User talk:Cfvh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • Archive 1/6: Up to March 2006
  • Archive 2/6: March 2006
  • Archive 3/6: March & April 2006
  • Archive 4/6: May to Mid-August 2006
  • Archive 5/6: Mid-August to Mid-October 2006
  • Archive 6/6: Mid-October 2006 to Early January 2007
  • Personal messages: Want to say hi? Just click this link :-)
  • Userboxes: My userbox page outlines some information about me, my WikiProject memberships, etc
  • If you want to start a new conversation about my editing, help that I may provide or other Wikipedia-related questions, just click here.

Contents

[edit] Mark & Berg

Hello Charles! In my experience, "County of Mark" is used more frequently than "County of the Mark" (see Talk:County of the Mark). Also, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Berg (state) if you have time? Olessi 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that individual counts may be titled "Counts of the Mark"- there does not seem to be a strong preference for one form over another. However, the territory and state is still known overwhelmingly in English as "County of Mark". While the Palatinate is overwhelmingly known in English as "the Palatinate", that is not the case regarding Mark (as indicated by the Google Books results). With WP:NC(CN) in mind, the main article should be moved back to County of Mark, but I have no objections to keeping the counts at "Count of the Mark". Hope you feel better, Olessi 22:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Usage of "County of the Mark" can, of course, be mentioned in the article as well. Olessi 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I replied at the article's talk page. Cheers, Olessi 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

hey there, how are you? do you have any opinions on this one Talk:Alexandra Georgievna of Greece and Denmark? cheers Gryffindor 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks, I'll post my comments there. I think we should be consistent, either go fully with the Russian name (my choice) or with the one they were born. Couple of more questions: why is it Januária, Princess Imperial of Brazil but her sisters are Princess Francisca of Brazil and Princess Leopoldina of Brazil? and what do you think about this one Margaret of Parma? Neither ruler of Parma nor queen consort? thanks alot. Gryffindor 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. So in the case of Margaret of Parma is it a bit like Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma? Gryffindor 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so Marie Louise was Duchess-regnant, whereas Margaret was duchess-consort, right? in that case can it be "Duchess Margaret of Parma" instead, do you agree? Gryffindor 09:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katharine of Aragon

Hello there. Just wondering if you could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? Cheers Paul75 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the debate, greatly appreciated! Paul75 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hilda Toledano

Someone has edited your contributions to the page from two months ago. The new edition has the tone of M. De Sousa's bunch. Might be worth a look.

12.40.61.2 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Kelly

Dear Charles, I don't have access to the Pailler biography just at present (since I'm on vacation for reading week). I will try to get the Pailler book asap and then add some citations. Noel

P.s. I understand your irritation about the dauphin article. Noel S McFerran 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Lepore

Despite what you may think, Amanda Lepore was born a male. I find it awkward the only sense of her being a male mentioned in that article is the word transsexual. It should at least say something, especially for those who have no idea what a transsexual is. -24.92.43.153 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leiningen

Hello, hello - I was just wondering why you had moved my article Fürst zu Leiningen to Prince of Leiningen. I know this is the English language wikipedia, but there is a difference between Fürst zu L. and Prinz zu L. which the English word Prince does not make clear. I think this should at least be mentioned in the article, if not in the title. Opera hat 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elisabeth in Bavaria

Charles, please don't post incorrect comments. [1] Naming conventions cannot prescribe inaccurate names. Str1977 (smile back) 18:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Charles, thanks for your explanation. I didn't mean to accuse you and I haven't kept track over who preferred which name back then (with the exception of John K, because I knew his name beforehand).
And of course your comment was correct as far as the incorrectness of my suggestions on "Requested moves" went, that they were not in line with the guidelines. However, the current titles would only be in line with the guidelines if they were correct, which they aren't: Good to hear that we agree on this. Back then, the discussion resulted in an incorrect naming (and I do not have to explain it to you, why it is wrong) but I don't see this incorrect naming as edged in stone.
I have now reposted the requests aiming at moving them to titles in line with the guidelines. Feel free to comment there as well. Thanks. Str1977 (smile back) 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
By "feel free to comment" I mean new comments not reposting old comments. This is a new request, despite the similarities. This time the titles aimed at are in line with WP guidelines. Str1977 (smile back) 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? I suggested two alternatives? I suppose you refer to "Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria" - but "Elizabeth in Bavaria" looks fine in that regard, though I still prefer the first one, as the latter sounds a bit strange. However, there is no reason IMHO to use a downright wrong title as currently. Str1977 (smile back) 00:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I agree that leaving out the Duchess is more in line with the guideline. Though I think the guideline to be wrong in this (for reasons I may specify if you wish), it is our rod of measure. However, I cannot agree with the latter part. Sure, all members of the house nowadays called Wittelsbach can be termed "of Bavaria" as the house actually was (and still is) called "House of Bavaria" (just as the Habsburgs were the House of Austria) - but on WP we do not use it in this way (see. I also can't agree that all members are automatically Duke or Duchess, let alone Duke of Bavaria. If it were like this, the whole concept of "Duke in Bavaria" would be pointless. Str1977 (smile back) 09:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed presentation. One more query: if the "Duke in Bavaria" is of a higher status than the "Duke of Bavaria" (the one shared by all house members, not the actual ruling office) then guidelines would recquire us to go with the higher title, wouldn't they? Str1977 (smile back) 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grimaldi

