Template talk:Antique Kings of Italy

This template was considered for deletion on 2019 May 21. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

875?

Why does this template stop arbitrarily and abruptly in 875? Louis II wasn't even the last Carolingian King of Italy. That would be Ratold in 896 (or Arnulf in 899). And why doesn't it continue beyond the Carolingians at least until Arduin or Conrad II (son of Henry IV)? Srnec (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for some reason I got the impression that it merged with the HRE earlier than it did. I added all the additional kings until Otto claimed the title for the empire.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 07:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Template

Gennarous' recent edits effectively turned this from one template into another. Note he left the template at the bottom of the Ostrogothic Kings' articles, which it obviously shouldn't be now.

I'm not sure why he did this, as it's basically taking an existing template and making it less useful by making it cover less articles. His first edit (the move) seems (based on the edit summary) to have been carried out on the justification that back in the middle ages, the Kings of the Lombards were called "Kings of the Lombards", not "Kings of Italy". But at this point it seems he realised the template covered more than the Kings of the Lombards, so while he should have moved it back, he in fact removed the other Kings, instead.

If no-one objects, in a few days I'd like to take this to WP:RM and get it moved back - rst20xx (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! rst20xx (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gennarous, in response to your edit summary statement "remove non kings of italy, as the state of italy did not exist then", well that's true but this template more accurately deals with Kings of the entirety of the region of land in which modern Italy is based. Odoacer is often considered the first monarch of Italy because he conquered Italia (and Dalmatia), ending the rule of the Roman Empire in these areas, and proclaiming himself King of this region. The Ostrogothic Kings subsequently conquered Odoacer's Kingdom, and both groups have retrospectively been labelled as Kings of Italy. Justinian I conquered the Ostrogothic Kingdom, and is included despite never calling himself King of this area as otherwise his absence would act as a chronological gap, so it's clearer to simply include him with a note that he actually ruled as Emperor.

Please reply here before making any further changes - rst20xx (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gennarous is an idealogue. Just keep doing what you're doing and ignore him. "King of Italy" is a title that dates back to the time of Odovacar, even if only informally (maybe). Srnec (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is wrong. Justinian has never been "king of Italy", he was a Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor. Between 553 and 568 there weren't kings of Italy, Italy was a prefecture (later an exarchate) of the Byzantine Empire. Alboin, the first lombard king of Italy, invaded Italy in 568, so the date of the beginning of his reign (in Italy) according to the template (565) is wrong. Odovacar was Herulian so why don't write "Herulian" rather than "non-dynastic"? Excuse me if my english isn't perfect but I'm italian.--79.22.20.21 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we write "There was no "King of Italy" between 553 and 568" to fill the chronological gap?--79.22.20.21 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now done - not quite 5 years later! Alekksandr (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Antique"... and "varnished, just like an old oak table"

Can we maybe change the name of this template? Someone posted it on Charles the Fat and I just automatically reverted it because it is such a counter-intuitive use of the world "antique". How about "Pre-Modern Kings of Italy"? Or "Medieval Kings of Italy"? (with fuzzy edges). "Antique" is an odd way of dodging "ancient" and "medieval", and it frankly sounds bizarre, given that we're not talking 18th century chamber pots or horrid Victorian porcelain terrier. Trigaranus (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]