User talk:Crix

S.A. League Systems
Hi Crix, thanks for the league system link. I perfectly know how the Argentine and Paraguayan league systems work so I will be adding the Paraguay system shortly (Argentina is already there it seems). As for the other South American countries I'll do a little research first, I kind of know how they work but I want to make sure the info is 100% correct before I write anything.

I didn't quite understand your South American league cups question. Are you talking about something similar to the Coppa Italia and/or Copa del Rey? If so, I think Brazil is the only S.A. country that currently has a national cup (Copa do Brasil). Regards. Bruno18 02:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC) - Ok, thanks for explaining the different "versions" of cups. You should definitely consider expanding those definitions and put them in an article somewhere. Also like you said, cups are very rare in South America. Chile, Paraguay and other countries used to have National open cups but they are all defunct now.

From what I understand the Copa do Brasil is played between the champions of every Regional League around Brazil (see Brazilian Football State Championship). This should be helpful too: Template:Brazilian Football Competitions; it links to all the competitions in Brazil, including the state championships and Youth competitions. If you still have questions regarding Brazilian competitions the best thing would be to ask Carioca (Brazilian user here in Wikipedia, knows a lot about Brazilian football). Bruno18 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I created an article about the Brazilian football league system, explaining how the pyramid works in Brazil. Regards, Carioca 23:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Kings of Jerusalem
Why the change in date? Charles V abdicated in 1556. Choess 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you look up the article on his son, you'll see that he was created King of Chile in 1554, so he could be on par with his bride, Mary of England etc. But the titles include Naples and Jerusalem (Jerusalem was contingent upon the title of Naples), which means that he must have become King of Naples and Jerusalem in 1554 already. Cf. http://www.archontology.org/nations/england/king_england/philip.php. I will include this in the article on Philip II. Crix 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. There's a copy of the style here; so he got Naples and Jerusalem in 1554, Spain and Sicily in 1556, as per your link. I had no idea. Thanks. Choess 04:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazing. Sometimes I think they did this just to mess with the heads of poor historians like me. I changed the succession boxes, since it appears Philip got Naples early, but not Sicily; I'll let you discuss the question of Chile in the article text. "Here is a silly stately style indeed! The Turk, that two and fifty kingdoms hath, Writes not so tedious a style as this." Choess 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Low Countries Template
This is my proposed revision of the template. Pls. comment. An alternative could be to take out the Bishopric of Liège altogether and just include in a side note or something.

See my comments on the Template talk. Str1977 (smile back) 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on Template_talk:History_of_the_Low_Countries. Str1977 (smile back) 21:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Houston, Texas
Sorry about the gibberish&mdash;I don't know what happened. I reverted my edits, but it came back after you responded. &mdash;RJN 06:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I think I tried to fix it at the same time. Now let me reinsert it ok ;) Crix 06:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Charlemagne
Thanks for taking an interest. I think we are in fundamental agreement. I just wanted to respond to some of your comments: Sorry for the lengthy response, but your comments presented me with an excellent opportunity to try and further clarify my position. Srnec 03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue of the HRE did have no bearing on the argument, however my fellow disputant had alleged that I was in error because I considered them identical. I had to clear that up. The Low Countries were part of the regnum Teutonicorum and therefore broke away from Germany, not just from the multinational Empire. The disputant thought that I was in error because I considered the Low Countries, which even he did not dispute were part of the empire, to have broken away from that polity and not necessarily the German kingdom. Such was not the case, however.
 * I think that contemporary scholarship does not disagree with my conceptions, perhaps with my language. Because Germany is also a modern state, it can be confusing and counterinformative (at least to those otherwise uninformed) to call a very different entity "Germany". And East Francia was a very different entity, but then things change in the course of a millennium. I think that we can say that the state born in the Carolingian East out of the Treaty of Verdun definitely developed into a state of Germany. This Germany has a continuous political history from 843 to 1806 and a slightly interrupted history thereafter until the present. All states changed constitutionally over time, the France of the current Fifth Republic is not identical to the state of Napoleon or of Philip Augustus, but it is the same state. You are not identical to who you were (physically or otherwise) five years ago, but you are still you. East Francia was Germany, it was just never called that in its time (but shortly after it was called the regnum Teutonicorum, a good enough Latin translatio of Kingdom of Germany).
 * I would have to regard Luxembourg as "part" of Germany for its history until the breakup of the Empire in 1806. For most of its subsequent history until 1867, it was a member state of the various German Confederations which can be considered successor states to the Kingdom of Germany. These confederations were recognition of the existence of a "Germany" while most of its "parts" wished to be pratically independent. This changed in 1866-1867 and in 1871, Germany was "reunified". Luxembourg was not part of this. (Perhaps information at List of German monarchs and recent discussions at Talk:List of German monarchs could make this a little clearer.) Certainly it is its own state from 1815 on, even though it had a personal, not a state, union with the Netherlands' crown.
 * As to Switzerland, I can only mostly agree. Each canton must be considered separately and each is shown to have been a part of either the German kingdom or the Burgundian. The latter was, like Italy, in personal union with the larger and more important German kingdom for most of its history after the eleventh century. As a distinction between Burgundy and Germany practically disappeared after the thirteenth century, it is hard to argue otherwise. If East and West Francia are considered Germany and France, then there is no problem: Burgundy is a breakaway from France and Germany in the first place. But it is without a doubt, a "breakaway nation from the German empire" as you say, if German empire is taken as equivalent to Holy Roman Emprie, as it ought to be.

