Does anyone disagree that the name of this article probably needs to be changed? If anyone really does disagree, one issue to fix is finding evidence that Reginar I was "Duke of Lorraine"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk)10:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

If no one has a problem I will probably move this to "Reginar I Longneck".--Andrew Lancaster (talk)18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

In that case, no need for a numeral. "Reginar Longneck" would be better. I have no objection. Rüdiger E. Barth,Der Herzog in Lotharingien im 10. Jahrhundert (Thorbecke, 1990), apparently has a lot to say about whether he was Duke of Lorraine or not. (I do not have the book and don't read German.)Srnec (talk)19:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll keep putting in sources and improving while we see if there is more feedback.--Andrew Lancaster (talk)23:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "kingdom" – I think it is correct to refer to it as a kingdom (regnum) because this is how it was understood at the time, as when it switched allegiance in 911 and again in 923. It was a kingdom electing its king. But the word could be dropped without loss.Srnec (talk)00:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see a move has happened. In the meantime I became aware that Reginar's grandson is also sometimes called Longneck in medieval sources, and he might even be the only one who had the name in life. So I still think the "I" would be appropriate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk)07:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have personally always hated combining numerals and nicknames. But I see that Reginar III is sometimes called Longneckhere.Srnec (talk)23:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think with some of these articles we need to accept least worst solutions for the names. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk)10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Surtsicna I see that we've now moved this to Reginar Longneck despite the fact the discussion above ofSrnec of myself which pointed out that there are several people referred to that way. I understand from the edsum that this is based on a strict interpretation of "ordinal or epithet but not both" as a rule, although it was decided to make an exception here. If we seriously have to choose then I think the ordinal is necessary because it is the clearest way to identify this person under those circumstances.--Andrew Lancaster (talk)10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry for the unilateral move,Andrew Lancaster; it did not occur to me that the matter might have already been discussed. It appears thatReginar Longneck refers exclusively to this man in English-language sources, so he isat least theprimary topic. The nameReginar I Longneck does not appear in any book available on Google Books.Reginar I is a plausible title, though I struggle to find it anywhere other than in genealogy publications. History books appear to prefer "Reginar Longneck".Surtsicna (talk)11:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a simple solution to be honest, but I guess we need to improvise a bit. He is indeed commonly referred to as Reginar Longneck, but the medieval sources used the same term to refer to some of his descendants, and I think we should see it as a priority to distinguish him from them. Making it difficult is the fact that in this period titles are a bit different than in later periods. Dudo called him a Dux, but I think this is often understood as a military position, and Dudo not seen as a good source. I am open to suggestions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk)11:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, I find this new name less troubling than the old name where he was Duke of Lorraine. Defining titles in this period is a bit confusing. I personally would not mind calling him Reginar Longneck (Duke), although most readers with any medieval interest are going to assume this means he had a geographical duchy (which might be true, but is not really known).--Andrew Lancaster (talk)18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think the new title is fine. A hatnote to Reginar III would be sufficient.Srnec (talk)01:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Andrew Lancaster (talk)08:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This article says Alberada was the mother of Reginar's children, but the page for ReginarII, Count of Hainaut(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginar_II,_Count_of_Hainaut) says his mother is Hersinda. Which is it?Jupe77 (talk)02:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we can use it as a source here, but there is a short explanation here (which gives other sources):https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/regin001.htm In the end there is very little known about most people in this period. --Andrew Lancaster (talk)13:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply