This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article has been moved from Rikissa Valdemarsdotter of Sweden to Richeza of Sweden. A move to a Polish spelling, Ryksa, I had understood, but the spelling Richeza appears nowhere in the article text and no reliable source indicating Richeza as common name has been provided. Unless this is coming, it should probably be restored to its previous name. Tomas e (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many such articles simply have the English version of the names; it seem to be the rules for articles about royalty. In any case: The articles about royal women, seem to favour the names they had before marriage. The patronymicon Valdemarsdotter may be uneccessary, but perhaps the name rikissa of Sweden would be proper? Just a suggestion. --85.226.44.190 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is en.WP (English Wikipedia) in case anyone forgot. English names please! And users who really know English make these decisions, please! No Swenglish in the articles, please! No irrelevant Swedish lessons forced upon English readers either, please! No phonetically impossible names when not necessary, please! Let's all try to get a grip on our individual linguistic limitations, please, all try to do good work work within them, and stop opining so much way outside of them. Please! Article titles in English, please! Rikissa is not and has never been an English name form. Richeza in this case is 100% correct. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a temperament which could cause trouble for you. I see you have removed the information that she was wedded in the cathedral of Nyköping. It is necessary to check the references before you remove referenced information, or at least, place a "citation needed" on the information you question, or paste the questioned peice of the text on the talk-page to inquire. Not just state "that is wrong" and remove it. The information may be in the references. Again: remember, that it is very important to remain calm in Wikipedia. I see that matter have caused severe problems in Swedish wikipedia for you. Just a friendly advise, when I saw the tone you used on this page! I have no real wiev on this article. I sincerely hope you are not offended by friendly advices, even if they are critical - I just could not help pointing that out when I saw the tone you used. Have a good day! --85.226.46.68 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just saw the text you postd on the talk page of Surtscina on this subject. Remember, that the work on Wikipedia is not a hostile war between mortal enemies. It is an encyklopedia, were different people try their best to make a good encyklopedia together. Everyone try their best. They are not here to make war, only to write an encykolpedia togehter. I am sure that both Surtscina and SergeWoodzing agree, that it is not constructive to engage in the kind of war that your tone may suggest. And it is also very sad. Look at the tone Serge used above, and try to think: "Is this written in a neutral tone?" I am sorry if I sound critical, but it just made me very sad to see the kind of tone you had there, and in the talk page of Surtscina. You just sound so very hostile. I do hope you excuse me if I sound offensive in any way!--85.226.46.68 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serge can sound a bit hostile (he certainly did in our first discussion, but so did I). However, his only goal is improvement of Wikipedia. I support him when I think he is right and I don't support him when I think that he is not right. In this case, I believe he is right. Richeza is the most common name for this queen - or, to be precise, the only name for this queen in English language sources. Her daughter is called Elisabeth Richeza of Poland and it would be logical for her mother's article to be consistent. The article should also be consistent with the article about other Polish queen named Richeza - Richeza of Lotharingia. The title of the article should not favour either Polish or Swedish spelling of her name as neither of those is more common. Furthermore, she does not appear to be the only Swedish princess named Richeza - there is Rikissa Birgersdotter. Therefore, Richeza of Sweden (1273-1293) is the best name for this article. Surtsicna (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the current name of the article. Thank you for your good tone of discussion. Furthermore, I have checked the question of the cathedral in the written polish reference: It names the curch of Saint Nicholas[[1]]. There is no article of it in en wiki. I do not know why it was called a cathedral: It is certainly smaller than those in southern Europe, but perhaps the name reffers to the position of the curch as the curch of the bishop? I am not informed about that - I am somewhat ignorant of the bishoprics, so I cant' judge in that matter. Cathedral may have been the wrong word. As for Serge, my point of view may be affected by the conduct on Swedish wikipedia. It is important to always be polite, calm, and neutral; to present your view in a balanced way; to not take critic personally; to accept advice without being angry; to accept that everyone have the best intentions at hand; and to accept the outcome even if it goes against the opinion you yourself think is correct. Of course; one should keep what happens in Swedish wiki and english wiki separate. I was just sad to see the same tone here after all discussions on swedish wiki. However, I do in fact also have the opinion, that he have the very best intentions at heart, and his work both here and on swedish wiki is often very positive, and that's why I think it would be a shame if he came to be in the same situation here as well. I don't know if I should reintroduce the information about the cathedral, so I just post it here. --85.226.46.68 (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one thing; should the year (1273-1293) be in the article? Those years usually means the years of birth and death, do they not? And the article states that the years of birth and death is unknown, if you look more closely (I didn't notice that at first, its easy to miss!). --85.226.46.68 (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the title now. I hope that was alright. The title would already have been prefect, if "(1273-1293)" had been the birth and death year, but as the dates of her her birth and death is unknown, I suppose it is necessary to use the entire title. I hope that's alright for everyone! --Aciram (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP above about this article's name. It should be Richeza of Sweden, Queen of Poland (there has only been one such) without those estimated years.
Other than that, the IP above missed my edit summary: there never has been a cathedral in Nyköping. The fact that there has never been a cathedral in Nyköping does not need to be sourced, nor recearched in any more extensive manner. A quick call to Svenska kyrkan (Church of Sweden) will suffice, if there should be any suspicion about my removing that incorrect detail out of spite or hostility. Or a quick visit to my user page might enlighten anybody that I probably know what I am doing, and am trying to give WP my best, when it comes to such details. Cathedrals are such officially. A given church cannot - maybe or maybe not - be or have been a cathedral. It is nice that/if people seem to appreciate my intentions and some of my work.
