Talk:Henry V of Luxembourg

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

my recent edits

Just to explain my edits.

I added the counties of Laroche and Arlon to the list of his fiefs. Though it should be noted that Arlon was known as both a marquisat and county, but for simplicity I just added it as a county.

I also moved Henry from the list of legitimate children to a separate list. If necessary I will add the two other known bastards at a later time, though only one more is remotly notable (for being one of the four brothers who died at Worringen).--80.90.53.6 (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Empire of Luxembourg?

Why have we removed the internal link to the Empire of Luxembourg? The jury is still out on whether the Luxembourg article should exist, so I don't see why we should remove the link before the article is deleted.--Bananaman321 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It might be because you have been banned and it is a hoax that has been removed. You created a sock puppet as well to argue with yourself. Needless to say, your revert has been removed and someone proper seems to have taken the article to include real information. - Pmedema (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]