Because you expressed doubts about the naked surname, I verified in Les Manuscrits Du CEDRE (Le Royaume de Bavière/La Principauté de Monaco) that Grimaldi doesn't have "de" as an attached particle. This accords with the way I've always seens it, but I checked it anyway:). - Nunh-huh 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal surname

Hiya Charles, are you sure about purging surnames from the royal pages? For one thing, even though they may not technically hold the surname, certain royals have previously made use of, for instance, M-W. (I'm thinking particularly of Charles' and Anne's marriage banns) Ought we not to note this somewhere? † DBD 14:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Antoinette

Wikipedia articles on deceased royal consorts are quite specifically titled as 'x of y'. There is no rational justification for having an article on 'Marie Antoinette' - insufficently unambigous, and entirely in violation of naming policy. This isn't a complex issue: we name her 'Marie Antoinette', because that is the most common name for her. We name her 'of Austria', because that is her modern designation as a royal. Not complicated. Consider, as a comparison, Henry VIII's first wife - she was born Catalina, the 'correct' spelling of her name (or of the name in English) is Katherine, but the form she is known by is Catherine. Hence, Catherine of Aragon. Similarly, Marie-Antoinette can't be called 'Maria Antonia' (not the most common name, and no rules demanding either the 'correct form' in English or the 'orignal form in land of birth' - thus, we talk about Isabella of France, not Isabelle of France. And Blanche of Castile, not Blanca of Castile.). It's not difficult. So stop changing it. Michael Sanders 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Charles, Do you want to join the discussion on the talk page? Noel S McFerran 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles, how do you reason that Marie Antoinette is 'really' Archduchess Maria Antonia, but Marie Louise is not 'really' Archduchess Maria Ludovica (given that Marie Louise was so named, just as Marie Antoinette was so named). Michael Sanders 11:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


But Marie Louise is the French form of her name, given to her when she married Napoleon (just as Marie Antoinette is the French form of Maria Antonia). The English form of her name, that used at the time, was Maria Louisa (although now her common name is 'Marie Louise'). The point remains, if you say there is no 'Marie Antoinette of Austria', only 'Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria', why do you not say that there was only 'Archduchess Maria Ludovica of Austria'. Michael Sanders 11:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. There is a 'Marie Louise of Austria'. There is no 'Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria' - just as there is no 'Infanta Catherine' - it's a miscombination of styles. Michael Sanders 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion - is this interfering with the succession boxes by 'Imperial Avis' justified? Or should the succession boxes be left to work as they are commonly used? Michael Sanders 12:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested moves: princes of Portugal

I have just realised that the two move requests placed under uncontroversial (Diego, Prince of Asturias and Portugal → Diego, Prince of Asturias and Balthasar Charles, Prince of Asturias and Portugal → Balthasar Charles, Prince of Asturias) are unobstructed. The targets have a single-line history and are redirects to the current locations. You should therefore, be able to move them yourself, without administrator rights. --Stemonitis 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I hadn't noticed that. By the way, do you know if reverting moves has been restricted? I seem to have lost the capability. Charles 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's also true of Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias, by the way. I don't know about reverting moves, but you're right, the link seems to have gone. However, the underlying ability to do it is still there, even if the shortcut to it has been deleted. --Stemonitis 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Peculiar. It would not allow me to move them yesterday. Indeed, for the Savoy princess I brought up for move as well, it would not let me revert moves or move it to the desired title. Charles 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I moved them just when I was doing the Princes of Portugal ring. Anyway, in the case of Miguel da Paz I think Prince of Portugal has priority, since he descended in male line from king Manuel I. The others are OK with prince of Asturias.Câmara 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
But more common where?Câmara 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, google retrieves 196000 for "miguel da paz prince of portugal" and 69500 for "miguel da paz prince of asturias"Câmara 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/f/v/User_talk%7ECfvh_f319.html"