Talk:List of Holy Roman Emperors

message: Unlike List of German Kings and Emperors, this list follows strictly on the crown of Holy Roman Emperor.  This is free from geographic restriction but pre-Maximilian entrants must be crowned by the pope to qualify on this list so no pretenders/rivals etc. ArticleCreator67.49.149.91 6 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
:Thank you for doing this, and for adding articles for those 10th century emperors (like Guy of Spoleto) who have been gaps in the sequence.  This has been on my wikipedia to-do list for some time, but I've never had a chance to do it -- glad to see the work done so skillfully! --Jfruh 7 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)
Text from deleted :Category:Holy Roman Emperors has been merged here per pWikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 22. Authors: Mapgaret, ProveIt, CmdrObot. Conscious 05:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, it would have been nice to invite people intereseted in this page into the discussion aabove.  As it is, I don't see how this enormous and laregely unintelligible geneaology belongs in a list of Holy Roman Emperors. --Jfruh (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed it. It was originally added to the Category page by User:Mapgaret, who appears to be a newbie. Choess 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Why isn't Conrad III on the list? 83.176.96.190 12:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he was never crowned emperor.  From the Conrad III article: He was never crowned emperor and continued to style himself King of the Romans until his death.  --Jfruh (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conrad III

message: Why not have Emperors in bold, Emperors-elect in normal Roman, German kings in italic (at least from Conrad I); that way the numbering becomes (mostly) obvious. We can doubly indent the kings, if it makes it clearer that they are framework for the list, rather than part of it. JCScaliger 20:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This list really ought to stay just a list of Emperors, in my opinion.  There's already a List of German monarchs that includes emperors and kings both.   I think adding the kings just confuses the situation.  If there's no value in having just a list of emperors, then we should just collapse it into the List of German monarchs. --Jfruh (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, this would include the German kings only as a framework; clearly distinguishing them. Also, it would not include the anti-kings, since they're not numbered. JCScaliger 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I just don't see the need for it.  This is a list of Emperors.  Even with the indentation it seems like we'd be adding non-emperors to the list.  We discuss in some detail in the introductory material the reasons for the gaps in the ordinals, and if someone wants to see a complete list, with non-emperors, there's another page, which we provide a link to. --Jfruh (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do see the value of adding anti-Emperors (weren't a few of the anti-Kings crowned by either poper or anti-popes?). --Jfruh (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jfruh that we shouldn't add the kings to this list - there's already another list dealing with that.  I don't believe there were any anti-Emperors - no anti-kings ever managed to get to Rome to be crowned, that I am aware of.  john k 23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typographical suggestion