User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions.

---

I hope you don't mind me saying that I have really appreciated the fresh eyes you have brought to some of the Sicilian history articles that interest me - the matters you have raised have all helped improve those articles which happen to be on my watchlist (and which I have thus noticed). Well done! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:45, 24 July :2006 (UTC)

Commenting out

You don't actually have to remove the categories, just comment them out with "<!--" and "-->" before and after. Thanks! --Pascal666 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

King of Germany?

Str1977 said:

Thanks Q for the quick reply but I must disagree with you (in a friendly manner).

There was a Kingdom of Germany (regnum teutonicum) in the middle ages. It is the entity that began as the Eastern Frankish Kingdom in 843 (treaty of Verdun) and that adopted another name when the Kings were Saxon rather than Franks. Later, the King assumed the title "Rex Romanorum" (before that he mostly was just styled "Rex") to emphasize his Imperial claims even before he was crowned Emperor.

Yes, but don't forget that that was many centuries before the days of Albert II. In any case, "regnum teutonicum" translates as "German kingdom", not "kingdom of Germany". I looked up the German article on the Holy Roman Empire, and they have:

Das Gebiet des Ostfrankenreichs wurde in den Straßburger Eiden im 9. Jahrhundert erstmals als Regnum Teutonicum oder Regnum Teutonicorum (Königreich der Deutschen) bezeichnet.

"Königreich der Deutschen": Kingdom of the Germans. No mention of "Deutschland", which is a territorial entity.

Str1977 said:

So yes, there was a political entity that today can be called Germany. Just because after a certain point of time the King was quite weak (as King - his power rested on his own territories) doesn't mean that there was no Kingdom. But remember that earlier the King of Germany was quite a strong figure, much stronger than the King of the Western Kingdom at that time.

As for Albert. It is nonsense to say that he was only a Duke. He was Duke (or Archduke) of Austria. He was King of Hungary and of Bohemia. And he was, albeit only briefly, King of Germany (titled Rex Romanorum). Bohemia and Hungary BTW have nothing to do with the issue of his title. Hungary was not part of the HRE or the German kingdom. Bohemia was part of the HRE but also of the German kingdom (though in a very special way). But the title "Rex Romanorum" was not adopted to be more inclusive towards any non-German subjects there might be. It was adopted to emphasize a claim towards Rome.

One of the reasons the German kings liked it was because it kept open their claims in Italy, where much of northern Italy was still technically part of the Holy Roman Empire (Albert's predecessor Sigismund had tried to be active in that aspect of the role, though it was becoming a lost cause).

Str1977 said:

Indeed the title "King of Germany" is not shunned in WP - I have been involved in some of this hammering out feasible wordings business and this is what we arrived at. The WP article on this I do not think "academically unjustifiable" and precisely for reasons of clarity. WP articles are not only written for us historians but also for the common reader. It is justifiable exactly because of the existence of such an entity as the "Rex Teutonicum".

Why you write "and Austria still isn't the same country as Germany anyway" is beyond me.

Just to point out that if the idea of using "King of Germany" is to clarify things, unwitting readers might think that encompasses only modern-day Germany. As you know, I don't concede that there was a single territory called "Germany" in Medieval times, with the possible brief exception of the kingdom of the East Franks.

Str1977 said:

Austria isn't the same country as Germany today but it used to be part of it. It seems (also gaterhing from the above) that you completely disregard that Albert was King of the Regnum Teutonicum. This position constituted his rule (as weak as it may be) over Germany (including Austria and Bohemia, but also including all the rest) and not over Hungary, Italy etc.

I don't disregard it, because it is subsumed within "King of the Romans", which, don't forget, was Albert's actual, not putative, title. I am giving him his actual title and you are giving him one that clarifies things.

Str1977 said:

The article on the German WP might be more accurate in this but they have the advantage of having more words than simply "German". Personally I wouldn't object to "Roman-German King", if you can gather consensus for that and the energy to implement it.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd be happy with "King of the Germans" or "German king", without bringing in a new term (I don't think that's what an encyclopedia is for}. (The use of "Germany" I will never be happy with, but I shall not commit suicide.) A useful compromise might be to describe kings not only as German kings (or whatever) but as kings of the Romans also. That's what I did when I edited the Albert I article a little: I got the idea from the picture on the right of the page. Here it is:

Albert (Albrecht) I. of Habsburg

He's called "Rex Romanus et Germanus" there, very close to the German "Römisch-deutscher König", though it is not a contemporary image by the looks of it. The Roman title is particularly important because it meant that such kings were considered rulers of the Holy Roman Empire as well as of the Germans, the former being the more important consideration in Rome and in the rest of Europe. The image-maker obviously thought that both titles were worth using, and perhaps so should we. qp10qp 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But that's merely a single occasion. "German King" is just as uncommon as "Kíng of Germany" or "King of the Germans". And no - the RR did not make the King the ruler of the HRE - it merely made him the ruler of the chief part, the German Kingdom. He then proceded to be crowned King of Italy (and sometimes of Burgundy) and finally Emperor. Only after the HRE was de facto restricted to the German Kingdom did the RR title already denote rule of the whole Empire. Finally, they were not Kings of the Germans and of the Romans - they were Kings of the German kingdom (which however came with the RR title), and of the Kingdom of Italy and Roman Emperors. "Römisch-Deutsch" does not mean both combined - "deutsch" serves as a post-modifier to "Römisch" just as "Russian" to "Orthodox". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You yourself brought up a term that translates as 'German kingdom'; and "kingdom of the Germans' is even more commonly found. I can hardly think of a use of "Kingdom of Germany" (Froissart, I vaguely remember, called Charles IV 'roi d'almain'). I think we should use an English equivalent to the styles used at the time.

This business about "chief part": "King of the Romans" wasn't a territorial title. It meant in principle that the king was leader of the Holy Roman Empire in waiting, and where there was no present emperor (sometimes the son of the living emperor was so called) that could become a practical reality. But I say "in principle" because the reality of the role varied from nil to fully exercised with different kings. It can never be pinned down. Take Sigismund: he spent his early life concerned with Poland and Hungary, but as soon as he was elected King of the Romans in 1410 he took the lead in Christendom, personally supervising the Council of Constance and trying to sort out the papal schism; and I don't think, off the top of my head, that he was crowned emperor till about 1433. But of course, there were many cases, like that of his brother Wenceslaus, where the King of the Romans didn't exercise leadership of the Holy Roman Empire.

I agree with the substance of your last point that there's no precise way of combining the titles into one or separating them into two. But that's the beauty and complexity of it. I'd hate Wikepedia to adopt a policy for clarity's sake that subsumes rex romanorum within "king of Germany", because the title means so much more than that and is the senior title.

I've decided that if I come across this issue in editing again I will describe such kings as "King of Germany" (as a compromise with your argument and what you say is an agreed standard form on English Wikipedia) and "King of the Romans", with a link to each. That might be clumsy but will cover most angles. (Don't worry, I'm not going to go charging around sticking my version everywhere for the sake of it.) qp10qp 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Q,

Re the "chief part" - the title King of the Romans was the title the King used in place of a more factual King of the Germans. It did not mean geographical rule over Rome or Italy, as the latter was ruled by him as "King of Italy". Yes, there is a Roman claim in the title and since he was Imperator Futurus, the Rex Romanorum was the chief ruler in Western Europe. When the King, like Wenceslaus, did not excercise their leadership that was because of political circumstances and/or their personality and not because of the title. Wenceslaus after all, if you remember, was deposed because of this "Laziness".

Back then, I opted for "King of Germany" because I would hate to have to read "King of the German Kingdom". I very much deplore the current styling of Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom" and would hate to have another atrocious style like that. But, as I said, I have no objections against "King of the Germans" or "German King" (as these were indeed used at an early stage, though not very often) and certainly not against "Roman-German King". In fact, among the three I prefer the latter. Though it's not contemporary and hence somewhat artificial, it combines all stages of the office (Henry I or Otto I for instance never were King of the Romans).

I would ask you to desist from your plan. This would needlessly clutter up articles and also imply (falsely) that these are two different crowns, when they are one and the same (I have even seen articles with two succession boxes on that ... where I have seen them only one remained). I would rather urge you to contact others and find a proper "one-title" solution. If you will, you may contact User:John Kenney about this. He has been involved in these issues before and is very competent. My time unfortunately is quite limited at the moment. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well all right. As you seem to think "King of the Germans" is OK, I will use that. In practice, the reader will find out in the article that the king was elected King of the Romans at some stage, and that will preserve the title from being airbrushed out.

Your point above that it did not mean geographical rule is what I've been trying to get over all along.

Please rest assured that though I will shudder every time I see the term "King of Germany", I am not so arrogant as to change it just because I happen to object to it. qp10qp 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Q, Str has asked me to comment, and so here I am. Personally, the two terms I would prefer are "German King" and "King of the Romans," which are the ones I've seen most often in English. "Roman-German King" does not seem to have much usage in this language, and I can't recall ever seeing "King of the Germans," which sounds rather like a 19th century royal style than a medieval one. john k 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I agree. If it was left to me and this clarification business wasn't a consideration, I'd leave it at "King of the Romans" every time, which is how this started. Thanks to you both for your help. qp10qp 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me chime in again:

The problem with "King of the Romans" is that it was not used (or very seldomly) for the very first rulers and became standard only under Henry IV. Will be call these early rulers "King of the Romans" as well or will we create a (artificial) split? (Well, we could write one or the other in the article and always link to the same list, but I am unsure about that).

"King of the Germans" wouldn't be foreign to the MA. After all, we had King of the Franks, King of the Scots etc. The 19th century wording was in part looking back to the early MA.

But German King would be just as well.

All in all, my aim is threefold:

• Use a title that can be understood.
• Use a title that is not artificial.
• User only one title as it is only one office (and that was my objection to Q's suggestion above).

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with those three points. Anyway, as this discussion progressed, I came to bother less about the matter, realising that we're only really talking about the biographical introductions to articles. Titles can be explained, if necessary, as part of the historical context—for example of elections—in the body of articles.

I agree with you that there should never be a succession-box for kings of the Romans; after all, there were often long gaps, and sometimes the title was used for a reigning emperor's son or by non-residents such as Alfonso X; and, as you say, the title doesn't apply to the early kings. Each king should be called what he was called in his lifetime: we don't call the early dukes of Prussia kings and so we don't call the early German kings rex romanorum (I notice that Henry the Fowler is called "King of the Germans" in his article, and that's fine by me).

This is anyway the least of the issues for Wikipedia's medieval articles. Most of the ones on emperors and kings of the Romans now do contain a reasonably accurate description of their titles; the problem comes when they are mentioned in passing in other articles, where rank inaccuracies crop up regularly. I sense that the initial work on these articles—the copying up from old encyclopedias etc.—was done by non-medievalists lacking sensitivity to the nuances of the titles. For example, many kings of the Romans who never became emperors are routinely called emperors. (I can only think that's due to a back-dating of the emperors-elect principle by people more familiar with later periods of history who thought they were helpfully translating "rex romanorum").

As for archdukes, just don't start me on archdukes ...! qp10qp 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther article reverted

Slim Virgin came by and reverted several days of our work. I'm busy putting back the material she likely inadvertently reverted. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I did notice. We could hardly have done more in offering our changes up for discussion on the Talk page. Best to take a deep breath and not overreact. I don't like reverts and have never done it. Nothing moves forward that way.

Congratulations on all your good work: until today we'd got the article down from over 100kb to 77kb in a month. I think we should aim for 50kb, which is when reader-friendliness kicks in. One day all the notes etc. will be hidden, I believe, so they won't go to waste.qp10qp 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll see shortly, I suspect, how much she intended to revert. I don't think she meant to trash our reductions, just restore the phrase in the antisemitism section that Penya changed. I reverted that once and restored my reductions. I don't intend on getting back into that discussion if she intends to revert that phrase again, but will ask her to explain why she wants a longer article if she reverts my reductions as well.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse

If you remove the reference from material on Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse, you may want to remove the material introduced which relied on that reference. It is generally considered bad form to orphan material with a misleading reference. Of course an alternate acceptable approach would be to confirm by a comment on the discussion page that you’d confirmed the remaining reference covered the orphaned material. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're relatively new with 265 main space edits (promising edits at that); you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources & Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble was that I couldn't find from your reference the verification of what you had added. So I was looking into it. I can find part of the information on the free snippets of Encyclopaedia Britannica and was going to redraft to make a ref to fit that page. You seemed to be linking to the Wikipedia article on Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is not footnoteworthy in that context, in my opinion. However, It is quite possible I have made a mistake, in which case I apologise.

