PROFILPELAJAR.COM

This is an archive of past discussions about User:The Emperor's New Spy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Valdemar the Young

Sorry about the long wait I've been very busy. I'd done more work on it but due to an edit conflict I lost the info box :( please could you add in the succession boxes I'm bad with them. Thank you--David (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and a very Merry Christmas to you as well :) --David (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, a while back I created an article on Elizabeth of Sicily, Queen of Hungary. Looking back, it appears a few months ago an IP user wrote that she had an illegitimate son and gave two questionable sources for this, do you think it's believable or should I remove it?--David (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it was only an info box that was lost in the edit conflict it's been replaced. I'm rubbish with images sorry I've uploaded a few but I normally get the licence wrong. Do you know how to get to the upload an image page?--David (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth of Sicily, Queen of Hungary on the possible illegitimate child, thanks--David (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Valdemar II the What?

Hi QE2. We seem to have gotten ourselves into bit of an edit war on the House of Estridsen template. I recently changed the epithet for Valdemar II of Denmark to "the Victorious" rather than "the Conqueror". The former is more common, as far as I know, but you may have other information. Favonian (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought you changed it to "the Conqueror" on the house template. So I was complying with your edits and changing all my previous edits that call him "the Victorious". I'm confused. Which one do you support?

Nope, I changed it thusly from "Conqueror" to "Victorious". Admittedly, I am biased by the fact that he's always known as "Valdemar Sejr" in Danish, and the last word means "Victory". Favonian (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay change it. Just a little confusion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool! And thanks for your great work on the Danish royalty articles—and elsewhere. Favonian (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Catherine of Brunswick and Lunenburg (disambiguation)

Hi Little Spy,
the naming of the members of the ducal branches of Brunsck and Lunenburg is a mess, so I generally would like to bring their names into a systematic pattern, but I haven't taken yet any effort to propose that, I should though. The entry of one other family member, Prince-Archbishop Albert of Brunswick and Lunenburg-Wolfenbüttel, I wrote, I also named the same way like the Catherines. But there I don't like the Wolfenbüttel being connected by "-" (hyphen), Wolfenbüttel should be in brackets, because it is a branch of Brunswick and Lunenburg, not particularly of Lunenburg. I prefer Lunenburg over Lüneburg, since it is without Umlaut "ü". There is the English Lunenburg, so why imposing typing Lüneburg.
Typing English Brunswick instead of German Braunschweig, then combined with German Lüneburg, now the most common form, creates a hybrid, I think that is a second choice. This Umlaut made some people even mislocating it (the ü) into Brünswick, a series of such mistypings I only corrected recently. As to the mess: Family members are sometimes listed as simply of Brunswick, of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, of Brunswick-Lüneburg, of Brunswick-Bevern, -Gifhorn, -Grubenhagen, -Calenberg, -Harburg etc. (all the different branches), without any systematics, sometimes correctly insinuating (if intended at all) the respective branch was split off Brunswick and Lunenburg, principality Wolfenbüttel (vulgo Brunswick), but sometimes subsuming split-offs of the principality of Celle (vulgo Lunenburg). I haven't checked yet if some family members are listen under "of Lüneburg …" "of Celle …", "of Lüneburg-Celle", or "of +any branch principality".
What do you think, is it worth the effort to rename all family members sytematically? Such as: "first name [Duchess/Duke No.,] of Brunswick and Lunenburg (respective principality)". I would like to but wonder who all will start an argument about it. Some family members have first (sometimes jointly) ruled other principalities than at the end of their reign, so either the last ruled principality could be mentioned, or both or none. These double name candidates are negligible in number, so the unease would be little. Maybe the best is naming after affiliation at birth, which is a clear principal for women dynasts, who changed names later by marriage
Then there is another problem, the principality branches also formed houses, but like Bevern later inherited their mother branch principality Wolfenbüttel so dynastically they were Bevern, however, with Bevern only forming the smaller part of their realm and Wolfenbüttel their residence and main territory.
I clearly would suggest that the naming should be uniformed in a systematic way, at best non hybrid, and at best giving the actual naming of the house Brunswick and Lunenburg (or Braunschweig und Lüneburg, which I don't prefer) plus either the dynastic or territorial princely branch. We should dicuss.
P.S. Sorry I haven't contributed so far on the Thuringian rulers, but I am too busy, but have not forgotten.
Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn

I don't really know either. I think you can propose a move for all the articles on Talk:Brunswick-Lüneburg, similar to the discussion on Talk:Hesse-Kassel and see what other wikipedians think. But otherwise I think you should follow the common form in use right now, which is Brunswick-Lüneburg.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

QVC quiz

You might be amused by this quiz on Sporcle:

http://www.sporcle.com/games/dem490/victoria_children

After spending a month editing Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert a year ago (without having read much of the supporting outside sources), I could only remember 5 children tonight. It can sometimes be useful to forget some of the ocean of information one gathers here.

[Of course, if we were really sadistic, we could set our own Sporcle quiz on Victoria's 42 (?) grandchildren and 85 great-grandchildren (including the one known illegitimate great granddaughter), with a time limit of, say, 3 minutes. ;– ) ] —— Shakescene (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I got everyone of them. I'm pretty good at names. It took me a few seconds to remember Princess Alice though.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)