Dear Crix,
 * I have worked more on the template, including early Luxemburg.
 * Re the kingdom of Bohemia (I reply here becaue I cannot find the orginal comment), you will see that the map still has Bohemia (it is Bohemia, not Moravia) as a Duchy (abbreviated "Hzt." for "Herzogtum"), which explain why another kingdom could be part of the Regnum Teutonicum. The Duke to be first elevated to a King was Vratislaus II of Bohemia for his services to Henry IV, but that was restricted to this person. The kingship became permanent under Ottokar I of Bohemia with the support of Philip of Swabia, ratified in 1212 by Frederick II. Why the map shows Bohemia in orange I do not know. Str1977 (smile back) 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

dom under Henry IV

Names of European cities in different languages
Hi Crix, you reverted my recent edit on Names of European cities in different languages. I should say that I do not find your reasoning persuasive. I think the fact that these two cities are included in the Asian version of the article does not prevent them to be listed in the European article, depending of course on the consensus with whether to include the whole of Turkey in the European article or not. And it was my impression that the whole of Turkey was in scope. According to my experience with Wikipedia lists / categories, it is not uncommon to see a Turkish place, person, event etc. both under European and Asian titles, regardless their place within the country and even if this introduces redundancy.

Another thing that made me think the whole Turkey was in the scope is that there already are cities on the list from the Asian part of Turkey, without any problems or objections. And please note that I do always read and check the article / the talk page before contributing anything on Wikipedia, so your assumption / comment was a bit rude, to say the least. I tried to explain what I did get from the preface text on the talk page of the article, and I would be pleased if you also check that. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, User:Fastifex means to include Nicosia with the names of European cities article. The city is geographically in Asia and the consensus we've talked about (under heading Cities outside Europe on the talk page) excludes this. I hope you could also explain the situation to her like you did to me. Atilim Gunes Baydin 10:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Atilim Gunes Baydin 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zona-Waktu-Indonesia.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Zona-Waktu-Indonesia.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

so the image is from Wikipedia, already under the GFDL licence, and I only added a colour scheme to it. Surely there shouldn't be any problems with it? Thanks
 * I don't think you can add color schemes to it. You probably can if you found the wikipedia source. Thanks.-- RyRy5   talk  19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. BTW, I fixed the "helpme" template, just to let you know.-- RyRy5   talk  19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * May I have the link from where you got it? Also, thanks.-- RyRy5   talk  20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you use something from here. Read it then try it out.-- RyRy5   talk  20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's the best idea.-- RyRy5   talk  20:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks. I regard this issue to be resolved now. Crix (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)