This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recateg as semi-legendary - not recognized queen, rm false Lagerqvist source & queens box, Ohlmarks=fiction. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not correct of you to remove the Lagerquist reference. Unless you have checked it, and confirmed that she is not there, than it is unproffessional and incorrect of you to remove it. I have checked this reference on my local library, and it does mention her. It is arrogant and disrespectfull to declare a reference "false" and remove it from an article without nowing if it incorrect or not. We all make mistakes of course, but try not to repeat such a thing please. -- 85.226.43.33 ( talk) 11:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am hesitant about the removal of the box. As a general rule, legendary people should also be inkluded in lists of royalty. If their existence is unproven, they may still have existed: we do not know. In this case, it should not be correct to broke the line of the succession, if the next person in this line is unconfirmed. The article should state that they are legendary, that is the task of the article; the task of the sucession-boxes it to state the succession. -- 85.226.43.33 ( talk) 12:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I really should have explained this better, I'm sorry. The succession-boxes are only there to provide a succession. Other countries do mention royal people who may or may not have existed, and are mentioned in partially in legend, in their succession. It is simply a question of having a practical sucession line who one can use for help to access information : the fact that some of the people may be partially legendary, should of course be clearly stated in their articles: this is the task of the article, not of the succession. Legandary monarchs are included in lists of kings. This is not a problem - as long as the articles states their semi legendary status, of course. That way, no confusion will occur. You see, it is more or less like this: we now this woman existed, and we now that she was queen in this period, between these two confirmed queens. The fact that her correct name, years, (for example) is unconfirmed, does not change her place in the succession line. The boxes are there simply to state the place in the succession, and that place is not contested : the contested information should be dealt with in the article itself. I hope you understand. But: in other aspects, you have done a great job. -- 85.226.43.33 ( talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not known wether she existed or not. In any case: Wether she was legendary or not, she was still queen. It is the task of the article to state that she is legandary. -- 85.226.43.33 ( talk) 12:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recateg as semi-legendary - not recognized queen, rm false Lagerqvist source & queens box, Ohlmarks=fiction. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not correct of you to remove the Lagerquist reference. Unless you have checked it, and confirmed that she is not there, than it is unproffessional and incorrect of you to remove it. I have checked this reference on my local library, and it does mention her. It is arrogant and disrespectfull to declare a reference "false" and remove it from an article without nowing if it incorrect or not. We all make mistakes of course, but try not to repeat such a thing please. -- 85.226.43.33 ( talk) 11:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am hesitant about the removal of the box. As a general rule, legendary people should also be inkluded in lists of royalty. If their existence is unproven, they may still have existed: we do not know. In this case, it should not be correct to broke the line of the succession, if the next person in this line is unconfirmed. The article should state that they are legendary, that is the task of the article; the task of the sucession-boxes it to state the succession. -- 85.226.43.33 ( talk) 12:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I really should have explained this better, I'm sorry. The succession-boxes are only there to provide a succession. Other countries do mention royal people who may or may not have existed, and are mentioned in partially in legend, in their succession. It is simply a question of having a practical sucession line who one can use for help to access information : the fact that some of the people may be partially legendary, should of course be clearly stated in their articles: this is the task of the article, not of the succession. Legandary monarchs are included in lists of kings. This is not a problem - as long as the articles states their semi legendary status, of course. That way, no confusion will occur. You see, it is more or less like this: we now this woman existed, and we now that she was queen in this period, between these two confirmed queens. The fact that her correct name, years, (for example) is unconfirmed, does not change her place in the succession line. The boxes are there simply to state the place in the succession, and that place is not contested : the contested information should be dealt with in the article itself. I hope you understand. But: in other aspects, you have done a great job. -- 85.226.43.33 ( talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not known wether she existed or not. In any case: Wether she was legendary or not, she was still queen. It is the task of the article to state that she is legandary. -- 85.226.43.33 ( talk) 12:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)