User talk:Surtsicna/Archive4

Prince Philip

Re: [1], I figured that's why you added the new image. The convention that seems to be followed, for dead people at least, is to use the best portrait for the infobox. I looked around for a guideline but there's nothing to say that the lead image should be the most recent available in the case of living people. I definitely think the article should include images from his entire life, but I would prefer the lead image to be the posed portrait, even if it shows him at 70 rather than 90, because it looks more professional. DrKiernan (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I had replaced a 2008 photo of Prince Michael of Kent with a 1990 photo. However, I was not sure if there was a Wiki guideline/policy that advised us to use a more recent photograph. Thank you for clarification! The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Belgian monarchy

You are right, but I am writing nuances through actual examples I wrote immediately (in changing what I have written: some English kings attempted to be absolute...). And I woul also make a differnce between ancient monarchies and the Belgian constitutionnal monarchy. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Royalty Barnstar for Surtsicna

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		Surtsicna, I hereby award you The Royalty's Barnstar for your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia, especially regarding your efforts in creating and improving articles for royalty and nobility. Your edits are always greatly appreciated and welcomed. I look forward to continuing to work with you! Thanks again for your hard work--it has not gone unnoticed! --Caponer (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jamila M'Barek

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations on the DYK. You certainly deserve the credit, but thanks for the attribution! Cindamuse (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Roman counts

I've moved this category to Category:Papal counts as more precisely descriptive, and to avoid confusion with anything connected with the Roman Empire or the contemporary city of Rome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Both terms seem to be used by sources. I thought using "Roman counts" would be better because the adjective "Papal" implies something related to the Pope (c.f. articles in Category:Papal titles). I am fine with both terms. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Perkins

When I first looked at the photo closely I honestly did not recognize the person in it as Perkins. The candid pose and clothing/hair style threw me off. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

