Talk:Louis I of Etruria

	Biography portal This article 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 article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

My edits

What I said on other articles is valid for this article too. However, since I have to do an overhaul of my overhaul, I will wait until the article on his wife is completed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above has served its cause and I therefore strike it (as nobody has replied anyway).

My edits did not introduce any new information to WP but only synthesized what was included in other articles (and I was moderate at that). Now at least the "Count of Livorno" note makes sense, which previously was just a stray comment. My last edit also dePOVs the epilepsy issue (if that was an actual reason and not a mere pretext for reverting). As for unsourced, the article is no more unsourced than before. As I said, no new information. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elinor, for your help and for pointing out my oversight. It is fixed now.

Thanks, Mel, for proving me wrong. However, I had to revert one of your changes, the dash included in a wiki-link, as this broke the link to his wife's article. I don't like titles that include life-span and would only used such as a last resort, when all other means at disambiguation fail. I don't think this was the case here but still some other editor did exactly that. And since the title contains a normal hyphen, the wikilink must do the same. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ndashes are just a little longer than hyphens, and look better in dates (IMHO), though they look awful inside the edit box! I wonder should Maria Louisa of Spain (1782-1824) with hypehn be moved to Maria Louisa of Spain (1782–1824) with ndash, since the convention seems to be to use ndashes for dates? I don't want to do anything hasty. What do you both think? Are there other articles that have dates with hyphens in the title? ElinorD (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor, I don't think that is possible, since it would (I guess) result in the ndash being part of the article's title. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would matter, but if I'm being dense, feel free to tell me. I won't get touchy. :) I have an account at French Wikipedia, and have edited the article on ice cream makers, which is called Sorbetière. If you click on it, you'll see the title at the top, in nice big letters. But if you look at the URL, it's horrible. It's:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbeti%C3%A8re

The URL for the Maria Louisa of Spain (1782-1824) article looks pretty horrible as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Louisa_of_Spain_%281782-1824%29

because the brackets convert into %28 and %29. But, as I see it, a horrible URL doesn't necessarily mean a horrible article title. However, I imagine Mel knows more about article moves than either of us. ElinorD (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I am wrong in my assessment. I won't object to trying out, maybe first in creating a subpage to your userpage. Let's see how it works. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that moving it to a title that had the ndashes in it would work, although I haven't done any experiments in my userspace. But on reflection, I'm not sure it would be a good idea, because I often look for an article by typing its name or what I think is its name into the search box and pressing "go", and I can't imagine typing it with an ndash. I just don't like having hyphens either, since throughout Wikipedia it seems to be the case that one should use ndashes for dates. ElinorD (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of articles

On a related note (I should probably post this at the relevant article talk pages, but since the matter has come up here, I wondered was there already an article called Maria Louisa of Spain, and there is. I looked at the interwiki links at the bottom. The corresponding articles on other Wikipedias are called:

Maria Lluïsa d'Espanya (emperadriu romanogermànica)
Maria Ludovica von Spanien
María Luisa de España
Marie-Louise de Bourbon (1745-1792) (yes, it has a hyphen rather than an ndash!)
Maria Ludovika av Spanien

The corresponding articles for Maria Louisa of Spain (1782-1824) are called:

I don't have enough knowledge about the Maria Louisas to have an informed opionion as to what the articles should be called, and I can understand that straight translations aren't always best, because a particular concept might be more significant in one culture than in another, but I do think it's a bit odd that there's so much difference. ElinorD (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was until yesterday called Maria Louisa of Spain, Queen of Etruria, which I considered a good solution because her title as Queen was included. Though the kingdom was shortlived and she only was a consort for two years and Queen Mother for four years, she placed much importance in her royal title and after 1814 insisted on it. OTOH, Marie Louise of Austria (Napoleon's 2nd wife) is not called Empress, even though she always bore that title. In any case, I think dates in titles are very bad solution. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The format for queens is to place them at their birthname. And Marie Louise was called Empress, that's why she is at her birth name. Read the naming conventions. Charles 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, and I suppose you mean the bit here about "past royal consorts". (It does mention that "there is opposition to a broad usage of this convention", though.) Okay so that explains why she's "Maria Louisa of Spain" (which she was before the article move), but doesn't explain why it should be "(1782-1824)" rather than "Queen of Etruria". That pagemove had nothing to do with changing it to reflect her birthname. ElinorD (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elinor, for looking that up. I think Charles' post above a bit incivil, as I think breaking up a normal conversation with directives is just that. I did not question the title over at Marie Louise's article and anyway. Nor would I object to removing "Queen of Etruria" if a disambiguation were not needed and if the title had not been important in her life (much more than Marie Louise's higher ranking Imperial title). Also, I think naming conventions should be used not slavishly but with regard for the special case (and not to the result of blatantly incorrect titles like Elisabeth of Bavaria). And dates in names are just plain ugly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We disambiguate by dates, not by titles. It has been done that way here for a long time. As for your comments about incivility, I will refrain from commenting other than saying that it was completely rude and uncalled for. Charles 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I have been here for some time and this disambiguate by dates seems (to me at least) a thing recently spreading. If taken to its logical conclusion we could also, in our case, do away with the "of Spain" designation and merely call the article "Maria Louisa (1782-1824)", unless there is another woman of that name and life span (which I doubt). Or we could disambiguate Pope Alexander I from Tsar Alexander I by their life span. But I digress, you are not to blame for the convention included rules that are IMHO wrongheaded.

As for "completely rude and uncalled for". I have not the slightest idea how my comment, a very careful statement what I felt about your orginal comment, can be construed as "rude". "Uncalled for"? Maybe, but not more so than your original comment, which was indeed uncalled for. I had a conversation with Elinor and nobody called you in to order me around. Thank you very much for your consideration. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have ordered no one around, I'm afraid. Charles 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I brought up the subject now. Please, can we drop it? I don't have a problem with "Read the naming conventions", and really don't see it as ordering people around. Certainly in English those words could be anything from a suggestion to an order, and while we'd need tone of voice and facial expression to know which it is, it certainly seems unlikely to be an order. I feel as if I'm seeing a lot of squabbles springing up over things that really are not worth it in the last few days. ElinorD (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor, I am in favour of dropping it as well. I will reply to your post on your talk page.

Charles, what I wrote is what I felt at your original post (which entered a still heated atmosphere on this page, for which neither you nor Elinor are in anyway to blame). If you didn't mean to give that expression that is okay by me. I do not hold any grudge against you. I still don't think that my second post was rude (even if unneeded) but if I hurt you by it, I am indeed sorry. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]