Talk:de Ficquelmont family

Real origins

The origins of this noble family are not in the 9th century, as said by the IP adress author of the main part of this article, but only in the 14th century. The genealogy, improved by documents, start in 1386 (Woelmont de Brumagne, Notices généalogiques, 7th serie, p. 342). Lord Fitzwarin (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But there are other sources such as (Poplimont, La Belgique Heraldique, Paris, 1866, p.388) where the proven genealogy started as soon as 1130 with Knight Erard of Ficquelmont [[1]]Rigaaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

• The best will be, if you will use it as "according to X, first was Y, according to A, the first was B".--Yopie (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline (MOS:HONORIFIC). --Yopie (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Because there is discussion about use of honorifics prefix, I must cite whole rule:

The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles is sometimes controversial on Wikipedia. The guidelines vary depending on the nature of the prefix: nobles, government officials, members of royal families, clergy, or other. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) for use in article titles.

1. Styles and honorifics derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper. 2. Styles and honorifics derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper. 3. Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy).

Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian.

4. The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles discussed in the Honorific Titles section below. Honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters. 5. In Burmese names, honorifics may be preserved if they are part of the normal form of address, even for ordinary individuals.

An example of "discussion in the article proper" would be listing the official, spoken, and posthumous styles for a pope within an infobox. (See for example, Pope John Paul II). Another example would be creating a section within an article on a member of a royal family discussing his or her various titles, styles, and honours. (See for example, Prince Charles#Titles, styles, honours and arms.)

So, Rigaa your statement "the honorific title should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person" is untrue. BTW Hochgeboren is literally Higborn or of noble birth (according to Google translate and Woxikon).--Yopie (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Linking, according to WP:LINK: Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics.--Yopie (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Yopie, the statement: "the honorific title should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person" comes directly from a link you post on my talk page.

-Regarding the links, I totally agree, but when there are no such focused info pages, a more global one is still the better way to inform the audience, which is, I believe, Wikipedia main goal. -Regarding the proper traduction of "Hochgeboren", if the Highborn would be a literal translation, his Grace is more correct because of the hierarchic implication of the word in German, a translation should always take into account the meaning before the literal. However, if you disagree, you're welcome to delete the alleged traduction instead of deleted the all. -Regarding your obvious will to outpower any other Wikipedia user who do not follow your own path: I can't understand such a behaviour, totally opposite to the core goal of such a community encyclopedia. I really hope it is not link with the discriminating stand that appears through your profile (monachist, noble...); it is not because I am not noble myself that I can't provide usefull information to Wikipedia users. Please think about it. --Rigaaa (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rigaa,

I´m very happy, that we can talk normal way, on talk page and I´m sure, that we can reach consensus. I´m sorry, if you feel, that I´m rude, there are many self-styled nobles, vandals etc. and is hard work with it. Again sorry. - regarding the links, there is custom, that is better to left link "red", than wrong link to unspecific page, because in future somebody will write article (for example about Couts of Chotek) and link will be "blue". If there is unspecific link, is hard work to find backlinks...And list of Counts of the A-U Empire is not specific or helpful. If somebody want know more about other nobles from A-U Empire, he can easily use Categories on bottom of page. - translation of Hochgeboren - you can let it be untranslated with wikilink or please translate it correctly. His Grace is in English only for Dukes and this is inappropriate. Generally in Central Europe Count is His Excellency, medialised count is Erlaucht. Hierarchically Hochgeboren is not on par with Duke. So, Hochgeboren is by meaning Excellency. - please understand, exaggerated statements about own family is not good introduction anywhere. Please, try for example article about Chotek or Chatelet, familiarise with rules and customs and later, after some time, make review of your first article...

Of course, my family have article here, and too in German, Czech and Russian wikipedia, but I did not wrote these articles. I checked these articles sometime, but I refrain from major editing. I understand, that you are proud of you family, but sometimes humility is better than grandeur. Please, don't take it personally, but if you start talking before this edit war, many misunderstandings never happened.--Yopie (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I now undersatnd why you were kind of harsh about my edits on that page, but you are mistaken, it is not at all my family! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigaaa (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)