I was startled to see that you have summarily reverted my edits to Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg in support of the reverts of LouisPhilippeCharles, telling me to discuss the matter first on the talk page. In fact, prior to reverting his deletion of my edits, I had created a new section to raise objections to his edits on the article, and had also replied point-by-point and in detail to both him and you in the preceding section about both my general rationale for edits and for the specific edits I made. I thought I had addressed all points raised, but if not please advise what I missed so that I may do so. Your recommendation that he and I "compromise" on the use of Rheinfels in her title was respected with regard to the name of the article (although I'm not convinced reputable resources would place her there, I accept that an article name must also take into consideration how she is referred to in non-legal, non-scholarly sources). But since Huberty is an exhaustive authority & thoroughly documents that her title included Rheinfels, and I had footnoted the article accordingly, compromising by allowing Rheinfels to be omitted within the article space would have had two effects I thought were unacceptable: 1. inaccuracy, and 2. encouragement of LouiisPhilippeCharles's apparent belief that he is entitled to have his errors or deficiencies left in articles -- because Wikipedia is a "consensus" project. Whereas you and I know that while style and content may be debated and compromised within limits, the objective and stanadard is not to create articles that satisfy the editors' fancruft urges, but which are accurate, well-written, coherent, and focused enough to be "encyclopedic". Do you really believe that the trivia (which I have carefully, repeatedly and tightly defined -- without getting any indication from LouisPhilippeCharles that he grasps what constitutes trivia or why it is, ipso facto, non-encyclopedic -- even when sourced) he repeatedly and copiously distributes acros Wikipedia's dynastic articles is appropriate? Or yields better articles on historic dynasts than when it is significantly pruned? If so, I want to learn why and think I'm willing to do so. I genuinely do not want to discourage LouisPhilippeCharles from contributing -- he apparently has the time and interest to add vast quantities of articles on historical personages I do not and yet love to read about. But I am completely exasperated and at wit's end (after nearly 3 y3ars!) about how to get him to infuse his contributions with quality -- or even to heed other contributors. Are you aware that he is currently under investigation for knowingly continuing to move hundreds of articles around arbitrarily and improperly, generating hours and hours of unaided corrections by PBS at Contributor Copyright Investigations? Yet he ignores PBS's requests as an administrator that he stop editing other articles until he has helped clean up the huge mess he's left on royalty articles. All of my edits on this and other articles are intended to rid them of un-professional excess. Whenever I've backed down or sought assistance, he wins because he simply persists in doing exactly what he has done. Because I focus on content more than the form of articles (i.e. I tend to notice redundancy and trivia in an article, and not to care whether it occurs in the body of text vs boxes vs categories/templates/lists) I may make errors in deleting info others find standard and professional, but I'm willing to learn and compromise on this. I'm no longer willing to let unsophisticated royaltycruft diminish articles in order to appease. Frankly, I thought we were in synch on this? FactStraight (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! To be honest, I don't have any particular view on the name. I reverted your edit because I do not understand what's wrong with putting the places of birth and death in the infobox and with categories you removed. I am also not sure whether she was a princess or a landgravine. I should not have reverted your whole edit; I should've reinstated the places and categories. I absolutely agree that trivial information must not be part of an article (though your Category:Trivia seems to be a bit wider than my Category:Trivia). I was shocked when I saw an article (about Polyxena, I believe) mentioning the subject's niece's best friend! I have been warning him about cut-and-paste moves myself. I truly understand all your concerns but I am uncomfortable writing about him behind his back. I know how offending that can be. Anyway, I suggest requesting a third opinion by playing {{3O}} at Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg#Redundant & trivial content. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the birth & death sites because they were redundant: I had left them in the prose text, so removed them from the boxes. I don't care where they're mentioned, so long as they're mentioned only once. I deleted the first place of burial, leaving only the 2nd, because it's trivial: if she were Marie Antoinette or another renowned royal with a substantial Wiki article, I'd leave it in. But in a (deservedly) brief article on an obscure consort, I don't see why we need to know she was 1st buried X, later re-buried Y. Ditto for children who died too young to reproduce: I don't object to "Of the ten children she bore, six lived to adulthood, and they were..." But giving all the names, exact titles, precise birth & death dates of children who lived 3 days or 3 years, ending with "died unmarried" is trivial and pads the article -- it's a way of using Wikipedia to record detail irrelevant to notability that is, heretofore, found only in genealogies and books dedicated to the subject. I deleted some of the categories for, it seems, the same reason you have recently done so: all of those in "Category: Savoyard consorts" and "Princesses of Piedmont" should also be in "House of Savoy", so the latter is (or ought to be) redundant. Again, I care little about the specific categories (and so have restored some, although "Category:Italians who died of disease" strikes me as absurd), but object to the "padding" effect. Of course where to draw the line on trivia is debatable and I'm perfectly willing to accept inclusion of factoids I'd personally prefer be left out. But how do we engage in a reasonable conversation about that if editors contend that any factoid deserves inclusion (the more so if "attributable" and) if it "humanizes" the subject -- as if we are writing a novel? That altogether denies that "significance" is a legitimate criterion for encyclopedic selectivity. When a "third opinion" weighs in and says no more than, "Compromise! Just split the difference so no one feels their contribution is rejected", I am discouraged: What I hear is "Notability and encyclopedic quality are expendable in favor of appeasing fancrufters so that everybody gets along on the talk page": Wikipedia suffers from failure to uphold standards. On another subject, I'm commpletely perplexed by yours and LPC's continuing doubt about Polyxena being a princess rather than a landgravine: both in the text, where I inserted precise footnotes, and on the talk page where I explain Huberty's documentation (about the fact that the reigning landgrave dropped the "Rheinfels" while cadet princes/princesses kept it in their title), this is absolutely clear -- I too believed she was not a princess until I went to the library and looked up Huberty. It's no error because Huberty explicitly does accord the landgravial title to cadet males & females of some branches (Hesse-Kasel, Hesse-Homburg), while on the same page (with clarifying footnotes) explaining that cadets of other branches were prince/princess. This also happened in the Houses of Brunswick and Schleswig-Holstein. I will address LPC on the talk page as you ask. FactStraight (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