As far as referring me to Wikipedia:Citing sources & Wikipedia:Reliable sources I know them better than you imagine. But still, there is something odd about this matter, and perhaps I have indeed made a mistake either by misunderstanding what you were up to or by leaving the information in while I sought to reference it. qp10qp 03:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you’re an Historian & English expert, which trumps a physicist for skill at both writing and referencing. Apologize for my overreaction; I just get rather uncomfortable when I add material and the reference link vanishes.

I must grant that referencing the electronic edition of the Encyc Brit does seem rather weak; but the current issue of Reviews of Modern Physics (RMP) does that rather extensively, so I tend to believe that electronics references are legitimate if the reference is a credible source. Recent issues of RMP go even further; links are imbedded in the articles that allow me to pull up references—a wonderful invention since one can immediately judge whether you agree with the interpretation.

But I’d be disingenuous if I didn’t admit I was having a little fun by adding that weak reference. This article was cited in one of the Wiki discussions as an example of a rather long article with only a single referenced source. I must confess that I tweaked it by adding a little additional material & an additional source—since I have no history texts that cover the topic, I selected the most credible web source I could. I hang my head in shame for being caught “committing” such weak humor… And I feared you'd caught me, so I over-defended it.

I'm more than willing to defer to your experience in these things; I am fully confident that in getting a history degree you wrote 50 more papers and added 1000 more references than I did as an undergraduate. Please forgive my giving in to an urge to defend a gentle prank... Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with referencing Encyclopaedia Britannica at all; it was just that the reference you left (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Edition) only seemed to be a wikilink to an article on the encyclopaedia and didn't take the reader to the reference, which is what's supposed to happen. I've now got round to putting the reference in so that it does link directly (I removed the "two days' bit because it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the encyclopaedia page and is covered in the next footnote anyway}.

Humour is fine by me, don't worry. If any article asks for it, it is this one, what with the guy's ridiculous long name, his mysterious and futile end, and the painstaking but charming referencing of one chapter of a single text ad absurdam. One snag with adding a second reference source, is that "ibid" is now blasted out of the water. I was going to replace that with the name of the author, but when I saw that the source is by Stewart, Tabori & Chang, who sound like a San Francisco legal firm, I refrained from trebling the words in the footnotes at one fell stroke and making things even more Monty Python. The lady who with singlehanded diligence gave us this article will probably think we are both nutters. qp10qp 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Further grammar question

I'll ask the question here because you are the first person to reply.

My question is more about syntax than typographical conventions — I didn't express this precisely before. I want to know what wikipedia's specific policies and guidelines for syntax are; for instance, on questions such as whether using the traditionally correct case is necessary? e.g., who and whom in their respective nominative and accusitive cases. Is a singular they to be permitted, or should it be corrected when it is used as a psuedo-neuter pronoun? Is it permissible to use incomplete sentences anywhere, such as sentences without a subject in a list? Are certain manuals preferred to others? Are sentences which grammarians deem solecisms and descriptive linguists deem grammatical permitted? Are words with disputed definitions allowed to be used with their disputed definitions?

These questions divide editors, and I have not ascertained wikipedia's policy and guidelines on these questions. Editors usually argue over whose taste is better and whose authorities can be relied upon more. And I think an encyclopedia like Britannica would have a stricter policy. The Manual of Style does not clarify these questions to me.

