Talk:Charles II, Duke of Parma

message: Since WP practice is to use the highest title for an individual (e.g, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom rather than Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor) shouldn't this article use the Etrurian territorial designation? Charles 19:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would allow common sense to overrule Holy WP Convention? I'm shocked! :o Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you stalking me now, or did you just happen to be looking obscure 19th century petty monarchs?  There are some aspects of wikipedia naming conventions I find more important than others.  "Most common name in English" I find to be most important. And that, in fact, agrees with my preferences here - he is most known as a Duke of Parma, and not for his brief childhood tenure as King of Etruria, a title by which he was never known after that kingdom's demise. john k 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol. You don't have to worry about me stalking you, busy enough without that. I, like most other users, regularly check contributions history to see what's going down. Naming of rulers has nothing to do with popularity of names, e.g. William I of England would be William the Conqueror if it were. Holy Wiki Convention dictates this must be at Charles of Etruria. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming of rulers is not entirely dictated by popularity of names, but that is one important consideration.  And there are always exceptions to the rules. john k 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like heresy to me. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is intensely fun, Calgacus.  We should do this more often. john k 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruria 

message: It should be obvious what the problems are.  Two editors have decided that Wikipedia guidelines and policies are unimportant, and have insisted on the misplacing of the  template, the changing of en-rules to hyphens, the over-wikilinking of dates, and many other errors of style and presentation. As 3RR means that I can do nothing about this, I'm hoping that the  tag will bring editors to do the necessary work. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not. The problem is an editor disrupting WP by using policies and guidelines in a frivolous manner. I hope other editors will come but I feel sorry for them if they have to encounter your behaviour here. And all this by someone armed with admin powers. First you drive someone into using foul language and than you block. RaD. Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't want to be involved in this, other than to say that it's sad to see obviously good editors (whom I've seen on other pages) getting on each other's wrong sides. I've changed the hyphens back to ndashes, and unwikified some dates. My understanding is that things like 7 September should always be wikified, as some people prefer to read it as September 7, so I left days and months wikified, but unwikified the years, except at the beginning of the article. If I'm wrong about that, someone please tell me. I see from the  template, that "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." So I put it into an empty "References" section. I don't mind if anything I did is undone, although I think we should definitely keep the ndashes. ElinorD (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't reverted anything,  and I certainly haven't insisted on anything with respect to format changes - I even said I agreed with you about the paragraph length issue. I originally came upon this because  I was genuinely puzzled as to why such a bitter argument was going on when I couldn't really see any significant content differences.  And then, obviously, we  got into it and I got mad.  But I've made no changes to the content of the page, and I don't think I ever made any statement which  can be attributed as support of any particular stylistic set-up of this or any other article. john k 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I have removed the unsourced sentence about Charles Louis being a homosexual and banishing his wife.  Other sources suggest that Charles Louis was active in pursuit of other women. Noel S McFerran 13:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with wife 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles II, Duke of Parma. 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/20070927084129/http://biblioteche2.comune.parma.it/lasagni/bor.htm to http://biblioteche2.comune.parma.it/lasagni/bor.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927084129/http://biblioteche2.comune.parma.it/lasagni/bor.htm to http://biblioteche2.comune.parma.it/lasagni/bor.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified