Dear Q, I know all this. My main concern was to change the dead wikilink into one that linked to Albert. I know that his title was King of the Romans but I think it is common WP pratice to use the term "King of Germany" for that respective office to avoid confusion. Also, to say that there was no Germany at that time is wrong - there was a German Kingdom that was part (in fact the primary part of the Holy Roman Empire. And Albert was King of that Kingdom. I hope you understand.  (smile back) 

I rather disagree with you, but in a friendly way (I hate edit-war nonsense). I think it's possible to create links without necessarily making page titles—and there really are some atrocious ones about ('Ladislas the Posthumous' being one of them, in my opinion)—appear on the page in question. 

It is certainly possible and reasonable to call Albert "King of the Germans" or "German King" (the Germans themselves use the term "Römisch-deutscher König", which covers it nicely. But even here on English Wikipedia, where there are many mistakes in this matter, the term "King of Germany" is rarely used. Of course there was a Germany at that time in the sense of a German-speaking volk,  but there was not a German kingdom in the sense of a political state ruled by a royal government (when a later King of the Romans, Ferdinand I, tried to administer Hungary and Bohemia from Vienna, he was rebuffed— and he wouldn't have even tried that much in principalities where he was not the dynastic prince, such as Saxony or Brandenburg); the nearest thing to a German kindom, the Carolingian kingdom of the East Franks (even that has been called the Kingdom of Germany only as a back-formation), had fragmented fairly quickly into a group of states with their own princes (in the case of Bohemia, an actual king). Albert II is an interesting case because in his purely German-speaking territories he was only a duke. His kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary, though part of the Holy Roman Empire, were largely non-German, which is another reason why Rex Romanorum is correct and not "King of Germany".

The English Wikipedia article on the subject is very inaccurate, announcing the academically unjustifiable decision to use the term "Kingdom of Germany" for clarification's sake. In my opinion, having had this stuff drummed into me at university, where I had to read texts in Latin and German, that doesn't so much clarify as blur the issue. The title "King of the Romans" may be difficult, and so may the idea of a group of independent German (and non-German) states within the Holy Roman Empire, but the readers of Wikipedia, in my opinion, shouldn't have history revised for them to make it fit the modern world (and Austria still isn't the same country as Germany anyway). Fortunately, the  articles on this subject on German Wikipedia use the correct terminology.