Rintrah 08:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your question, I fear that Wikepedia does not have an exhaustive policy on these things, although there are many articles on grammar issues—which of course are a different matter. In one way, the style manual is useless, because no-one actually sat down and wrote it as the Wikipedia version of Fowler; they just culled what they could from the Chicago Manual of Style and the Guardian style guide, both of which they endorse. If in doubt, I'd follow those two; the first is not online but does go into detail about the matters you mention above. Since Wikipedia supports it, you automatically follow Wikipedia policy by following Chicago. In another way, though, the Wikipedia manual of style is useful: for example, it requires sentence style in headings and certain captions, something which can feel odd to many users of English but is the rule nevertheless. {When I first came here, I used to put capital letters in my headings because I didn't know the rule.)

I have a copy of Chicago on my desk here, and it is worth buying one, though it is expensive. Generally, as you know, people write in whatever slapdash style they like on Wikipedia: the only way they will be corrected is if an individual editor bothers to tidy things up. My main intervention is to pluck commas out, like burrs from a cat's back.

I own some other usage manuals in case I need to check something. As long as you are careful to be correct, you can do no better; and most of the time, your style will not be challenged. We have to be patient, I suppose, and accept that Wikipedia is an infant who, with our help, is still learning how to talk. We cannot yet expect it to be our father.qp10qp 12:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps, in time, wikipedia will form policies on these questions. I have asked these question because I want to refer to wikipedia's policy pages to resolve disputes on grammar, since many editors will claim their style manuals are supreme, or appeal to what they are instructed in school or university. To reach Brittanica's eminence, wikipedia will eventually need some consistent policy on those specific grammatical questions, and others. Individual issues like the validity of the serial comma, or American versus English spelling do not bother me, even though I prefer the serial comma and English spelling. But if I must read what I consider solecisms, I would rather wikipedia rule for or against them, so I can either amend them or accept them on wikipedia's authority.

I do not have the Chicago Manual, but I rely on Fowler indirectly (through a friend). I hope someday wikipedia will have an authoratitive and exhaustive Manual of Style, to bring it on par with other encyclopedias. But if it does, it will probably offend some editors who want to have it their way.

I generally am dissuaded from correcting grammar on contentious issues, because of wikipedia's lack of policy. My style is generally accepted because I give more attention to elegance than just brute content, unlike many other editors. My main intervention is removing superfluous words and correcting the style so it is readable. I am suprised at how unnecessarily long people's sentences are.

I like most of the featured articles, but there are some I have read which I think are inferior to non-featured articles. Rintrah 12:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

All it says at the Manual of Style, as far as authority is concerned, is:

If this page does not specify which usage is preferred:

• Use other reliable resources as style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (from the University of Chicago Press) or Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition) (from the Oxford University Press).

In my opinion, Fowler's 3rd edition is weak: most of Fowler's original entries have been replaced by Burchfield's dreary ones, which sit so much on the fence as to be little help in resolving disputes. I'm embarrassed to say that I have more usage guides in the house than is healthy in a normal man and have read several of them all the way through, so if you do need something looking up in Chicago or whatever, just let me know. (If you quoted Chicago to someone who was arguing with you, you could pretty well say that you had the backing of Wikipedia's style policy, I'd say.) qp10qp 14:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on Fowler's third edition is not just your own: my friend vehemently denounced it. He also said it was the least borrowed of all editions from the library. He prefers the first edition, but says the second one is good too. His ultimate authorities are Fowler's first edition and Mend Your English, the author of which he is meeting in England, who will also take him out to lunch.

I only have one usage guide in my house, which I don't use because it is a government one. I taught myself grammar, on an internet tutorial I am ashamed to say, and learnt most of the principles of good English by reading good books; the rest I learnt from reading wikipedia articles on language concepts and talking at length with my friend. When I have time I will read the authoritative Manual's of Style, and not rely on my friend to look up everything for me.

