Talk:Charles

message: I am getting incredibly frustrated with this stuff.  How the HELL did Charlemagne become Charles I of France?  That is absolute bollocks!  He was also NEVER Holy Roman Emperor.  He was King of the Franks and Roman Emperor.  That's it.  Would whoever is responsible for this travesty please STOP?  Not all lists of kings and genealogies are historically accurate -- I don't know what sources you are using, but either they are very out of date or there is a problem with their interpretation.  
Uploading tons of information about which you are unsure is also probably not helpful in the long run.
It does not help to have disambiguation pages and lists of rulers if they aren't correct.  JHK
Calm down, let me explain.....
I agree that Charles I of France did not exist as a person but Charlemagne is considered as "Charles I" when sequencing the Charles of France. Similar idea for Holy Roman Emperors. Accoring to Le Petit Larousse which I am reading now:
*Empereur 
*Charles Ier ----> Charlemagne
*Charles II, empereur d'Occident ---> Charles II le Chauve, roi de France.
*Charles III le Gros....
*Charles IV de Luxembourg....
*Charles V, dit Charles Quint....
*France
*Charles Ier ----> Charlemagne of England the land of the English
Charles from Semitau  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.93.153 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlemagne 

message: Should 'Charles' as a name middle be included? Roger C. Carmel is listed, but not John Charles (Charlton) Heston. CFLeon 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle names? 

message: This is currently more in the nature of a list article than a disambig page. The disambig page is at Charles (disambiguation). I'm not sure why this page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, as flagged at the top of this Talk page. Nurg (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: List article vs disambig page

message: The French poet Charles Baudelaire surely should be added under the artists section?  
Sizeguard (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Add Baudelaire under arts

message: I see no source on the origin of the word Charles. I have done a lot of research and found many different variations. Mainly that the word came from the latin word Carolus, becomeing Carolinginian Dynasty and then Charlemagne was the first to use that form for a given name, Charles in English. I only found one reference to the word churl but no others. Karl would have come from Proto German which isn't recorded. Carolus is the Middle Latin term for freemman and the French borrowed from that when establishing the name Charles. I don't see the link to Karl except that was the German word for man, or husband, eventually becoming Latinized and the French borrowed from that. The opening paragraph makes no mention of these links and should. how do you feel? I have found several sources, here is just one online. http://www.behindthename.com/name/carolus.
Maryannob (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Maryann, I'm taking your view. Read my comment to nortmann, our main opponent, below. I think it boils down to the question of whether this is a disambig page or not. If it is disambig then it should have the simplicity of a disambig and not get into the etymology. It can reference Wiktionary. If it is not a disambig but is an article on the name Charles then what is presented is oversimple. It only has one reference also. We both seem to want to get a fuller view but unless we start putting it in it is not going to get there. The main historical linguist dealing with the word is Julius Pokorny and he is good enough on most things for most people even though many do not for some reason like that event. The way this works is this. It is a source fight. Whatever is not sourced must get sourced or come out unless it is common knowlege. Nortmann has a source. I did not present a source so my material was reverted out. There is no objecting to the reversion; he presented a source; I did not. My next move will be to present sources, but we have to do the writing ourselves. Nortmann isn't going to do it. Why should he? So I appreciate your sources but unless you or I write them in they aren't going in. Once we do that properly our opponents cannot remove them without justification. This is sort of like a miniscular court case. You got to prove everything and that takes a lot of time, which you don't always have. So, these things often don't get corrected.Dave (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

