Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

Genealogic article

Is there really nothing to be said about her, except genealogy?--85.226.42.172 (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

General

Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg vs Hesse-Rotenburg! Very few sources even add the Rheinfels part to her "surname" and none of her family members do either (hence my removing it but then thought should discuss it)! What are we to do? Also I do not appreciate anyone's work being removed because one person believes it to be trivia Monsieur le Duc (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As annotated when I edited the article to show that her correct title before marriage was "Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg", this is thoroughly documented in Huberty's L'Allemagne Dynastique, Tome I - Hesse, Reuss, Saxe. Pages 129-130 give this as her exact title. Pages 146-147 clarify that this remained the title of cadets of this dynasty until 1654, when "Rheinfels" was dropped. Although male cadets and females of the junior Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Homburg branches used the title "Landgrave/Landgravine" into the late 18th and early 19th centuries, only the heads of the Kassel branches did likewise: cadets and females of the Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Philipsthal, Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg, Hesse-Eschwege and Hesse-Wanfried branches took the title of Prince/Princess in the late 17th century. FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with FactsStraight that parts of the article were very trivial. I mean, the article did not only discuss her sister's marriages (which is irrelevant here) but it also discussed who her sisters could have married and her niece's friend![1] That makes more than one person. However, I disagree with FactsStraight when it comes to other "trivial" things. For example, the place of birth can't be a trivial information. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My way of evaluating whether a factoid is trivial or not depends upon the relative importance of the subject, and of the factoid in that subject's life. I didn't delete where Polyxena was born or was buried. I simply cut the details down to one mention. It doesn't matter to me whether that mention is in the text or an info box, but only one, please. There is an almost unlimited interest in details about Louis XIV, Nicholas & Alexandra of Russia, Elizabeth II, etc. But less for their siblings, and increasingly less for their remote relatives and courtiers. Polyxena was for 5 years in the early eighteenth century the little-known consort of a king of a third-rate realm which no longer exists as a geo-political entity. It doesn't matter if we can find out as much info about her as we can about Marie Antoinette -- such detail is inappropriate in an article that should be little larger than a stub. Otherwise these articles become what many on Wikipedia already call them royalty cruft -- the tail wagging the dog. Larding up these Capetian/Savoy/Habsburg articles with photos, genealogy, architectural patronage and speculation about their "looks", "feelings" and "tastes" inappropriately trivializes this project. This is an encyclopedia -- a summary of the world's significant knowledge -- not a memoir, not a coffee table book, and not a Gothic novel. If we don't want fed-up republicans to take a scyth to all royalty and nobility articles, we had better do what the Bourbons couldn't -- forget our obsessions and learn some restraint. FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I know I can go on and on but some ones place of birth, a style they used, or how many children they had is pretty much relevant! Any views on the name?! Monsieur le Duc (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the number of children a woman buried before they reached puberty important to history? Why is it important to know whether Polyxena was a "Serene" or a "Royal" Highness? These are facts about long-dead people most of whom were very important in their lives, but have left little impact on ours. Just because something is interesting doesn't make it historically significant. In this case, the important dead infant to mention was not Polyxena's, but her aunt's -- because that child was headed for the throne and his premature death while Polyxena was his step-mother switched the line of descent from a previous queen to herself. I'd like to see more in this article about Polyxena's role as a liaison between a German, mostly Protestant dynasty and a Roman Catholic, Latin one. But that info gets bypassed in our rush to reveal that Polyxena's body was moved from one spot in Turin to another years after she died! On the specific matter of her style, neither Huberty nor Velde confirms that prior to her marriage in 1724 she was, by right, Durchlaucht (Serene Highness). It seems her father was Highness, but at this time German styles weren't yet fixed and she probably had an honorific rather than a style, i.e. Hochgeboren (Highborn). FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a compromise: include Rheinfels in the lead sentence and when her father is first mentioned, while otherwise omit it. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Compromise" based upon what equally reputable but conflicting sources? Polyxena's grandfather and father used the title "Landgrave of Hesse-Rotenburg", omitting the "Rheinfels" which the cadets kept. Her brother and nephew also included the "Rheinfels". I erred in failing to notice the distinction in use of "Rheinfels" between landgraves and cadet princes -- but that's not because the sources didn't include the info. On Polyxena's mother, although LouisPhilippeCharles hastily moved her article to back up his revert of my edit, Huberty confirms (and I footnoted) that she was a Countess of Lowenstein-Wertheim-Rochefort. Huberty's volumes are renowned for accuracy in genealogy, geo-dynastic history and titulature. I'd like to see a source considered more accurate on the Hessians' titles in this period! German titles weren't like French ones, which were mostly self-adopted, arbitrary, un-regulated, and abandoned by whim every generation. They abide by very predictable rules. (Speaking of which, I conflate subsections into sections because you can link to a section of an article, but not to a sub-section, so the latter should be avoided).FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again User:LouisPhilippeCharles, while accusing me of article ownership, provocatively re-inserts error in the article -- without a reliable citation, facts notwithstanding. This is not an ambiguous point: the facts are not only known, but the issue of this family's titulature has been discussed in published literature. I have documented in the footnotes and responded at length, above, based on highly reputable research what this woman's correct title and territorial designation were ("Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg"). I have been requested to avoid edit-warring by discussing disputes such as this on the talk page rather than simply reverting the unjustified material. And a specific recommendation was made above to "compromise" which I, although disagreeing that a compromise is called for, have taken no action to reverse -- pending replies to the objections I raised above. I therefore urge others to review both the footnotes and the explanations given and to take appropriate action. Such errors of fact can't simply be left in the article. FactStraight (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why stating (on an encyclopedia) that so and so had however many children, stlkes and other such information is not "important to history"!? Are you actually for real! Wikipedia:Ownership of articles comes to mind and it is highly frustrating Monsieur le Duc (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Style and content