About sorting

Hello!
It seems to me, in the noble title category (for instance, Category:Earls of Kimberley) the articles are necessary to sort not in alphabetical order, but in chronological one of title holders. I think, it's more logically, because for the alphabetical order there is Category:Wodehouse family.
What do you think about it? -- Worobiew (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, it would be more helpful to sort the peers in chronological order but doing that can be hard sometimes. For example, I am not sure how to sort them when the number of holders is higher than 9. Do you have an idea? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a problem: here in each of creations Dukes are sotred in the chronological order, and in the last one are 18 Dukes. See: the 1st Duke & the current Duke. -- Worobiew (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not about sorting

Hello again!
One question else: why do you think, that Edward of Middleham wasn't the Duke of Cornwall? -- Worobiew (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

He was Duke of Cornwall and the article about him is in Category:Dukes of Cornwall. However, that category itself is in Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England. Therefore, the article should not be in both categories. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

O, yes! You are right. Excuse me!
Can I ask you, creating noble title category to add sorting key (like there). Thank you. -- Worobiew (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I sometimes add it and sometimes forget to add it. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

O.K., thanx! What do you think about sorting by the beginning with asterisk: like here? Please, look at the result of this sorting. -- Worobiew (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

:I've already done it in some places. It's nice but I believe the more important thing now is to simply categorise them by their titles. For example, Category:Earls in the Peerage of England is useless, don't you think? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Shaftesbury

You don't think the Earls of Shaftesbury reigned? For realz? Dang. Good catch. I never noticed the Lord (non-Earl) Ashley there either. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Community reassessment of Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier

Hello, just to let you know a Community Good Article Reassessment of an article you recently contributed to, Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier, has been made as an editor doesn't feel that it meets all of the GA criteria yet. The reassessment can be found at the article reassessment page. Please feel free to make any comments there. Regards,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC).

Subcategories

Hi. If you find subcategories such as "Category:Earls of Abingdon" useful, please feel free to create them. But can we agree on that the "earls in the peerage ..." et cetera categories are staying. The thing is, it is very easy to find holders of a certain peerage, you just look them up at the peerage article in which they are listed (such as Earl of Abingdon). However, it is much harder to find a full list of holders of earldoms, viscountcies and so on in a certain peerage. That's why the earls in the peerage of ... categories are so useful - in fact they are the only way to find them. I am also a bit concerned over categorising peer under their junior titles, like you have done to the Dukes of Devonshire. Of course they have been earls of Burlington since 1858, but they are also earls of Devonshire since 1618, should you be categorising them under that title also. I think you will end up with an awful mess here. Regards, Tryde (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for dropping by. I don't think Category:Earls in the Peerage of England should be included when we have a subcategory Category:Earls of Abingdon. Why? Because Wikipedia generally does not use parent categories and subcategories at the same time. Because Category:Earls in the Peerage of England is so overcrowded that it is impossible to find anyone. There are c. 600 articles in that category right now (and there were c. 800 before I started creating subcategories). Imagine Category:Earls in the Peerage of England with subcategories such as Category:Earls of Abingdon, Category:Earls of Bedford, Category:Earls of Carlisle, etc - in such a category, finding a certain Earl of Bedford would be much easier than finding him among 800 other people.

As for categorizing peers under their less important titles: If all the Earls of X were Dukes of Y, then I believe there is no reason to have Category:Earls of X. However, if there were Earls of X who were not Dukes of Y, while all Dukes of Y were Earls of X, then I usually put Category:Dukes of Y in Category:Earls of X and categorize the dukes only under Category:Dukes of Y. That way we end up with something like Category:Earls of Berkeley-Category:Barons Berkeley. However, there were Earls of Burlington who were not Dukes of Devonshire and Dukes of Devonshire who were not Earls of Burlington. Why not have both categories in that case? Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been undertaking sweeping changes to a system that has been in place on Wikipedia for many years, this without any prior discussion. It will take a long time to re-add the categories you have removed. I don't think Wikipedia readers use categories to look for a certain thing, rather categories are used to give an overview of something sharing a certain characteristic. If you want to know about someone who held the title Earl of Bedford you search for Earl of Bedford, not Category:Earls of Bedford. I believe readers will your system of subcategories and subcategories of subcategories hard to navigate. They also fill no real purpose as the holders are already listed in the article on the peerage they held (which also includes family history, how the titles descended, coat of arms et cetera).

