Talk:Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor

message: In the section on Beyazid in Ottoman Empire, i've NPOVed the portion on nature of Murad's death and outcome of the battle of Nicopolis (AKA Nikopol, Bulgaria). I edited only that article, for the moment, since it is clearly in progress (and the contributor may be about to review transcriptions or wording for reconsideration) and since there are two articles at hand that contradict the battle part. 
I am also adding this note to talk pages of  Ottoman Empire, Beyazid I, and Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor.
If the Ottoman Empire contributor defends her/his version with sources, IMO others should also bring forward sources, and there should be discussion, in case the factual dispute is not resolved, about how to lessen the burden of NPOVing the various articles affected - e.g., could all three articles say "see Death of Murad and Battle of Nicopolis for controversial matters relevant to this section"? -- Jerzy 20:37, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV re Death of Murad and Battle of Nicopolis 

message: Parts of the following passage is unclear:
Through his marriage to Mary of Hungary, queen of Hungary 1382-1385 and 1386-1395, Sigismund, always the jealous type, became only her consort. Earlier, because of Sigismund's wickedness, he was expelled from Poland, which was then given to Mary's younger sister Jadwiga I of Poland, who married Jagiello of Lithuania. ...
"Earlier" than what? What "wickedness"? "which was then given" = Mary's sister became queen(?) of Poland? 
--Michael Noel Jones 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear passage 

message: I've removed the description of Wenceslaus, Sigismund's brother, as emperor. If the article can be wrong on so basic a point then I don't feel I can trust it at all. When I have time, I'll come back to the article and at least sort out the stuff about Sigismund's election, which is very unclear. I will need to look at his election and the passingly mentioned rival election of Jobst, and also at the circumstances of Sigismund's coronation (not mentioned here but likely to be revealing because the western schism was still in effect). The statement that Sigismund was "elected emperor" strikes me as dubious, though I've left it in for the time being — because it is my impression that emperors could not be elected, only kings of the Romans (I'm presuming that's what he was elected as); should a king of the Romans be subsequently crowned by the pope, that would make him emperor. "Emperors-Elect" (gents not crowned by the papacy but calling themselves emperors anyway) were a later phenomenon, as far as I know. Such things all take  time to check properly — you have to look at who the electors were, where they convened etc. — but I will come back. qp10qp 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion on the  List of HREmperors page would agree with you on the 'emperor elect' question, and gives  Charles IV, 1355-1378 -> Sigismund, 1410-1437 as the relevant HREmperors during this period. --Michael Noel Jones 00:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elections and titles

message: I have changed the translation of "Ego sum rex Romanus et super grammaticam" to the much more famous version. It is the translation given by Carlye and is clearly in the spirit of the original. In fact I can't find the previous translation on any page that isn't derived from this one, leading me to believe this may have been the work of an overzealous editor.
83.67.100.215 (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind the translation.  What is the original?  This article says Ego sum rex Romanus et super grammaticam but the Latin Wikipedia says Ego sum rex Romanorum et super grammaticam.  Which was it?  — Chameleon 05:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Romanorum is correct Latin. Romanus is jaw-droppingly incorrect. In the interests of charity and in deference to the Latin Wikipedia, I am changing the text. Mrrhum (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure in what sense "Romanorum" is "jaw-droppingly incorrect." Grammatically it's fine; "Rex Romanus" is "Roman King" rather than "King of the Romans", but cf. "Senatus Populusque Romanus". Moreover "Romanus" is given both in Cayle, cited in the article, as well as Cayle's own source, Menzel. One W. A. B. C. cites a Professor Bryce to claim that "Rex Romanorum" is the correct form, but this seems to be a matter of the general usage of the title, not a claim about how Sigismund spoke the line in this particular case. At any rate, with no source giving "Rex Romanorum" as the original quote, and the citation actually in the article having "Rex Romanus", I am changing it to the latter both here and on the Latin page. RowansWarden (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin 

message: There is an edit war brewing over Sigismund's burial place. My understanding is that, at the time of his burial, the place was called Nagy Várad or Nagyvárad. Per WP:PLACE this is therefore the name we should use, albeit we can show the current name Oradea in brackets. Sources in the literature using the historic title include Bradbury's The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare and Gergely and Mathe's The Hungarian state: thousand years in Europe : [1000-2000].  --Bermicourt (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bermicourt, for your comment. Since the town was part of the Kingdom of Hungary in that time, we should use that historical name. Here are some more English sources which use "Nagyvárad": . By the way, the German name of the town (Grosswardein) is also used by English sources  so we may mention it, too. And naturally, the modern Romanian name of the town should also be given. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of burial place 

message: Isn't it a bit silly to go listing "KG" after his name? It's no means his most important honour/title and the modern British postnominal system was not in use six hundred years ago in Germany, so I highly doubt that anyone then or now has actually called him this.
Furius (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigismund of Luxembourg, KG 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611211239/http://www.sigismundus.hu/guide/index.php?l=en to http://www.sigismundus.hu/guide/index.php?l=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The reference provided for the titles used by Sigismund does not corroborate the titles given in the article. The link is to a decretal issued by Sigismund in 1405, which was well prior to his election as Emperor.--Masque (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source unclear