Talk:Anna Maria Erdődy

Notability
I came to this article out of curiosity from a Teahouse posting. I believe that the editor deserves an explanation of why, and specificially, why this article does not meet notability standards. As I read the article she was important enough for Beethoven to dedicate four of his works to her, and she was important enough to be expelled from Austria. Which by the way is quite a feat in a world (early 19thCentury Europe)were women were held to be property of men and vessels of reproduction. That she has such notoreity is evidence of notability in such an age. An age in which there are virtually no records of women save those of the wives of Kings. A failing not of women, but an artifact of a patriarchial society.Oldperson (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Oldperson. I did indeed wonder the same thing when Mgbo120 rejected this draft on 25th January. Since then I have added copious notes and extended (and hopefully improved) the article. So now we must await a prompt verdict so that it can be moved without delay into article-space, as I believe Anna Maria Erdödy now meets all the the criteria for acceptability and especially notability, as you so rightly point out. -- Alphaten (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Good thoughts Oldperson and Alphaten. I guess the write up is good to go now. Alphaten, you can push it to main-space since you have AFC rights. I normally do random reviewing at my spare moments.


 * Many thanks. Actually I'm not at all sure what the "cut and paste move" referred to in the box now appearing at foot of article is referring to. Could someone please enlighten this relative neophyte? I have placed the histmerge tag at top of source as the box advised. Hope this is satisfactory... Alphaten (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * PS. Apologies - having only just got out of bed, I didn't realize at first that Oldperson had carried out the move and merged the draft edits. Many thanks, once again, Oldperson, for your help. Alphaten (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:RS
I'm concerned that this got moved to mainspace without a closer examination of the sources. Many (actually, the majority, it looks like) of the references are to other wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. These references need to be replaced with more suitable citations. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Valid concern. I didn't notice that when I reviewed the references. I trust that Aphaten will straighten out the issue.Oldperson (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * RoySmith is quite wrong: the majority of inline citations and references in this article are to books. I suspect he/she was confusing these with the many wikilinks the article contains. All articles should contain these: in fact, the more wikilinks to related articles on Wikipedia, the better, as far as I have been able to gather. So, in sum, the article is just fine as it is, with all its many references to external printed sources, plus the internal links. However, if you have a serious objection to any specific wikilink, please tell me which one, and I will consider removing it. Alphaten (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * PS. I placed wikilinks inside the external references (citations) - to their authors, in fact, if this is what you found offensive... I was just being thorough there. Alphaten (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For my education/edification. Could you please apprise me specifically of those links which lack external sources and are internal links. Doing so will help a budding, but serious senior editor. I am constantly trying to improve. And for I honestly do not understand what you are saying  when you say that you placed wikilinks inside the citations. I honestly have no idea how one does that. ThanksOldperson (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's the wikilinks to authors inside the citations. I didn't realize at first that's what you had done; I just saw a link to another wikipedia article and didn't dig deeper. As for my being quite wrong, well, it wouldn't be the first time :-) I'm not sure what our guidelines are for linking references like that. I'll do some more research and see what I can find. The wikilinks in the body of the article are perfectly fine (and, as you say, a good practice). It's just the links in the references that I'm concerned about. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, yes, well, many thanks. I'd be grateful if you could clarify the WP position on this kind of link-within-a-link :) Personally, I like them. Sometimes can be useful to read about a book's author at a glance, like scanning a dust-jacket... Alphaten (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've asked about this on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. You might want to follow that thread.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly keep my eye on that thread. Thanks for bringing it up. It's honestly something I never thought twice about: seems so obvious a thing to include in the citation (if an article exists on the author)... Alphaten (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the education and link. I appreciate, very much, your honest self criticism. I speaks very much in you favor, I appreciate the learning opportunity of this situation.02:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why still the wrong date of birth?
The plaque on the photo shows the correct date of birth which was published in 1981[!]. Why doesn't the article have it?--178.191.191.106 (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

08Nov.1999 Nur300 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)