This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aimery of Cyprus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Aimery of Cyprus has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 1, 2019, April 1, 2021, and April 1, 2024. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the documents that refer to him as Aimericus are still very much extant, they do call him that. Thus, he is called that still. Srnec ( talk) 22:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Our own List of coats of arms of the House of Lusignan does not give the arms shown as pertaining to Aimery's reign. Hill, p. 69, says the Lusignans in Cyprus used a lion gules on a barruly field argent and azure, as in the image at right. Srnec ( talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I've finished with my copedits. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Painter 1950" reference does not link to a full citation. Does anyone here care to sort that out? It may be a typo (multiple times), or it may refer to a source that is not listed and might be findable in the article's history. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
What is "erroneous" about the name stuff? Isn't this just different ways of rendering the same name? Why is "Aimery" correct and "Amalric" incorrect?
I add an Ahnentafel (ancestors tree), but user Surtsicna remove it. Additionaly, she makes ungry comments. Her arguments are wrong (e.g. she said the ahnentafel has only males); what I do is similar to what exists in other pages here in WP. I cannot understand why she deletes all this stuff. Do we interested to improve the texts or not? Aris de Methymna ( talk) 18:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aimery of Cyprus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Aimery of Cyprus has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 1, 2019, April 1, 2021, and April 1, 2024. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the documents that refer to him as Aimericus are still very much extant, they do call him that. Thus, he is called that still. Srnec ( talk) 22:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Our own List of coats of arms of the House of Lusignan does not give the arms shown as pertaining to Aimery's reign. Hill, p. 69, says the Lusignans in Cyprus used a lion gules on a barruly field argent and azure, as in the image at right. Srnec ( talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I've finished with my copedits. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Painter 1950" reference does not link to a full citation. Does anyone here care to sort that out? It may be a typo (multiple times), or it may refer to a source that is not listed and might be findable in the article's history. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
What is "erroneous" about the name stuff? Isn't this just different ways of rendering the same name? Why is "Aimery" correct and "Amalric" incorrect?
I add an Ahnentafel (ancestors tree), but user Surtsicna remove it. Additionaly, she makes ungry comments. Her arguments are wrong (e.g. she said the ahnentafel has only males); what I do is similar to what exists in other pages here in WP. I cannot understand why she deletes all this stuff. Do we interested to improve the texts or not? Aris de Methymna ( talk) 18:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)