Talk:Hugh IV of Cyprus

Date error?

as a 6-year-old father of Guy??? -- Robodoc.at 9 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Maybe it's a typo for 1301? That would still make him pretty young, but it's more plausible. His father Guy died in 1303, according to the Hugh III of Cyprus article. Adam Bishop 9 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

I don't know where I got that from. Fixed with approx. date from ES transcription at genealogy.euweb.cz. Sorry. Choess 21:37, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dates, en dashes, references, etc.

I saw a mention on Betacommand's talk page and I looked at the article. The dating in this article seems very strange. Perhaps this is common in such articles, but I'd like to see where this has become an agreed standard, as it is for me, as a reader, confusing, distracting and unnecessary. As an editor, it doesn't conform to the MOS.

1. I don't understand (c. 1295 or 1293-1296 – October 10, 1359). The lone year falls within the range, so why are both used?
2. When 1307/1310 is used, it that to say it was either of those years? If so, would it not be appropriate to improve flow and write it out as in either 1307 or 1310?
3. When we're referring to events that occurred several centuries ago, what is the need to narrow them down to month, or much less approximate date?
   • (1294 – before June 30, 1318) - Why not just put 1318? Or if it's known in June, but not what day, why not just put June 1318? If it's unclear, what's the point in being this specific?
   • (c. 1316 or 1315-1316 – soon before September 24, 1343 and buried in Nicosia) - This would look so much better as {c. 1315 or 1316 – 1343, buried in Nicosia).
   • on January 15-30, 1330 - Why not just put in late January 1330?
   • March 5, 1337/1339 - Dates formatted like this break for those who have their dates set to display as YYYY-MM-DD or Year, Month Day.
   • March/April, 1317 would be better written as early 1317 or either March or April 1317.
4. The use of en dashes is inconsistent. Some dates are separated by hyphens, others by en dashes. Some use both, some of which are exampled above. Spacing around dashes is also inconsistent.
5. Titular Emperor of Constantinople in 1343, etc, without issue - and they left one son
   • What's the etc there for?
   • That should be an em dash rather than a hyphen.
6. Where is the information in this article coming from?

Okay, that's it. Lara❤Love 12:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the dates are equivalent to the style (1293 x 1296), they indicate the range of dates in which he must have been born; he couldn't have been born before 1293 or after 1296. This is a standard way of dating unknown events, based on the dates of other, known events, in contemporary documents like chronicles, charters, wills, etc (I don't know what they refer to here specifically; perhaps his father was mentioned with no son in 1293 and with a son in 1296). Similarly, June 30 means Marie was mentioned as dead in some document with that date. Similarly for the other dates. "Etc" means Robert of Taranto claimed a whole bunch of titular offices, most of which were defunct and which he may have bought (the crusader Latin Empire of Constantinople was long gone, for instance). They are listed in his article. This is kind of arcane academic/genealogist speak, probably not appropriate for Wikipedia, but it does make sense. As for the source of the info, I don't know, hopefully the author(s) will chime in as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of Coronation

how can he be crowned on 15 April or 25 April 1324, when his precedor, Uncle Henry II. (according to his own Article) reigned till his dead on 31 Aug. 1324? -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not unusual for a new king to be crowned while the old one is still alive, in order to ensure a peaceful succession. It may have been obvious that Henry was going to die, and since he did not have direct descendants, there might have been some opposition to Hugh from other claimants with an equally good claim to the throne. Crowning Hugh while Henry was still alive would legitimize Hugh's rule because he was chosen by Henry himself. This had happened in Jerusalem already, with Baldwin V; it also happened in France with Louis VII and Philip II, and in England with Henry II and Henry the Young King. It also happened frequently in the Byzantine Empire. (Of course, this is entirely speculation, and it's possible that the dates are wrong in one of the articles.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

first of all thank you for the answer. I surely know that situations like this happend often for many different reasons but it should be proofed mentioned than in the article. I first have read the german article and read nothing like this there and also in other sources nobody say something like this (please forgive me my bad english) -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)