Efforts to reduce inappropriate style and content in this article may require request for external intervention. To avoid this, please let's stop adding and re-inserting non-encyclopedic matter, especially that which has been challenged. This has been repeatedly complained of for years (see e.g., the "Redundant & trivial content" and "Genealogic article" sections at Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans and at Tbharding's talk page, but the editor responsible (committing the same errors at numerous biographical articles on the Capetians and their spouses and in-laws, as well as the Lorraines, Savoys, Estes, Gonzagas, Habsburgs, Wittelsbachs and French ducal families) seldom engages in specific edit discussions on talk pages, instead re-inserting deletions while dismissing fact tags and edit summary objections.

The problem persists in two forms: inappropriate style and inappropriate content. The content violates Wikipedia's exclusionary policy against genealogical minutiae and exposition of insignificant details. It consists of excess in: Speculation (assumptions about the "feelings", "thoughts", "attractiveness" or "relationships" of persons often long-dead presented as if factual or probable yet not reliably cited from the person's diary, correspondence or quoted statements); Trivia (information unimportant to the historical significance of the topic); Redundancies (information that is repeated in the article or duplicates info that is/should be in a different article), Extranea (superfluous information, only tangentially related to the topic). I have been very specific about the extent and different kinds of trivia habitually inserted in this and similar articles so that there can be no confusion about the criteria: Greater detail in articles about historically important or popular persons may be appropriate, whereas such detail in the articles of relatively minor or obscure persons is not notable, unduly lengthens the article, and is therefore inappropriate. Edits which are trivial, speculative, redundant or extraneous reduce the professionalism of Wikipedia because they:

1. Include unsourced (and often, unsource-able) assertions that may be inaccurate
2. Use an editorial voice more appropriate to narrative in a novel than to an objective encylopedia
3. Divert the article's focus from facts which make the subject encyclopedically significant
4. Pad the article, making it harder to notice when a stub needs sourced expansion -- or lacks sufficient notability to justify an article. FactStraight (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please tell F.S to stop being such a child! He seems to think that categories and a template are regarded as trivia – it is dull now! It is even more amusing to see that these categories are not even correct (i.e. the dates are wrong) which proves completely he is just trying to be as difficult as possible! He is making himself seem a fool Monsieur le Duc (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

bio on minor queen consort of small obsolete country should incl minimal trivia I can not believe you! I can not see how you cant say I do not source things - I do! I have no problem with people rewriting/wording what I have write I, do not, however, see how you can justify you actions to anybody!? Also you stated Divert the article's focus from facts which make the subject encyclopedically significant - you do this all the time!! Oh My God!! Monsieur le Duc (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