There is nothing in any guidelines about being neutral on talk pages. IP got that wrong. We are supposed to be civil - which does not include using unethical arguments to attack other users personally (see below). We can state our opinions and ask for needed improvements - using "please!" several times like I did above - and then risk being attacked personally (see below) by persons who probably feel targeted by that honest and good advice but may not want to work realistically (languagewise) here on en.WP (???).
I am truly sorry if some of my wording seems hostile and that it was necessary to attack me personally about it here. Using discussions from elsewhere, such as on other languages WP's, against me here is so unfair it borders on cruelty. People here would have to be able to read all that in order to understand it, including the very constructive outcome on sv.WP. Here on en.WP I am trying a last-ditch effort to make an impression with a tougher tone. I stand by every single word of what I wrote above. And I wish that everyone would read it over and over and try to get the message. Then perhaps many others like me - who can contribute valuable, referenced knowledge to WP - might want to stick around, not having to deal constantly with:
cleaning up huge amounts of horrendous English written into articles by Swedes and others who refuse to recognize their own limitations in English (a cleaning up that often would be impossible if one does not know enough Swedish to realize what the contributor actually meant);
changing and/or arguing endlessly about changes we need to make to have articles in English that make grammatic and phonetic sense to readers of English, while dealing with several people who want to exert an unwarranted, authoritarian and determinative expertise here about the English language while giving many examples of their own considerable limitations in it.
Quoting Surtsicna on my talk page: I am always frustrated when somebody claims that a medieval person's real name is the name used today by the people who live in that person's country. I am now more than frustrated with all these things, and I am on the verge of going somewhere else and doing something else where I don't have to sound hostile to make important points like those above. They should be pretty obvious to anyone constructively inclined.
Yes, this is what is so sad. It is the same problem you had on Sw wp. You can not accept any form of criticizm whatsoever. As soon as someone has the slightest bit of criticizm of anything you have done, or even if someone has an opinion other than the one you have, you become angry and call it a personal attack. And you never actually read what your opponent say. It is a shame. Wikipedia should not be a battle ground. But this is not a talk page about your behaviour, so I will take my leave. Good luck on your improvement! --85.226.46.68 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your interest is in telling so many lies about me. ??? There a loads of examples all over where I have shown great appreciation for constructive criticism. I don't have "opponent" just collaborators, normally. I have great respect for the opinions of others and have shown that many times also. You don't know me at all, so why are you so unfair to me - and cruel? Why do you attack me over and over and then blame me for reacting to your personal attacks that always have nothing to do with the subject at hand? I wish you would stop it. Leave me alone now! If you try to be nice, I'll continue cleaning up all your awful "English" all over, since I think your intentions in the work are very good. But your anonymous cruelty to me again and again is just horrifying! Why don't you read my constructive suggestions here about language again and try to benefit from them? You realy need to if you are going to go on contributing in your very special way to en.WP. in what usually is not acceptable English. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One mistake you make, is that you take for granted that everyone who criticize you hates you and have the intention to be cruel to you. I have not criticized you to be cruel to you. I don't know you, so why would I have the wish to be cruel to you? I have criticized you because I think your behaviour is wrong. Do you understand the difference? You were given many constructive advice regarding your behaviour on your talk page on Swedish wiki. Why not try to consider them and learn from them? You see; when you receive critic, you must try to make an effort to learn from the critic, not just react with anger. I have observed your behaviour many times in en wp and sw wp, and it seems to me that you explode and call people nasty and mean and cruel as soon as you recieve critic. I beleive it is very nice, and not cruel, to point out when someone have made a mistake, so you can learn from your faults. It is important for you to learn to control your temper. Why not read the advice you were given on Swedish wiki again and again, until you learn them? Here, for example: you claim that you have correcte my "awfull" English language here many times. You have corrected two: In the articles of Sofia of Denmark and Valdemar of Sweden. My mistake was to write: "count" instead of "Count". This is two minor mistakes. I am glad you have corrected them. But you see, to say that it is "awfull" is hostile. It is better to say: "That was wrong spelling". Now, I do not wish to argue with you any more. If you had not written this on my own talk page, I would not have replied. As you have, I have given you one last reply. Try to learn from it. I you write to me any more, I will not reply anymore, even if you try to provoce me. Especially not on this page, which is suppose to be about Richeza. Try to respect that, try to understand the critic, and try to avoid arguing with people on talk-pages so much and focus on work instead. --85.226.46.68 (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not hostile to state the facts to a user who does not know them but needs to hear them. In articles you have edited, I have corrected your awful "English" (such as what you are using here) many many times, not just the minor errors you made recently. I have done that, like I wrote above, because (1) I felt your content input was good and (2) I know Swedish so I could figure out what you actually meant. But you seem to be hopeless re: language, not interested in being constructive about it, and now only want to attack me personally from your comfortably anonymous IP. How sad! You probably think your English is just fine and you need no help. I will consider you hopeless from now on and will probably have to use your worst English to gather qualified opinions against you here on en:WP to try to stop you from continuing to contribute such bad work in practically incomprehensible Swenglish. This is not Swenglish WP. You might want to learn what the word condescending means in the meantime. Then you might try not to be that when using a language in which you do not excel. Unless you enjoy being ridiculed. I am saying that out of kindness, not cruelty, and without lying about you or whatever you may have been involved with at sv.WP. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope we don't have to do corrections like this too often. Consensus has her name as Richeza, the English version. Let's keep it that way and also be more careful with grammar. Please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
