User talk:The Emperor's New Spy/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about User:The Emperor's New Spy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

I did some minor work on the article, but I don't think I'll be translating everything so soon, I already have a to-do list at this Wikipedia and at the Portuguese one, and specially because history and princes' biographies aren't really my fields of interest. Try adding a request to WikiProject Brazil's talk page to get more editors' attention, if many people work together, this page will be complete really soon. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Move to Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria"

• There was a mistake with the template, please read the request.

Hi there. Are you saying "Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria (Johann Orth) → Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria" isn't what you were proposing (and what people appeared to support)..? CsDix (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

...I think, therefore, I will need to ask someone to repair the name. To ensure this is done correctly, what is the title you believe the article should now have? CsDix (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

there is no reason to impoverish articles because it does not suit you personally, wikipedia is a public organization where all help is welcome as well as additional info included by other users since it is apparently well done it is ok, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanskirkegaard (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I recently started a Requested move here, maybe you're interested. Moagim (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The British dukes have categorized numerically for a long time now.[1] There must be hundreds of articles involved. I don't see any benefit to removing the category values, although you are of course free to do so. I had nothing to do with creating them, so I would appreciate it if you kept my name out of the edit summaries.[2] Kauffner (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the boxes for the Dukes of Brittany template for the Viking Occupation and for the Breton War of Succession. You decided to add back Gourmaelon. Can you provide a reliable source for this entry ? Did he actually exist ? In addition the template now lists two Alan III's . The second one is a well documented figure. Does the first one exist? was he really Alan "III" or was he some other ALAIN or something similar? If we can establish their real existence with your help I will take the step of creating a wiki article on each one so that we have consistency across the now widening Duchy of Brittany project. Thanks. (writing from a guest computer, this is Breizhtalk) 71.167.64.218 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2013

Translate fr:Gourmaëlon and fr:Alain de Bretagne. The French are inconsistent with the numbering of the Alan's, he just happen to be the third Alain that ruled Brittany but the second to do so as a duke which I am guessing is why the French call Alan Barbetorte Alan I and ignore King Alan before the Viking occupation. From what I gleamed Gourmaëlon was definitely not king but still fit the role of a ruler much like the Viking overlords you've listed.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found some better info on Gourmaelon as well as the brothers of Conan, in French Wikipedia. I will try to migrate this into English Wikipedia maybe keep a page for each individual even if the description is slight. There is an issue with the Rulers of Brittany which is that if "we" stick to "officially recognized" titles we would need to define what that means, as it changes through the centuries and it is sometimes present but empty and other times is a meaningful addition to the ability to rule. Gourmaelon may have been more a Warlord or the "dominant breton noble" but that does not preclude we do something to add his details as they exist. Breizhtalk (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Breton Dukes, the topic of my comments in the two paragraphs above, are not the same as British Dukes. British is to the British Isles while Breton is to the Breton Peninsula. I am writing about the breton ones. Please consider creating a new subsection topic to segregate comments and discussions on the breton ones, as separate from the british ones. Thanks. Breizhtalk (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That is your job. This is my talk page, I don't help other users categorize stuff they want to ask me. And you were the one who posted with multiple indentation under the British duke post of another user.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have an outstanding question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#Marie_Joseph_Anatole_Elie which I believe is misnamed. No one has responded, would you mind taking a quick look? It seems it is actually Joseph de Caraman-Chimay the younger. If you don't have time, no worries, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll add Friedrich X., XI., and XII. von Hohenzollern to the front of my to-do list, followed by Erbprinz. HansM (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong objection to your undo of the edit to Joan of Savoy's history. It is not for you to determine whether she was Countess in "any shape or form" In fact the need for a formal renunciation and the resulting settlement indicates her suo jure rights. These are a matter of received history. I will undo your edit if you choose not to. This approaches vandalism !!!71.167.64.218 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Second strong objection to your undo of the Succession box entry. This is the second time your intervention is unwelcome today. This edit of the Succession Box is substantively meaningful. The title and regnal rights of the Duke of Brittany are separate from that of the Earl of Richmond. That is why the edit is a refinement. Please undo your undo of my work or I shall have to do it. Rather than appearing to aggressively act on others' work since Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative you could suggest a discussion on the article's TALK page. In addition, it is important when claiming as you did that the disputation was actually already indicated to appreciate the actual historical point needing to be made....in this case the separateness of the Ducal title and regnal rights from that of the Earldom. Please revert your change. Please feel free to join in a more collaborative dialogue in the TALK page of the article. 71.167.64.218 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I first want to note that you might want to check out my most recent (short) article about Eystein I of Norway, which I have nominated for GA review. The main issue I want to bring up, is however the stagnated work on the List of Norwegian monarchs. I stopped editing the list in part because I found it hard (and useless) to source certain information, especially regarding the inclusion of marriages and "legitimate" issue (which is hardly a relevant factor for most of the early monarchs), and because of a general disillusionment with the format used for the list. Since you have probably been the most important other editor involved, here's a suggestion for a new format for the list that I have made, based largely on other FA monarch lists. I feel that this format is more "timeless" and appropriate for use on the historically greatly varying circumstances around the kings, while also aesthetically better and simpler to read/find the information desired. If you are onboard with this (the details can be discussed), I'm considering to retry improving the list, potentially making it into a GA (or even FA). Below is the format as applied to the original Fairhair kings and the modern independent kings. Thhist (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

