Talk:Imperial election

message: Presumably there were Imperial elections before the Golden Bull of 1356? — OwenBlacker 10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Unfortunately, I don't have a complete set of data on them, and as the role of "elector" had not yet been strictly defined, it's not always clear who was involved. (Some of the earliest elections were more like mass meetings in which one person was elected by acclamation).  But information on those elections should go here too.RandomCritic 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there anywhere that might be worth looking? Is your German good enough to ask for help on the German wiki's equivalent of WP:WPFC? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the set of electors had pretty much been set by the 1256/7 elections - so for 1256, 1273, 1292, 1298, 1308, 1314, 1346, and 1347 you'd basically have the same electors as you do after the Golden Bull. john k (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before the [[Golden Bull of 1356]] 

message: The table of contents template used on this page  is currently nominated for discussion. If you feel strongly about the layout of this table of contents, please contribute at the relevant TfD discussion. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the TOC as I believe it is less disorganized as the regular TOC that is found on most other pages.Curb Chain (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents deletion discussion 

message: Why are we insisting on adding a disambiguator when Imperial election redirects here anyway? Bermicourt (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue was discussed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 15#Category:Imperial election. You participated in the discussion.  It makes sense for both the category and the article to have related names.  If you wish to rename, then I suggest that you make a case using the process at WP:RM for a contested move. Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, this looks like a standard removal of an unnecessary disambiguator. There is nothing in the CfD that states this is not the primary topic (just "it might be"). , can you give me a reason why this page should not have the standard title? I won't undo your move as not to move war, but your move is clearly wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion about the category is, first of all, secondary (categories should follow their main article names) and, secondly, the outcome was not all that clear and it should probably have been relisted. For example, Peterkingiron's comment that it is unlikely that other empires had elections doesn't seem to match his 'support' for the move. If the HRE is the only or primary topic for imperial election (which will be the standard translation for its name in a majority of sources, Königswahl) we don't need the disambiguator. Currently it's the only topic. Bermicourt (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please could you make a proposal at WP:RM, so that this can be discussed.  Please mention that if the article is moved, the category should also be moved. Toddy1 (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any argument against the move at all? So far I haven't seen any, and will just move the article soon without unnecessary bureaucracy. WP:RM is for contested moves only. Your argument so far seems to be "the category also has the wrong name", which does not merit being counted as contesting the move. —Kusma (t·c) 14:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree. There is no justification for the original move of some months ago. Using the category to justify a bad title is the tail wagging the dog. Srnec (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name