You have reverted the page some six times now and no one else had a problem with the info on it which was completely sourced and what I discovered as well as published. Please leave it alone. I have tried to compromise with you but you are not returning the favour! Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You have reverted this page 9 times now, reverting not only my edit but that of User:Surtsicna. Please quote the exact statement and source for your edit in the section on this issue above titled "General" as I have done at length. FactStraight (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is my documentation, as previously posted in the section above labelled "General". Where is yours? I edited the article to show that her correct title before marriage was "Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg", this is thoroughly documented in Huberty's L'Allemagne Dynastique, Tome I - Hesse, Reuss, Saxe. Pages 129-130 give this as her exact title. Pages 146-147 clarify that this remained the title of cadets of this dynasty until 1754, when "Rheinfels" was dropped. Although male cadets and females of the junior Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Homburg branches used the title "Landgrave/Landgravine" into the late 18th and early 19th centuries, only the heads of the Kassel branches did likewise: cadets and females of the Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Philipsthal, Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg, Hesse-Eschwege and Hesse-Wanfried branches took the title of Prince/Princess in the late 17th century. Please quote any documentation and its source which provides more reliable, specific information on this matter than this.FactStraight (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at the latest ref I added before you start accusing me of things my dear Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know to what you refer. So for the sake of clarity please state here so all can see what your "ref" says, and the source from which it comes. FactStraight (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's quite simple, look on the page that I added to, and you will seee! Gosh Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your last edit to the article just before you last comment here on the article's talk page. It is not clear to me so to help resolve this dispute please place it here and explain based on that source why you think FactStraight is mistaken. -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I added sources stating she held the style of Landgravine from various sources (as expected) thus backing up what I added and I do not see what is wrong with that. No one else had a problem with this yet it gets reverted by someone who frequently has to make me look like I am trying to cause an argument =\ Why revert factual info which is referenced and which is true?! It drives me maaaad! Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a Ad hominem it is not a discussion about the content and the sources. Taking the diffs between your version and the version to which I reverted. To start the process lets look at just the first three differences:

1. You removed "Rheinfels" from "Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" is this because the sources do not support Rheinfels?
2. removal of "full name:..." Why removal and not replacement? What do you think the full name is and what are the sources you use for that?
3. removal of the inline citation from "father = Ernest Leopold, Landgrave of Hesse-Rotenburg" Why?

-- PBS (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1. partially as well as the fact that all of her siblings as well members of the family are simply called Hesse-Rotenburg
2. At one point I did try to compromise with regards to the name and it was clear that no one bothered to look as that was reverted within minutes and carried the same comment as the previous reverts Louis Philippe Charles (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sticking with point one. It does not matter what the kids are called. What matters is what the reliable sources use. please list the ones that support your POV. -- PBS (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In your attempt to be fair in this matter and to be understood, please avoid over-simplification: I have a nickname. Most people who know me call me by that nickname and therefore use that nickname. But that does not make it my legal, official or correct name. I very carefully did not challenge the name used for this article, because Wikipedia's criteria are often interpreted to mandate names for people which are most widely used even when known to be incorrect. The content of the article is, however, different. People turn to an encyclopedia not to learn what terms are popularly used but to discover precisely what terms are correct. In this case, I readily concede that she is often called "Landgravine" and her suffix is often given as "Hesse-Rheinfels". But for the sake of those who look up articles in this encyclopedia in hopes of finding out what term would have been official at court, or used in legal documents, or is in accord with the historical position of her family during her maidenhood in her father's realm -- I have provided it along with footnoted documentation on the source: "Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg", without "Serene Highness" or "Highness" is the accurate term. I have declined to compromise on this because I have been shown nothing which states anything different by a source which has a higher reputation for accuracy in the matter of dynastic titulature than Huberty, Giraud and Magdelaine's L'Allemagne Dynastique. Also, please note the number of times it has been requested here and on the edit summary by me, Surtsicna and you that the precise sources for the other POV be cut-and-pasted here -- to no avail. Once again the proof is before our eyes: without threat of an immediate block, no compliance with normal requests has been forthcoming (as distinct from non-responsive noises like "Gosh!", "Monsieur", "I didn't understand", "I won't do it again" etc -- along with prompt deletion of the "Gotcha" from the talk page). While I do admire your patience, at what point does it become appropriate to consider the possibility that, the assume good faith policy notwithstanding, you are being stonewalled so as to prevent you from taking punitive action while massive (and often erroneous) changes are imposed on Wikipedia articles? FactStraight (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FactStraight the two of you can from now until eternity keep reverting to your preferred version, or we can drill down here on the talk page and examine the sources in a collegiate way for each of the differences. Please leave the Ad hominem comments for the user talk pages. You have produced a source to justify inclusion of the first diff. Louis Philippe Charles what is the most authoritative source you can point to that refutes the inclusion of "Rheinfels" in this article? -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. A Simple search on google books makes it clear Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg - 36 results Hesse-Rotenburg - 66 results Nearly twice as many for the former name. I have no problem with Princess being used, I never said I have, I just think consistency is important especially when her own father is known as the Landgrave of Hesse-Rotenburg and thus without the additional territory of Rheinfels which does not even having a page =\ Less is more people! I have reverted the page as I was unable to make my point on the matter to defend myself LPC (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

