User talk:The Emperor's New Spy/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Please take a look

Since you have been quite interested in articles on Brazilian royals before, I'd like to ask you to take a look at this. To simplify things: DrKiernan wants that Teresa Cristina's article, and only hers (and no other royal's article), should not have the translated name in parantheses next to birth and death dates. --Lecen (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll stay out of this because I have honestly no idea what you two are arguing about.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I. But you asked me about the "Gonzaga" name: I don't know about the other Royal Families, but in Portugal and Brazil the name of royals honored: ancestors, saints and angels. "Pedro de Alcântara João Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocádio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga". Pedro de Alcântara honors Peter of Alcantara, João is for João VI, Carlos is the male form of Carlota and Leopold is the male form of Leopoldina. I remember that Miguel stands for Archangel Michael, Gabriel for Archangel Gabriel and Rafael for Archangel Raphael. Gonzaga, if I'm not mistaken, honours Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, who was indeed a member of the House of Gonzaga (but the honor is for the saint, not his house). Bibiano is the male form of Saint Bibiana. I'm not entirely sure to what "Francisco Xavier de Paula" stand for. Perhaps is a double honor to both Saints Francis Xavier and Francis of Paola. --Lecen (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Epic Barnstar
		For Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, for your work on Medieval royals and nobles, adding ancestry boxes, succession boxes and fixing many mistakes...it's not easy I know! --David (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving royalty to different titles

Please be careful about unilateral moves of articles. This move has transferred the article from one wrong name to another: Members of the various branches of the House of Saxony (and other electoral or ducal dynasties: Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, Palatine, Wurttemberg) did not consistently use the title "Prince/Princess of Realm-Branch" until various dates -- each of which must be looked up in reliable sources -- until the second half of the 1700s. Their proper title until then is "Duke/Duchess" (some Brunswick/Hanover branches began using the princely title somewhat earlier). However, your effort to move cadet royalty from substantive titles ("Name, Duke of Saxe-Whatever") to cadet titles "Duke Name of Saxe-Whatever") is accurate, long overdue and appreciated. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra of Yugoslavia

You're correct, I apologize. When I was looking at previous edits I thought yours also messed up the "birth date" "birth place" etc. parameters. Turns out I was looking at the wrong edits. Thanks for fixing all of it. I do have one question though, you added the "Eastern Orthodox" claim under religion but I don't see anything in the article that backs this up. There should probably be some kind of mention of this in the article with a reliable source. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Consort of Lippe

Hello,

I have completed my translation of the German article about Pauline of Lippe. In the meantime, I've also translated the other articles you suggested.

I think you're confused about Ernestine of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, though. Ernest Augustus I, Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach had two daughters named Ernestine. You asked about the younger daughter, Ernestine Auguste Sophie, who was a consort of Saxe-Hildeburghausen. I think you're confusing her with her older half-sister Ernestine Albertine, who was a consort of Lippe. Unfortunately, there's no article about the older sister in the German wikipedia.

Kind regards, HansM (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg side-lines

Hello,
I have translated the articles on the side-lines of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg you asked about, and some of the pages these articles link to.
HansM (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Georgia vs. Eastern Georgia

I see that for some reason you moved George XII of Kartli-Kakheti to George XII of Georgia. Please note that while eastern Georgian kings were descendants of the royal House of Bagrationi, so were many others, including leaders of Kingdom of Imereti in Western Georgia. Blood ties do not change the facts on the ground, which is that George's jurisdiction was limited to two eastern provinces of what we know as Georgia and nothing more. If Kartli-Kakheti sounds confusing, perhaps you should move it to George XII of Eastern Georgia and the article will explain the rest.--Akovolyov (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hairfair Dynasty and House of Sverre

Be greeted, thou who workest with royals.

Could you, if you wish to receive this task, make sure that the Hairfair Dynasty and the House of Sverre get separated – and never united again? No modern historians support that King Sverre I Sigurdsson was a Hairfair descendant.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a stub article at House of Sverre and I left a message on the Fairhair dynasty article for someone to seperate the other branches into seperate articles.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The page has a nice layout.

By the way, I may tell, and you might already know, that the House of Sverre – or the Sverre Dynasty, according to Norwegian terms – had as arms a golden crowned lion on a red field. Later, the lion was supplied with a silver axe symbolising Saint Olaf. See also Coat of arms of Norway.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn;t know that. I used Haakon IV's coat of arms.

Reply

Hello! It is perfectly allowed to create stubs in wikipedia. Especially about people who are obviously relevant to have their own articles. People may well be reluctant to start articles, but not to develop stubs. I myself have developed many stubs over they years and made them to articles, after they have been started by others. Wikipedia does not demand that any article be perfect from the beginning. It is after all a project where we can all help to develop articles untill they are perfect. This is a very good system. I myself often develop stubs created by others when I encounter them, and of course others may do the same thing with mine. Perhaps it would be better to develop articles you think are to short, rather than to create a bad atmosphere by simply complain about what others do? Youre remark on my page was really not constructive in any way at all, it just created bad feelings. If I had not started these stubs, these articles may never have been created at all. Now, they can be developed very easily by those with knowledge, just like I have done the same for others where I have the knowledge. This is a very good system when it comes to royal consorts. They are relevant with their own articles in any case, so stubs are prefectly allowed. I have nothing more to say about this. Happy editing and continue with your good work! Have a good day. Best greetings--Aciram (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles about royal consorts are and will always remain relevant. Anyone can and will always eventually expand them, and if they have no knowledge themselwes, it is easy to do so by translating them, as indeed you point out yourself. All we have to to is aby by wp rules, not to adjust ourselwes to other users personal oppinions. Your remark : "Don't write that you translated them from other wikipedia when you most likely did not" is rude. I think I know better than anyone from which article I have translated text or not. If I do have made a mistake regarding that on some point or another, I will be more carefull to avoid that in the future. I think discussions like these are better qualified on the discussions-pages of articles. It really creates nothing more than bad feelings between us two. I can't see any good consequence coming out of this discussion what so ever, I'm afraid, so from my part, it is now ended. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)