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Many monarchs are not: see Lombard and Visigothic rulers, indeed most barbarian monarchs. And I don't weem man "[Name] [ordinal] of the [People]"-style titles. There is only one "Carloman I" and only one "Carloman, son of Pippin III", so what was the problem? Srnec (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said: unless, they're the only one of that name. "weem man"? And arguably there is more than one 'Carloman I' - Mayor Carloman could be called that, and Carloman of Bavaria. Michael Sanders 14:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sanders, your behaviour here is awful. Are you the only user on wikipedia who can disregard all process? I've reverted your move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Section on death

The sentence 'Carloman died on 9 December 771, at the Villa of Samoussy; the death, sudden and convenient though it was, was set down to natural causes (a severe nosebleed is sometimes claimed as being at fault).' at least implies that there are strong suspicions that the death was not natural but no respected historian has given light to such a claim and others such as Barbero and McKitterick specifically state that he died of illness. I think that perhaps this could do with rewording to make this clearer and even less sarcastic. Reichsfürst (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

General bias

More recent historical opinion is tending to suggest that the relationship between Charles and Carloman was not so bad as previously though - a point put across very effectively by McKitterick - this article could certainly do with reflecting this more fully/at all. Reichsfürst (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)