User talk:The Emperor's New Spy/Archive 1

Help
Can this template be moved to the left?


 * No, infoboxes are coded to be on the right of pages. All of them are on the right; having one on the left is inconsistent in a way that isn't helpful. // roux   00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then can this be broken down so that it only includes one ruler but without having to created another new template.Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to? // roux   00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out Juana Maria de Iturbide y Huarte
 * Oh, that's a completely different template. Try using Infobox Mexican Royalty. // roux   00:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no. I am trying to use both templates. I wouldn't confused the two I created them.
 * Well you could do it with a lot of #switch functions.. but the point of an infobox is to provide an easy navigational aid to related articles. The standard for House infoboxes is to include all members. Why do you want only one? // roux   00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it might be long and this is a short article. Like the Austrian royalty article do they include all members of the House of Habsburg since middle ages as a continous template?
 * Oh. Well.. you can make sections collapsible. I'll get on that later, I need to have dinner and stuff. // roux   00:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed the sections, removed a redundant link to the list of monarchs (all of the monarchs are already in the infobox), removed the colours per WP:ACCESS (blue links on coloured text did not provide enough contrast), tidied up a few other things. Cheers.// roux   06:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule agaisnt decorating? But it's ok.  Thought I should be a bit symbolic.

(out)Using symbolic colours is fine... unless they contravene much more basic policies about access for all users. All that being said.. the template doesn't really match other 'House of' templates. You might want to look at House of Windsor and House of Orange-Nassau for other examples. // roux   07:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done
List of the last monarchs who ruled the Americas is wonderful! Keep up the good work! :) --Cameron* 16:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

King of Rapanui
I got no idea who would know this so why I am doing this. Who was the last king of Rapanui aka. Easter Island? I came across three: Riro, who was assassinated, Atamu Tekana, who ceded island to Chile, and an unamed one who died in slavery in Chile.Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This would probably be better asked at the reference desk. I will get to the Mexican infobox shortly. // roux   10:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kings of the Brythons?
Hi, I'm sure you mean well, but I've noticed you've been making some undiscussed moves of articles on legendary Brythonic kings, mainly as found in Geoffrey of Monmouth, such as Lud son of Heli to Lud of Britain. Can I ask you what your rationale is for this? "King of the Brythons" is one thing - although I can think of a number of good reasons against that as well, such as the fact it suggests a historicity which is at best unproven - but "of Britain" is even worse. That suggests to the casual reader that ancient Britain was a single realm and we all know that was not the case. Even "King of the Brythons" (hypothetical) only means a ruler of the Brythonic people(s) whereas "X of Britain" suggests a ruler of the whole island united in a single realm: as I'm sure you must be aware, that was never the case. As you are working on a template to go with this, wouldn't it be a good idea to discuss your ideas with other contributors in this field (e.g. the Sub-Roman Britain Taskforce)? I have great misgivings about including medieval Welsh kings and princes on a template which includes Geoffrey's inventions (even if some of them are based very loosely on Welsh tradition and even genuine sub-Roman rulers). We should not be mixing fact with legend (or fantasy even, e.g. Brutus). I'd be interested to hear your opinion. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

PS You can reply here if you like; I'll place your page on my watchlist. Enaidmawr (talk)

Reply
Oh I am sorry for the moves. I just thought Lud son of Heli looks a bit weird and decide to change it to something similar to Cap of Britain. As for the template, check my page under Kings of Briton. I was thinking of a template encompassing all the King of the Brythons, legendary and historic; the Kings and Prince of Wales, the different minor Welsh princes, like Powys, Gwynedd, and etc. Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I got to ask if the monarchs of the once independent Cornwall, were they Brythonic? Also of the Kings of Alba and the Manx rulers. Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. I know perfectly well that over a majority of the Legendary Kings of Britain were made up by Geoffrey of Monmouth or purely myths. If people don't won't facts mixed with fiction, the mythical kings can be seperated from the historical ones. Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you're not taking this personally, Little Spy (cute name!). I'm just concerned about the points raised above, especially keeping attested historical rulers seperate from legendary or even invented ones. Seeing your edits and template led me to check out the King of the Britons page as well, and I can't say I'm too happy about the way that is presented either, for a number of reasons. It makes far too many assumptions, is potentially misleading, doesn't give actual quotes (referenced), and leaves a wide margin of inclusion ("King of the Britons and similar titles). The terminology is not discussed at all and no Welsh language example is given. A number could fit the bill and are to be found given to local lords, as a stock phrase in the bardic repertory, in the post-conquest period. Also, although Brython can mean 'Briton' (i.e. the Brythonic peoples), it is also synomynous with 'Welsh' in many cases: the Welsh continued to call themselves Brython(iaid) (etc, e.g. Brytaniaid) and Cymry for centuries (and some still do, using Brython in opposition to Prydeiniwr, i.e the proverbial "Brit"). But I guess I should get around to starting a discussion on the 'King of the Britons' talk page.
 * In answer to your question, the term 'Brythonic' can indeed be applied to the Cornish and the Brythonic-speaking Celtic peoples of Britain south of the Forth-Clyde divide in general, although its extent and accuracy is sometimes questioned. It can also include the Bretons, but not Gaelic Scotland (Alba) or the Isle of Man. So you see, the potential for including somebody on the list as a 'King of the Britons' is considerable and raises all sorts of questions.
 * Hope that clears things up a bit. A lot more could be said, and that's part of the problem, of course!
 * PS Please don't think I'm being "anti" on this, it's just I think far too many easy assumptions are blithely made in the present article and list; a proffessional historian would have a field day with it! Best wishes, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PPS Forgot about "Cap of Britain". What can I say other than it needs changing (sound plain silly, for a start, IMHO!).


 * Ok. I was wondering how the different Welsh kingdoms like Powys and Gwynedd changed from Kings to Princes.  Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

db-author
Re this, only User:Neddyseagoon can flag it with db-author. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant the redirect not the entire article.


 * I am not sure what you mean. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want Luise von Hessen-Darmstadt deleted? Is it an unlikely typo? --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No that was the orignal title. I wanted Louis of Hessen-Darmstadt deleted. I was trying to spell Louisa but left out the a.  The article is now at Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt

The article history is a right mess and under GFDL that is a problem. Which was the original article? Was it Louis_of_Hessen-Darmstadt? Because its history is not reflected in Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt's history. Also, please sign your talk page comments with four tildes ( ~ ). --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Louis of Hessen-Darmstadt was the original since that the one I moved. Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Have you upgraded the version at Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt since the last version at Louis? If not, I'll simply delete the version at Louisa, and page move the last version at Louis. If so, please revert the Louis article back to before I made it a redirect and amend it and then let me know. I'll delete Louisa and then move Louis on top of it. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. and I willQueen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox: Roman Royalty
I see you have recently created a new infobox for Roman royalty and used it to replace the generic Template:Infobox Monarch on many Roman emperor articles. However I should warn you that at this point, work of this type is slightly counter-productive since an effort is under way (discussion here) to unify the numerous monarch infoboxes into a single compact royalty infobox. Therefore I would suggest to stop creating new infoboxes or adding them to articles until a consensus has been reached in the current discussion. Regards. --Steerpike (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Will do.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice user name
What a striking user name! Do you know much about Hungarian nobility? I noticed the link on your user page. I'm interested in finding out who Harriet Howard's son married. --  role player 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)