text: PS. I discovered this is a set index page and can have an etymology presentation. The next step is to determine the level. It seems to me a deeper level should be here since there are all these questions.Dave (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: Hello Nortmann. I see you are reverting my material. Wrongly, I think. The etymology given is not the etymology of the word. Carolus does too come from *karilaz and so does Karl come from *karilaz. Charles on the other hand comes from the romance side; that is, Carolus. My information comes from the Indo-Europeanist Julius Pokorney. What this is going to boil down to is the use of different sources. There is an etymology from *karlaz. I do not know whose it is because I have not checked your source. There are few misunderstandings. A free man is not a churl. A churl is a common man, a vulgar man, and ordinary ignoramus. Ultimately they come from the same *karilaz but not in the same sense. No one would call themselves a bunch of fools. That is a later development from the "man" sense when the "freemen" acquired a nobility set over them. I know perfectly well what the symbols < and > mean in historical linguistics. We just use "comes from" or "derives from", we don't bother with the fancy birth metaphor. You don't want to believe Carolus came from *karilaz. You think maybe there was some sort of native Carolus among the original Latin speakers. Not so. Carolus comes from the Germanics, the whole Germanics and nothing but the Germanics. It is a loan into Latin. The root meaning is "old man", which the English is very good at capturing, don't you agree, old man? We don't need the old men of linguistics even when they consult their old ladies to tell us we are a bunch of old chaps, old fellows and old men. Somehow the churls got left out. No one wants to be one of them, right Carl? Anyway in summary this is going to be a source challenge. I will check out your source. We may have to present alternative sources. There seem to be two possibilities. 1) we cut down the etymology to just Charles 2) we take it back to Indo-European. Do you have a preference? As Karl and Carl if Carl is to be portrayed as French "were not given birth by the same mother" if we go back to Proto-Germanic the article may have to feature different sources. By the way is this a disambig page or not? If a disambig then we don't want to get into etymilogies here. If not a disambig then perhaps we should move the lists to a disambig. I look forward to your views. The first question I would like to resolve is that of the disambig. Is it one or not? I'm not in a hurry on this. I got other things I would prefer to work on, but do let me know.Dave (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK this is not a disambig it is a set index page, So, it can have etymologies. We are past that. The next issue is, how deep do we want go into etymology? It appears as though we can hardly avoid getting into the Indo-European as the Germanic etymologies are usually bundled into the full etymologies. So, basically my criticism is, the write-up is oversimple. It makes generalizations that aren't true and does not allow for different views. I'm still interested in your views but of course we are past the disambig. I see there are a lot of disambigs so there is not point in creating more unless really necessary.Dave (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Botteville. Yes, I suppose it is more or less a misunderstanding. The things are quite complicated and there is another possibility for the origin of the latinized version Carolus and I do not think it directly comes from *Kar(i)laz, because Carolus was borrowed from Germanic, when Common Germanic had already disappeared for a long time, that is quite hypothetic, and there is another possible etymology. See for example this very well documented site . I suppose Carolus was borrowed from Old High German or Old Franconian. That is why I do not accept the very shortened statement *Kar(i)laz > Carolus. I agree totally about Carolus > Charles, with some typical French phonetic shifts. I know that the meaning of churl is different, but it is the same etymological root, ultimatly from *kar(i)laz, sure, but through an intermediate West Germanic form *keril-. About disambig and so on, you can arrange it the way you want to. You can improve it the way you want to. I am not able to make that. Regards Nortmannus (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me give some thought to ways in which to improve the format. I see the programmers have been busy all these years so there is a lot of new code on here. I am glad they decided to do something else than insult perfectly good editors so as to shut them up. That was getting tedious. They do that in industry also. For the etymology, well, it should be the best we can get. I want to take my time a bit, go to the library, look up Charles in the big Oxford dictionary, get all the word origins I can get, see what the different views are. Then we can say something meaningful. Meanwhile I was working on other material concurrently. But I will be trying to work it in. Thanks for your views.Dave (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: This is pointless. Charles has been among the top 50 names given in England practically throughout history. It makes no sense whatsoever to compile a comprehensive list of them. You can just as well list pages beginning with "Charles" automatically, and there will be thousands of them. --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's ridiculous. As a cricket person I'd never heard of the cricket Charles that's been selected, and such a list can never be objective or complete. This section should be deleted in its entirety. Johnlp (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of Charleses

message: 'Charles' can also be refer to someone with an attractive charisma, or being 'awesome'. 'Charles' is considered to be a high-end surname and most knows 'Charles' are usually a famous or popular figure.
Prince1003 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: but thanks for your opinion. Rivertorch (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 March 2013 

message: The text claims that Carl is the Old Norse variant of the name, this is probably wrong. Of the Swedish kings which where namned Karl, all but the current one has spelled their name as "Karl" and not "Carl". On the other hand "C" has been used when spelling their names in other languages as english or latin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.235.29.201 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, the Old Norse, Old Danish, Old Swedish form of the name is karl. Check it in this excellent site Nordic Names .Nortmannus (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Old Norse spelling: Carl or Karl?

message: While there are some feminine variations like Charlette noted in the article, Charles itself is only a male name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.184.45 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change mostly male to just male in the info box? 

message: Just letting everyone know, I am removing the templates saying the page needs additional citations, because I have added them. Elliot321 (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added sources 

message: please change ((Germanic)) to ((Germanic languages|Germanic))
: Done with no prejudice against further disambiguation by a user more familiar with this subject. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanic link 

message: Charles Haughey Learner524 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023