Hi there Collision-Shift. Thanks for the research and welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend that you be bold and make the necessary changes to the list of counts.
I hope this isn't too confusing, if you have any questions or need help with this, ask away on my talk page or the help desk or in the IRC channel! -- KFP ( contact | edits) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the numbering here is simply not standardised. Possibly the genealogy is not certain. FMG is a useful source, but I'm not sure it meets our requirement for a reliable source. I do know that all the reliable sources I just checked call this guy "William II", not "William IV". We cannot do original research, but must report the findings of reliable sources. I'm more than happy to help write more articles to clarify the confusion (of numbering), but we cannot decide that a figure known by the best sources as William II simply can't be called that. In the end, however, a move to William Taillefer II may be advisable. I'll look into this further when I have the time, since I seem to find two counts of Angoulême named William who preceded William II. Srnec ( talk) 04:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting the problem with that redirect - but wouldn't it have taken only a few seconds longer to re-target it yourself rather than leave a note for someone else to sort it out? WP:SOFIXIT, as they say. Pam D 09:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Not out to "Win the Internet", just noticed an error, and easier to just "post-it" and let the originator(s) fix it, than change it and get into a spat with another user, history is the greatest teacher, and if we do not learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it.
Collision-Shift (
talk)
17:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Collision-Shift. Thanks for the research and welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend that you be bold and make the necessary changes to the list of counts.
I hope this isn't too confusing, if you have any questions or need help with this, ask away on my talk page or the help desk or in the IRC channel! -- KFP ( contact | edits) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the numbering here is simply not standardised. Possibly the genealogy is not certain. FMG is a useful source, but I'm not sure it meets our requirement for a reliable source. I do know that all the reliable sources I just checked call this guy "William II", not "William IV". We cannot do original research, but must report the findings of reliable sources. I'm more than happy to help write more articles to clarify the confusion (of numbering), but we cannot decide that a figure known by the best sources as William II simply can't be called that. In the end, however, a move to William Taillefer II may be advisable. I'll look into this further when I have the time, since I seem to find two counts of Angoulême named William who preceded William II. Srnec ( talk) 04:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting the problem with that redirect - but wouldn't it have taken only a few seconds longer to re-target it yourself rather than leave a note for someone else to sort it out? WP:SOFIXIT, as they say. Pam D 09:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Not out to "Win the Internet", just noticed an error, and easier to just "post-it" and let the originator(s) fix it, than change it and get into a spat with another user, history is the greatest teacher, and if we do not learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it.
Collision-Shift (
talk)
17:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)