Talk:Lordship of Biscay

Lord of Biscay and Lordship of Biscay

These two pages seem to cover the same ground, but are not well harmonized. (e.g. Lord of Biscay calls Munio Lopez a mythical figure and makes him son of Juan Zuria). They should either be merged, or some work should be done to segregate the topics information and bring them into agreement. 50.37.117.209 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged. There is no reason to list the lords of Biscay in a vast grey table when a simple bulleted list would work as well. Srnec (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have transferred the list of Lords and the images as a first step. Since all but one of the Lords have their own page, I have stripped most of the extraneous genealogical information, as lists like this need only serve as pointers, not a detailed accounting. I don't have ready access to Bienandanzas e Fortunas so I am not sure what to do with the 'mythical lords' listed on the other page. It looks like two of them, Muni Lopez and Inigo Lopez Esquira (i.e. Eskerra) are authentic lords, although the latter misplaced in time. Once this 'mythical lords' section gets transferred, the Lords page could be changed to a redirect. 50.37.117.209 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of sock puppetry not relevant to page content collapsed here

:::50.37.117.209: you are Maragm or Asqueladd. You are scoundrel.--83.213.200.27 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Would you like to discuss the actual edit? Do you have some objection to it, other than an ad hominem attack? 50.37.117.209 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Always playing dirty. Enter with your real name. --83.213.200.27 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maragm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.213.200.27 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Theater... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.213.200.27 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Irony? Anyhow, let me be more direct. WP:NPA indicates that one should focus on the content in dispute, and not discuss other editors. 50.37.117.209 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC) The proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asqueladd --83.213.200.27 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Religion in infobox" "Tenemos un admirador! --Maragm (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)" "Es muy cuqui. Cuando afirma plantear una cuestión "académica" que en realidad no plantea me derrito.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)" --83.213.200.27 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have found Bienandanzas e Fortunas at [1] (Libro XX). I have tried to incorporate his additional legendary Lords into this article, but constructive optimization of the added text would be appreciated. Once this section is optimized, the other article, Lord of Biscay becomes redundant. 50.37.115.224 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Alfonso XI

I copied the list of Lords from the other page, and it gives Alfonso XI as a Lord of Biscay. However, my reading of the Maria Diaz de Haro I page is that the king unsuccessfully tried to assert control, but Maria was able to thwart him. If that is the case, they ne should be removed and the length of Maria's third tenure extended. Anyone know which is the more accurate? 50.37.115.224 (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Danger.

Danger, the editor is Asqueladd with titere account. What you put in the article is not true. Asqueladd is deceiving you with false accounts. --85.84.115.9 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Ostia fruit! I see that I have been pitched as a sock-puppet today twice already. Little joke."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maragm.

50.37.117.209 And 50.37.115.224 They are Asqueladd with different accounts.

Mid-12th century

The account given in this article is in conflict with how the succession during the period of Vela rule is described in the articles on individual Lords. Some harmonization is in order, but I don't have any good sources that represent current scholarly consensus. Agricolae (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)