Talk:Aimery of Cyprus

Was/is pedantry
Since the documents that refer to him as Aimericus are still very much extant, they do call him that. Thus, he is called that still. Srnec (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a native speaker of English. I cannot decide which is the better tense: the documents were written centuries ago. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In Hungarian, do you say "The Bible says..." or "The Bible said..."? (This is a serious question. In English, the former is preferred and this can be generalized, thus "Plato writes that...", etc. In fact, you followed the rule when you wrote "documentary evidence shows, he was actually called", where the documents act in the present but his late contemporaries act in the past. But in your edit summary you objected to my wording.) Srnec (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the Bible. In the specific case relating to Aimericus, I would prefer past tense in Hungarian, but it is not relevant. My experinece that native English speakers prefer the past tense in similar cases when copyediting texts. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You yourself used the present tense: "documentary evidence shows". Srnec (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And sometimes I say "he do not know" or I use the non existing verb "heared". I am afraid our conversation reached a point where there is no point in continuing it. If you read my first sentence you will find: "I am not a native speaker of English. I cannot decide which is the better tense: ...." Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Our own List of coats of arms of the House of Lusignan does not give the arms shown as pertaining to Aimery's reign. Hill, p. 69, says the Lusignans in Cyprus used a lion gules on a barruly field argent and azure, as in the image at right. Srnec (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

C/E
I've finished with my copedits. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  05:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Painter 1950" reference links to nothing
The "Painter 1950" reference does not link to a full citation. Does anyone here care to sort that out? It may be a typo (multiple times), or it may refer to a source that is not listed and might be findable in the article's history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From the content referenced, title, and page numbers, it's pretty clear that this should be pointed at Painter, 1957; I've fixed accordingly. Choess (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Erroneously"
What is "erroneous" about the name stuff? Isn't this just different ways of rendering the same name? Why is "Aimery" correct and "Amalric" incorrect?


 * No, etymologically different names, although they are sufficiently close that they have long been confused or treated as variants of one another. The viscounts of Narbonne used both and it leads to a lot of confusion, but the primary documents distinguish Aimericus and Amalricus consistently, I believe. It's actually explained in the "Early life" section of this article. It used to be in the lead. The "popularity" of the mistake in this case seems to come from Runciman. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. john k (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Undo
I add an Ahnentafel (ancestors tree), but user Surtsicna remove it. Additionaly, she makes ungry comments. Her arguments are wrong (e.g. she said the ahnentafel has only males); what I do is similar to what exists in other pages here in WP. I cannot understand why she deletes all this stuff. Do we interested to improve the texts or not? Aris de Methymna (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR. We are not here to add unverified information to the text. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)