LPC You should not have edited the page before agreeing changes here on the talk page. All you succeed in doing is rekindling the edit war. -- PBS (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Even with her "other" name Polyxena Christina of Hesse-Rotenburg receives more hits than H-R-R LPC (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"A simple search on Googlebooks makes it clear." Makes what clear? That "Landgravine Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg" is more popular than "Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg"? I agree -- but that is not what this dispute is about. So as to make it simple and unequivocal, however: You are correct on the matter of which name is more widely used in writing about the subject of this article. I acknowledged that fact on this page on 9 November 2010, at which time I wrote "I very carefully did not challenge the name used for this article, because Wikipedia's criteria are often interpreted to mandate names for people which are most widely used even when known to be incorrect. The content of the article is, however, different. People turn to an encyclopedia not to learn what terms are popularly used but to discover precisely what terms are correct. In this case, I readily concede that she is often called 'Landgravine' and her suffix is often given as 'Hesse-Rotenburg'. But for the sake of those who look up articles in this encyclopedia in hopes of finding out what term would have been official at court, or used in legal documents, or is in accord with the historical position of her family during her maidenhood in her father's realm -- I have provided it along with footnoted documentation on the source: 'Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg', without 'Serene Highness' or 'Highness' is the accurate term.". But as I suspected, multiple requests from me, Surtsicna, and PBS on this page and in the edit summary all failed to elicit a reliable source documenting the claim that her correct title was "Landgravine Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg" because no such source has been found or is available to rebut the evidence I've presented. The article's name may sometimes reflect popular usage in English. But the content of the article must reflect accuracy -- whether popular or not. PBS explicitly advised on this page on 7 November that a Reliable Source is needed to refer to Polyxena and her siblings by the term LouisPhilippeCharles prefers ("It does not matter what the kids are called. What matters is what the reliable sources use. please list the ones that support your POV"). So it simply cannot now be claimed that it was unclear that "accuracy" on Polyxena's nomenclature was the point in need of documentation here. Yet the repeated reversions of reliably sourced and duly footnoted information on this woman's title constitute tendentious editing, and the revert war being re-initiated yet again is indefensibly provocative. FactStraight (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a month to give you time to agree on the first point and hopefully some more. LPC what in you opinion is the most reliable source of those that you have found? -- PBS (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think by writing an essay on regarding two small points that I will stop?! Once again, less is more. As I have said, my issue is not with Princess, one could be a Landgravine of where ever by birth yet hold the rank of a and style princess. I have not disputed that. My issue is, for the umpteenth time, with Rheinfels. Regardless of who is right, all of the Hesse-Rotenburg's should be the same! It looks silly if one says X and another says Y. You yourself moaned about accuracy being the issue LPC (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Polyxena, Princess of Hesse-Rotenburg, Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg German
2. Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels, Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels Italian

There is obviously a difference between the two countries in terms of what they called her in her native Germany and adopted Italy.