P	Portrait	Name	Reign	Birth	Death	Succession	Source(s)
I	Non-contemporary	Harald I Harald Halfdansson Fairhair (Haraldr Hálfdanarson hárfagri)	c. 872 – c. 932 (c. 60 years)	c. 850, Norway	c. 932, Rogaland, Norway	Son of petty king Halfdan the Black. Subdued other Norwegian petty kingdoms in his unification of Norway.	[1]
I		Eric I Eric Haraldsson Bloodaxe (Eiríkr Haraldsson blóðøx)	c. 929 – c. 934 (c. 5 years)	c. 895, Norway	c. 952/4, England	Son of Harald I.	[2]
I	Non-contemporary	Haakon I Haakon Haraldsson the Good (Hákon Haraldsson góði)	c. 934 – c. 961 (c. 27 years)	c. 915/920, Håkonshella, Hordaland	c. 961, Håkonshella, Hordaland	Son of Harald I.	[3]
I	–	Harald II Harald Ericsson Greycloak (Haraldr Eiríksson gráfeldr)	c. 961 – c. 970 (c. 9 years)	c. 935, Norway	c. 970, Limfjord, Denmark	Son of Eric I.	[4][5]

P	Portrait	Name	Reign	Birth	Death	Succession	Source(s)
I		Haakon VII (né Christian Frederik Carl Georg Valdemar Axel)	18 November 1905 – 21 September 1957 (51 years)	3 August 1872, Charlottenlund Palace, Denmark	21 September 1957, Royal Palace, Oslo, Norway (aged 85)	Democratically elected monarch following the dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden. Second son of Frederick VIII of Denmark.
I		Olav V (né Alexander Edward Christian Frederik)	21 September 1957 – 17 January 1991 (33 years)	2 July 1903, Sandringham House, England	17 January 1991, The Royal Lodge, Holmenkollen, Norway (aged 87)	Only son of Haakon VII.
I		Harald V	17 January 1991 – present (33 years)	21 February 1937, Skaugum, Norway	Incumbent (age 87)	Only son of Olav V.

To say the least, I'm quite frustrated with how things are done at those articles. Particularly the approval of pipelinking [English name|Portuguese name] (links to John VI of Portugal) & yet opposing pipelinking [Portuguese name|English name] (links to Peter V of Portugal), for example. Very frustrated, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I don't support or are against any of you three. I would equally revert CT and Lecen pipelink Portuguese names of monarchs prior to John VI. The parentheses and name on the infobox is okay by me (except Afonso, Manuel and Maria, whose complete English translation is like translation Ivan as John) but pipelinking and referring to only English names for the post John Vi monarchs is not okay by me. I personally believe that the names should reflect the accept the version the articles are titled right now. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If I had it my way, all those Pedros would be moved back to Peters. I betcha the Portuguese Wikipedia, doesn't have English usage in their Portuguese monarchial articles :) GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get embroil in this. But I've stated my opinion.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your reverts. However, I'm outnumbered 3 to 1 (by you, CT & Lecen) & so there's nothing I can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Georgian women are commonly referred by their first and last names. Their last names sometimes change on marriage, sometimes stay the same, or both are combined. As for the royalty, it is quite common in Georgian sources to refer to the consorts by their maiden names; from what I can see that's quite in line with Wiki guidelines.--Kober^Talk 18:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice follow-up work. Is it worth running for a WP:DYK? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No idea how to go about that. You can if you want.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've started working on a userspace draft translation of the French article on Pierre d'Orléans. It might take me a little while to complete the translation. Please inform Hylian Auree (talk) and Kudpung (talk), a busy admin, that you found someone else to do the translation so you don't have several people independently working on the same translation. (Also, I'm a translator of French — my German is rather bad.) Before I procede much further on the translation, please answer why you're interested in this member of France's historical royalty? Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 21:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner; I've been rather busy these days. Glad to see User:Tucoxn is taking it on though! Auree ^★★ 02:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eric V, Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|3= 3.[Sophia of Brunswick-Lüneburg

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beatrice of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• TenMuses (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Hi Emperor's New Spy, a question about Edits No.2-8 of suspected sock TenMuses below, why in these edits below was this "controversial" and what was the eventual result of this controversial method?

• The Emperor's New Spy revert "(controversial categorizing method not helpful and rejected when Kauffner tried imposing them on categorization of US presidents)"
• TenMuses key linking various Dukes of Wellington,
• You reverted TenMuses here

and same on all 7 articles etc

Can you give a link to where such keylinks to presidents etc were discussed? Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No discussion exist. I only reverted it because similar "key linking" with numbers were rejected on the pages of the US presidents. Assigning number to categories so each page can appear in chronological order seems ridiculous and the result looks terrible with different parts for 1, 2, 3, etc. Usually the page of the title are listed and there the reader can find the chronological order of the title holders. If this type of categorization is rejected by the US presidents' articles which are some of the most patrolled articles on Wikipedia, why should the duke of Wellington used this unuseful form of categorizing. See [3] and [4].--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you User:Favonian's edit summary in your James K. Polk and James Buchanan links clearly references consensus discussion on presidents, I will look to see where that is. BTW these edits have not been specifically cited yet on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Spy. By apparent sheer coincidence, a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Drop–down boxes touched on collapsed portraits at V&A's Grandkids just as you were adding one. (Ahnentafeln were also discussed.) I think your own observations at the MoSTalk page might be helpful. Best wishes for the Diamond Jubilee. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosenau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)