User talk:Tresckow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wassertrüdingen
I didn't put the "translation in course" sign there, that was Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Better ask him/her if you want to make this a nice article, or be bold... Markussep 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] speedy
Under no circumstances should use a normal speedy tag to request a move as you did with Maria Fyodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Wurttemberg). You should do the move yourself!
Note that I did this move but reversed because of the massive number if double (and triple!) redirects it would have created: special:whatlinkshere/Maria Fyodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Wurttemburg). -- RHaworth 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- wurtemburgh. So the fictional country wurttmeburg stays the way just because the redirects changed it into fact?--Tresckow 14:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you have managed to give further variant spelling suggests that the spelling is not very important. I have no objection any different title, providing that you are prepared to fix the double and triple redirects. Go for it man. You may need to use {{Db-histmerge}} to get the article itself moved. -- RHaworth 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- ok ill try it myself. i have to say that considering the spelling isnt important because everyone is misspelling it is kind of wierd. so if enoough people spell it lenkester it would be ok? well i dont mind--Tresckow 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, given the comments on the talk page, I think you should seek second opinions before you start changing things. -- RHaworth 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] move
Talk:Württemberg Landtag Elections in the Weimar Republic states moved here from Wurttemburg Landtag Elections in the Weimar Republic. That is not true. You did not move the article, you did a copy and paste. This is wrong - copy and paste destroys the edit history. If you wish to change the title of an article, you must use the move command (or db-histmerge if necessary, as I mentioned above). Please show some discipline. -- RHaworth 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- i didnt consider the history thingy. i added the histmerge tag and hope ive done it right now.--Tresckow 08:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, no. The merge source in the histmerge tag in this edit was a non-existent article. And a histmerge was not really needed because the article had already been properly moved with its history. Never mind - as long as you now grasp the principle! -- RHaworth 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:ksiaceta wirtemberscy
Ah, thanks, seems like something I was working on some months ago - but now I forget which article specifically might have prompted you to message me with that piece of info?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg) / Wars of Schleswig
No problem. It seems like Europeans in generel agree that our names should be spelled properly. :) This goes for both Danes, Germans, Poles, Romanians etc. I find this essential if we want to claim to strive for scientific accuracy and if we can't claim to strive for this, then what is the point participating here at all? "WürttemBURG" ist nur Quatsch. :) You can no doubt imagine how many different ways Ærøskøbing has been rendered in English.
This was a great opportunity to get in touch with you. I noticed your edits to Second War of Schleswig and the Battle of Dybbøl. Could I persuade you to consult your sources about the level of actual involvement on part of the German Confederation? I'm asking because the Danish sources that I've pretty much relied on, are rather poor in this respect. In Denmark this story is normally summed up thus: the German Confederation authorized a Confederate occupation of Holstein (which happend peacefully, including with troops from the Kingdom of Hannover). However, the actual crossing on the Eider is - in Danish literature - normally described as unauthorized by the Confederation but "only" authorized by Bismarck, and consequently only Prussian and Austrian troops participated north of the Eider. Would you mind checking what your sources say regarding this? In Denmark the occupation of Holstein was not perceived as the outbreak of war, but the intervention into Schleswig was. This is also the motivation for my edits to the infobox.
I've also ended up somewhat in doubt about if Schleswig was actually admitted to the German Confederation during the First War of Schleswig. After the conclusion of peace in 1851 it was emphasized by Denmark that only Holstein was a member of the Confederation but I'm not sure how bold the Schleswig-Holsteiners had been in this respect during the war. If they filed an application for membership, perhaps we should clarify this in the article about the German Confederation? Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Württemberg
I'm not convinced it shouldn't be Karl of Württemberg. I have seen him with an ordinal, as well. Before it gets moved, again, I'd like to see some evidence put forward about both whether or not the ordinal was used (I know his grandfather used an ordinal, despite being the only King Frederick of Württemberg), and as to whether the English or German form is more common in English. john k 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I imagine Frederick took the "I" to indicate his new status as a king (as duke he was Frederick IV or III, I believe), while Karl had no need to do this, but the inconsistency is still a bit annoying. Wikipedia does not, in fact, always anglicize royalty names. It sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't. This is maddeningly inconsistent for 19th century German rulers, although it is theoretically meant to be based on English usage. When we never anglicize a name, like Juan Carlos, it isn't anglicized. When we always anglicize, like Nicholas II of Russia, we anglicize. For cases like these German rulers, it's unclear, although we seem at the moment to tend towards anglicizing. I would personally prefer "Karl of Württemberg," though. john k 02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think names that are always anglicized should be anglicized in the English wikipedia. "Nikolai II" or "Fernando VII" would look odd and pedantic, I think. But when both uses are common, I tend to think we should prefer the native version. On the German wikipedia, I note de:Heinrich VIII. (England) and de:Ferdinand II. (Aragón), so clearly your claim for the Germans is not true, at least on wikipedia. A guy like this, though, who is almost never referred to in English except by specialists or genealogists, should probably be at the German form. john k 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously names with no obvious English equivalent, like Eberhard of Ulrich, are not anglicized. In terms of where to put him, there is a problem in that all the other kings of Württemberg are at the anglicized forms. I'd like a universal solution - perhaps we should just move to Charles of Württemberg for now, and decide upon the question of anglicization in a more general fashion? john k 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How about if
- I move the article on Karl to Charles of Württemberg for the moment
- You open a requested move discussion at Talk:Charles of Württemberg, and post notes on the other talk pages for the kings of Württemberg, and possibly also at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), noting a suggestion for a move of all the articles on kings of Württemberg. Then we can see what comes of it. john k 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:GSWN
Hello Tresckow! In case you have not heard of it before, I'd like to mention the Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board (and its discussion page). Cheers, Olessi 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re:jadger
thank you. do you know if there is a cost involved to look at the old passenger lists? I may be going to Germany relatively soon and would be keen to research it more.
--Jadger 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Your message
At this point, I'm not sure my warning him will do any good. Someone needs to buy this kid a clue. I'll mention it on the Admin noticeboard.--Isotope23 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I see you reported it there and he's been warned again. Let me know if it happens again.--Isotope23 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:AN
I removed your post, as the Administrator noticeboard isn't really the place for reporting personal attacks like this. In this case, just warn the user with the appropriate template {{subst:npa}}, and if they continue, post {{subst:npa2}} then {{subst:npa4}}. If they make attacks after that, report them to WP:AIV and they will be dealt with speedily. Thanks. yandman 10:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] fasion fashion
Thanks for your correction on my userpage:) now i wonder how could i miss that:)) cheers --Boyau 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