How can this be solved? And as I have said, Princess is not the issue *tries to compromise but will meerly be sidelined* LPC (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply to the admin, PBS who, once again, requested that you identify here just one of your sources, but this is the first time you have given a reference, which was never made a footnote of the article despite this dispute, clearly indicating that you just stumbled upon it. Regardless, it is corrected by the source already in the footnotes: Huberty, Giraud and Magelaine's book L'Allemagne Dynastique Tome I Hesse-Reuss-Saxe, (AD) which is not a book about royalty in general but specifically reports the genealogy and titulature of only 3 families, is heavily annotated, and has not been corrected on the Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg's by any subsequent research in publication. Specifically, it cites its own research, that of Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, and that of the most respected German publication on royal genealogy and titulature, the Genealogisch Handbuch des Adels. On page 108 AD states that Polyxena's father is "Ernest-Leopold, Landgrave regnant de Hesse-Rotenburg en 1725, succede a son pere." On pages 129-131 his children are listed. It is explicitly stated on p.129 that they bear the title "Princes et Princesses de HESSE-RHEINFELS-ROTENBOURG". How do we know that this is not a slip-of-the-pen or lacks specificity? Because on page 146 other descendants of Ernest-Leopold are also listed, but their title is given as "Princes et Princesses de HESSE-RHEINFELS-ROTENBURG jusqu'en 1754, Princesse de HESSE-ROTENBOURG a partir de 1754." On pp.153-156 AD states "GHA. XV donne au Landgrave Charles-Emmanuel, ainsi qu'a son fils Victor, le titre de 'Landgrave de Hesse-Rotenbourg' alors qui'il intitulatit ses ancetres 'Landgraves de Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenbourg'. Le Brockaus dit que c'est a la suite de la cession de Rheinfels en 1754 que les Landgraves cesserent de porter le nom de Rheinfels (translation: "GHA XXV [Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, volume 25] gives to the Landgrave Karl Emanuel, as well as to his son Viktor, the title of 'Landgrave of Hesse-Rotenburg' whereas he entitles his ancestors [which include Polyxena's father, Ernst-Luitpold, and brother, Konstantin] 'Landgraves of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg'). Brockhaus says that it was following the cession of Rheinfels in 1754 that the Landgraves cease to carry the name of Rheinfels."

(sarcastic comment deleted by author)"...all of the Hesse-Rotenburg's should be the same! It looks silly if one says X and another says Y." That doesn't justify reversion of documented fact, and decisions about content made on such...grounds only degrades the quality of Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) FactStraight (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

LPC just because other related articles use something else does not make them correct particularly when the level of citing sources is so low in articles like: Landgraviate of Hesse-Rotenburg and abysmally low in Ernest Leopold, Landgrave of Hesse-Rotenburg. But I agree with you and hopefully when we have decided on the correct form in this article then the others can be sourced in a similar way so that if there are discrepancies they are properly documented with reliable cited sources --PBS (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To try to get my head around this issue I looked on the net for an article to help me. This one European Kingdoms: Central Europe, and more specifically the sections "Dukes of Hesse" and "Landgraves of Hessen-Rheinfels (-Rotenburg)" Seem particularly relevant. I do not pretend that it is a reliable source, but it does help me to understand the argument that FactStraight is presenting. The range of dates for the use of both names would make this woman "of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" according to the information supplied in that unreliable article. However it seems to be backed up in Köbler, Gerhard (2007). Historisches Lexikon der Deutschen Länder: die deutschen Territorien vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (7 ed.). C.H.Beck. pp. 279. ISBN 3406549861.

Having done that I looked around for a reliable source in English: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hess-Cassel". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 13 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 410.. It states "His son, Maurice the Learned (1592-1627), turned Protestant in 1605, became involved later in the Thirty Years' War, and, after being forced to cede some of his territories to the Darmstadt line, abdicated in favour of his son William V. (1627-1637), his younger sons receiving apanages which created several cadet lines of the house, of which that of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg survived till 1834". It is also mentioned in Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Hess" . Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. "Only in the territory belonging to the collateral branch, Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg, which became Catholic in 1652 and extinct in 1834, was the Catholic Church tolerated." LPC Do you see a contradiction between the information in these two general English language encyclopaedias and the sources you provided? Is there a difference between the formal name of the mini-state that family ruled (which seems to have changed name a few times but was "Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" at the time this woman lived) and the family name/house name? -- PBS (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking ages, all I have to say now is that I have run out of energy (I'm sure FS will be pleased to know). My only request is that all Hesse-Rotenburg's be moved to either Prince/ss X of Hesse-R-R for the sake of clarity. Oh the paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain LPC (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Will the name not depend on whether the title was in use as "Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg" or Hess-Rotenburg which seems to be based on dates of when the state changed its name? -- PBS (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FactStraight, LPC made some other changes do you have any objection to those changes (excluding the deletion of -Rheinfels-)? -- PBS (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)