Thank you for the offer. Rintrah 15:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the original edition of Fowler's MEU, but it's in a packing case, docked with its prolixities. There's a great definition of a prig - though not Fowler's own. Has the 3rd ed kept it?--Shtove 18:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here it it is:

'...A prig is a believer in red tape; that is, he exalts the method above the work done. A prig, like the Pharisee, says: "God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are"—except that he often substitutes Self for God. A prig is one who works out his paltry accounts to the last farthing, while his millionaire neighbour lets accounts take care of themselves. A prig expects others to square themselves to his very inadequate measuring rod, and condemns them with confidence if they do not. A prig is wise beyond his years in all things that do not matter. A prig cracks nuts with a steamhammer: that is, calls in the first principles of morality to decide whether he may, or must, do something of as little importance as drinking a glass of beer. On the whole, one may, perhaps, say that all his different characteristics come from the combination, in varying proportions, of three things—the desire to do his duty, the belief that he knows better than other people, and blindness to the difference in value between different things.'

(I've met Wikipedians like that.)

Burchard's third edition, needless to say, drops the whole entry. My favourite moment from the first edition is the obscure:

Foam, froth: '...One demands of foam that it be white; froth may be of what colour it pleases. Froth may be scum, but foam, though it may become scum, ceases to be foam in the process.'

qp10qp 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - confirms the impression I had the first time I read it. So many Pharisees on WP talk pages. And so much foam and froth. And some of us are scum too. But Burchard? What a bastard.--Shtove 23:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I should, of course have said Burchfield. Must have been some Freudian admixture with your word for him. By the way, I've looked you up and realised I've read lots of your articles, using parts of them for an immense history of Ireland I've compiled for my own reference in Word. Very, very interesting and useful; thank you. qp10qp 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. What does Fowler and the Chicago Manual of Style say in relation to the appositive, and in particular, usage of it? Rintrah 14:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It does not seem to prescribe where it should and should not be used. Rintrah 16:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of appositives at the beginning of a sentence, which often look quite ugly — for instance, "A trained surgeon, Paul became an employee at Ivanhoe hospital in 1982." However, my aversion to it might be based on my own taste. I corrected an appositive I didn't like in the article cat (I know, I just used an appositive then): [1]

Ok. Thanks. That makes sense. Rintrah 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Katherine of Anjou or Hungary

Howdy, posting here because I see that you are working on the article on Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor. I am confused about his third wife, or rather, her mother. The Wiki article says her mother was Katherina of Anjou. The Genealogics website says she was Katherine of Hungary. Neither gives any info on her parents. I've searched through those listed as Counts of Anjou of this period and cannot find her listed as a daughter of any of them. I found a tree at WorldConnect saying she was a daughter of Charles I of Hungary, but the wiki article doesn't list any daughters -- sorry! There's my answer, staring me in the face! I can't find any other references to confirm or deny, and I don't know where else to look. Any ideas? I will add a note in the article on Charles IV, for your reference. Thanks for your hard work! Laura1822 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Thank you for trying to work out "King of Germany." It's a very confusing nomenclature!

Well, I was just going to write a note to say that I could see it there. Charles came from the Angevin line that ruled Naples and his father had become King of Hungary. Here's a good place to dig around those families of Charles IV. Are you working on him? I was going to have a go at expanding that page and cleaning it up a bit, so maybe we can co-operate.qp10qp 17:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Please see my response on my Talk page. Newbie question: is there a protocol for where to respond to questions on user talk pages? Laura1822 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't working on him specifically; I am working on my personal genealogical database, focusing on the Habsburgs but filling in info all around. Wikipedia is one of the best sources available and it was through working on this family that I decided to become an editor. I would be happy to help you with copyediting or any specific research you require. Thanks so much for your response! Oh, and for the terrific link! Laura1822

Well (doffs cap), if I'd known I was talking to a Habsburg…

On your other question, there's no real protocol where to answer on user:Talk pages. Some people post a note at the top stating their preference. The most common style is for users to answer questions on the other's page, but I like to put questions and answers together so that they make sense. Some people are touchy about being asked questions on user pages rather than article talk pages, but not most. I do think it's a good idea to copy any detailed editing talk to the article Talk page in question. Anyway, best of luck (walks backwards out of the room). qp10qp 19:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I'm no Habsburg! I just maintain a database of royals and nobles for fun! Sorry for the confusion! Thanks for your answer to my question-- I think it makes a lot more sense to keep questions and answers together, too; but should I put a copy of my answers on your Talk page, i.e., always create a duplicate set on my Talk page and the other person's Talk page? Laura1822