Jump to content

Talk:Aimery of Cyprus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAimery of Cyprus has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2021Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 1, 2019, April 1, 2021, and April 1, 2024.

Coat of arms

[edit]

Our own List of coats of arms of the House of Lusignan does not give the arms shown as pertaining to Aimery's reign. Hill, p. 69, says the Lusignans in Cyprus used a lion gules on a barruly field argent and azure, as in the image at right. Srnec (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C/E

[edit]

I've finished with my copedits. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The "Painter 1950" reference does not link to a full citation. Does anyone here care to sort that out? It may be a typo (multiple times), or it may refer to a source that is not listed and might be findable in the article's history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the content referenced, title, and page numbers, it's pretty clear that this should be pointed at Painter, 1957; I've fixed accordingly. Choess (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Erroneously"

[edit]

What is "erroneous" about the name stuff? Isn't this just different ways of rendering the same name? Why is "Aimery" correct and "Amalric" incorrect?

No, etymologically different names, although they are sufficiently close that they have long been confused or treated as variants of one another. The viscounts of Narbonne used both and it leads to a lot of confusion, but the primary documents distinguish Aimericus and Amalricus consistently, I believe. It's actually explained in the "Early life" section of this article. It used to be in the lead. The "popularity" of the mistake in this case seems to come from Runciman. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. john k (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undo

[edit]

I add an Ahnentafel (ancestors tree), but user Surtsicna remove it. Additionaly, she makes ungry comments. Her arguments are wrong (e.g. she said the ahnentafel has only males); what I do is similar to what exists in other pages here in WP. I cannot understand why she deletes all this stuff. Do we interested to improve the texts or not? Aris de Methymna (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOR. We are not here to add unverified information to the text. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]