Talk:German throne dispute

Title

"German throne dispute" seems like a wooden translation of Deutsche Thronstreit. Perhaps that's a term of art among German historians. I think a more descriptive title is needed. Or we could add the dates 1197–1218. It is hardly the only time the German throne was in dispute. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but I researched it and that seemed to be the most common short title used in English sources. The problem is that the German language uses compound nouns and so they can create short punchy proper names like Deutsche Thronstreit. However, in English we can't form compound nouns in the same way e.g. "German Thronedispute". In addition, translators have the freedom to choose various words for Streit. So you'll find it called a dispute, conflict, controversy, struggle or even battle. Moreover, some of them do go for a description (as you suggest) such as "the controversy over the German throne" which is great prose, but a long-winded title. As for adding dates, that's fine once other articles appear with the same name, but Wikipedia doesn't use bracketed disambiguation if it's not needed. Hope that helps to explain the logic. What this article really needs more is expansion. There is detail in the individual articles on the participants which isn't mentioned here. But I'm a translator not a historian, so I'll leave that to other more expert editors. HTH. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Name in the lede

English books don't have a single common name for this episode. "German throne" is a common enough generic term as Ngram Viewer shows and so is "throne dispute". Meanwhile, the literature uses various phrases in conjunction with this particular one e.g. "dispute over the German throne", "controversy over the German throne", "conflict for/over/around the German throne" or just "the throne dispute". Pixton (1995) calls it the "German Throne Controversy" which at least is succinct. Either way, the Wikipedia convention is to include bold text in the lede that reflects the title. Bermicourt (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a misconception, Bermicourt. There is no requirement to have the article title in bold in the lead. In fact, the Manual of Style says we should avoid that when the title is merely descriptive, such as this one, rather than a proper name; see MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It actually doesn't say that; it says "If the article title is merely descriptive... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." It doesn't use the word "avoid" at all; that occurs later in a different situation "if the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence" and I don't think that situation applies.

Regardless of that, I've opened a discussion on the title and that will affect the lede, so it's polite to reach consensus here, following WP:BRD and then we can make the agreed changes. Actually, I think some of your other edits make sense, so we can move quite quickly on those, while inviting other interested editors to discuss the title/lede. @Srnec: I don't know if you want to revisit this? And who else do you think might be interested? Bermicourt (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The shortcut is MOS:AVOIDBOLD, so it quite explicitly is about when to avoid boldface. By having the article title as the lead sentence subject, in boldface, and with a translation, we are suggesting to the readers that that is the proper name of the event, established in English-language sources. Since that is not true, we are misleading the readers.

It does not matter what the title of the article is. It should just not be used in the lead sentence like that. The article title does not determine the phrasing of the lead sentence nor vice versa. Surtsicna (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me - I've read the guideline and I'm afraid you simply quoted from the wrong section. Let's move on and improve the encyclopaedia.

I've restored those edits which seem to me to be a no brainer. Besides that, I think there are two primary issues to resolve:

• The title. Are we happy with it? I'm not fussed whether we leave it or move it to Pixton's version. Either is succinct and a straight translation of what one source says "is commonly referred to as the Deutscher Thronstreit (the German Throne-Dispute)"; the other options are wordy. Clearly it would make sense to have several redirects to capture what readers will encounter in the sources.
• The wording of the lede. This would normally reflect the title but need not necessarily repeat it verbatim as you have pointed out. It should definitely include the German name somewhere as that is the most common name in the majority of (mostly German, but also some English) sources. It should also make clear that we are talking about the throne of the HRE. Bermicourt (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry that you felt lectured. German succession dispute seems a bit more common and possibly more natural, but I am fine with the present title. It is descriptive anyway, so WP:COMMONNAME is difficult to apply. Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries. And thank you, I hadn't spotted that description. I wonder if we could restore your edit of the lede, perhaps including some reference to the "throne", and then add a short "Name" section saying something to the effect that it's usually called the Deutsche Thronstreit in German literature, but that it is described in various ways in English sources and give the most common examples including "German succession dispute". This keeps the lede uncluttered but aids readers if they want to search for more information.

I'm not sure if Srnec has a view; he seems to have gone turret down. :) Bermicourt (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a reference to the throne. I am less sure about a name section, since it might be a little undue to have a whole section dedicated to an aspect of the topic that gets no coverage in the sources (i.e. the sources do not discuss what the events should be named). If our goal is to present as many key words as possible without cluttering the lead, what do you think about phrasing it one way in the title and another way in the lead? E.g. the title being "German throne dispute" and the lead sentence saying that there was a "controversy over the succession to the German throne"? Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds a fair compromise, although a name section is not uncommon. It's not discussed in the sources, but then neither are sections like "See also"; they're just aids for the reader. Bermicourt (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like you two have this under control. Srnec (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)