Talk:James I of Aragon

Revert
I manually reverted the text to the 12th May version, because someone from Nottingham changed to Catalan forms of names without fixing the links. Andrew Dalby 20:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

menorca
I removed this note from the main article: because it was unreferenced and badly written. I do not know if it is correct or not. BenedictX 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * menorca was conquered by Alfons III; a few year later. No by James I

Spanish translation
Let me clarify: translations of James' name (and its versions) can be found at the interwikis, the point here is to cite names that may be encountered even in English literature. "de Aragón" is not one of those. "Jaime" is and the translation is of "James I the Conqueror" as it appears right at the beginning of the article. I don't know if "el Conquistador" is worth keeping, but I know that "de Aragón" is not. Srnec 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just take a look at the other languages articles: (aragonese Chaime I d'Aragón, german Jakob I. (Aragón), spanish Jaime I de Aragón, french Jacques Ier d'Aragon, italian Giacomo I d'Aragona). As I said before the only ones calling him just "the conqueror" are catalans (and that's maybe because they don't want to realize that he was king of Aragon). Therefore, I'm not against using his "nickname", but absolutly not as Jaime I el conquistador! A solution could be: "Jaime I de Aragón, el conquistador" --Maurice27 07:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But calling him "Jaime I de Aragón" in an English-language article does not serve much of a purpose. The interwiki gives one all the translations one needs. The only exception that I can see is in such a case as may be demanded by the common use in English sources of a foreign name. This is true of a great many Spanish monarchs, James not excepted. He is usually often called Jaume or Jacme and I think Jaime sometimes too (don't know about Chaime). The "Conqueror" appellation is the most common one for the Catalan form (I don't know about Occitan and Aragonese) and in English. It may not be so in Spanish, but if not, then leave it at "Jaime" with no "de Aragón," since that seems to imply that he isn't the Jaime I of anything else, which is false. The primacy of his Aragonese title is evidence by the article title. Srnec 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is more convenient for the reader, and hardly a tragedy for the editor, to have it written straight into the article. Michael Sanders 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Srnec, I don't know if the "Of Aragon" does not serve much of a purpose in the english wikipedia, but IMHO, on the contrary, it does explain much better where he was from. An we are not changing the title, only the translations in the lead paragraph, where the names used in each region are to appear. In Spain he is called "de Aragón". (I didn't change the other languages because I'm not sure about that). About the "de Aragón" implying he isn't the Jaime I of anything else, I think that's not exact. Juan Carlos I is always refered as the king of Spain, but he also is king of Aragon, Castile, Leon, Navarre... Let me know your response, --Maurice27 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "of Aragon" serves a purpose in English, hence the article title. However, the Spanish version serves no purpose, because he will never appear as "de Aragón" in English and if somebody wants to know about him in Spanish, they can click on the interwiki es:Jaime I de Aragón. We are not trying to give other versions of his name just for the sake of it, we are trying to make sure the reader understands that if he ever reads about Jaime or Jacme who was king of Aragon, it's this guy. Entre los títulos de Juan Carlos, el de rey de España tiene la primacía porque es en virtud de esto que puede tener los otros, los cuales eran abandonados por los decretos de Nueva Planta. Pero, los condes de Barcelona tienen este título por herencia y no como subsidiario del título real aragonés. ¿Tenga sentido?. Srnec 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I'm only saying that the following naming in different languages after the title are just to know how this king is named in other languages. In spanish, he is refered as Jaime I de Aragón. Of a purpose or not en english, that's the way it is. About the users reading Jaime, Jacme or whatever, they will also know who this guy was by following its wikilink. Cheers. --Maurice27 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that sometimes a foreign name is common in English usage, sometimes not. That determines whether or not they should see it here or only at the interwiki. Srnec 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember talking about the Spanish monarchy being one of the few (among Europeans) to keep local naming rather than translating into english, the other one being the norwegian. Of course, this "rule" always has exceptions... --Maurice27 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The English Wiki need not (and should not) use non-English forms just for the sake of it. There must be a reason why an Anglophone is well-served by knowing the foreign language forms. This is true when these forms are encountered in English sometimes (like Jaume, and I think Jaime and Jacme, don't know about Chaime). The term "de Aragón" will not be seen in English. Ever. So it shouldn't be there. That's all. Srnec 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? It makes perfect sense to demonstrate what the subject of the article is called in the relevant languages, surely? Relevant non-English forms should be included where relevant for the sake of tidyness; when the name used is different in different languages, it is particularly relevant. Michael Sanders 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what the interwiki is for. I am saying precisely that they are not relevant. Srnec 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, interwiki is to allow the reader to read the article in alternate languages. Relevant translations and specific language variants are expected to be presented in the article. Michael Sanders 08:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am saying precisely that they are not relevant. It being impossible to demonstrate such a negative, can you prove the opposite: that "Jaime I de Aragón" is relevant to an Anglophone? Srnec 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaime is a castillian name. James the Conqueror wasnt castillian. 85.53.113.209 (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

changes
i changed a few words in the beginning to make clear king james I. fought ON THE SIDE of the cathars in albi, to defend them from simon de montfort and his crusade against the cathars! the catalan word for book is "llibre" with two "l"s...i don't wanna destroy the links...maybe someone who knows how to do it can change the words?

best

OT der hexer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.223.50 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes made by 217.125.97.102
I've noticed someone from that IP is deleting the Spanish name of James I in this article and making similar changes to other related ones. I'd like to know what's the point on doing that. Being myself a Catalan, this vandalism makes me feel ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.128.127 (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Peace of Alais
should not be in hypertext, as it links to an entry of a 1629 event. there doesn't appear to be an entry for the 1227 Peace. TheNusz (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It should have been the Peace of Alcalá, as per the cited reference (Chaytor). A previous editor may have simply mistyped it, and then it was hypertexted to the wrong agreement. Corrected on 10/9/2015. Fromthemitten (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James I of Aragon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222192043/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/James_I_Of_Aragon to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/James_I_Of_Aragon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)