As for your explanation for categorising peers under their subsidiary titles, to be honest, I couldn't really follow how you're reasoning. But do whatever you want as long as the original categories are kept intact. I suggest this discussion is moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Tryde (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention on royal consort

hi there,

you have been busy moving the names of royal consorts all over the place, without proper prior discussions. When you do have a vote, you have completely disregarded the Wikipedia conventions that have been set in place since years to deal with such issues. Please read them up here Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Consorts_of_sovereigns if you have not done so already. I don't think the reasons with which you have been moving the cases, such "This title is more useful" are enough to warrant such moves. If you feel that the current rules are not good enough, you are more than welcome of course to put them up for discussion. Gryffindor (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to unilaterally move the consort articles if you do not discuss them first and follow policy. I have to ask you to desist and discuss first in the forum Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Consorts_with_ambigious_names. Gryffindor (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is good that you also try to add content to the articles, that is greatly appreciated. However it is not a good idea to start moving consorts or having votes where basically one user participates and thus set a "precedent" by which one continues from there on, without having a broader discussion with as many users as possible, who have also contributed to these topics. If you want to add titles such as "Queen of x" or so, then discuss it first in the naming convention forum. If there is a convincing majority (and by that I don't mean one user, but for example 10 users who agree on this), then that's obviously a different story altogether. Gryffindor (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Elisabeth of Poland, Queen of Poland

I think you made a mistake here.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for notifying me. She seems to have been all but queen of Poland - its princess, regent and its king's mother. Surtsicna (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edit. Sockpuppet is blocked now. All best. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Good thing I am nosy ;) Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahahaha! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Philippe I, Duke of Orléans

I see you've edited Philippe I, Duke of Orléans in the past, so I just thought I'd let you know I reviewed the article against GA status. I think the article still needs some work, and you can find my comments here: Talk:Philippe I, Duke of Orléans/GA1. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Help me

Hello, you've been quiet ;) LOL! I don't understand - you know I requested a move for Clotilde de France but I don't understand what I have to do to close it =S I'm probably being dim but I'm well confused =O Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You can't close the discussion yourself. An administrator will do it in a few days. At least seven days have to pass between the opening and the closing a discussion. Just be patient ;) Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Louise Françoise de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon among others

Why remove the dates?! I know you do not like them but is it really about whta you want my dear!? Once again, it looks like she was Duchess of Bourbon in her own right which is not the case at all.. Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I have hidden them had you bothered to look =\ Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias

Can you reopen the debate on Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias about moving it to show that he was both Prince of Portugal and Prince of Asturias? He was son and heir of Manuel I of Portugal and only his grandmother Queen Isabella's heir in Castile. The two previous users who said opposed seems unaware that Prince of Portugal is not the same as Infante of Portugal. If you support it can you reopen it yourself, if you don't can you help me in restarting it?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I can help you request a move but I am not sure I would support it or oppose it. Do you know how to do it by yourself? Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really, can you help? Sorry about answering it so late, didn't notice that you even answered.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between X, Prince of Wales and Prince X of England? What are the two types of titles called?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please give your opinion on Talk:Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias#Move.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nighmare renewed

This for your info, since you are mentioned. :((((( SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agnes of Aquitaine, wife of Ramiro I of Aragon

Hello Surtsicna! Hope you're ok. I have recently created an article of the above name Agnes of Aquitaine, I was wondering if she should be renamed? As there are also two other women of the same name, origins and all three were queens of Aragon, do you have any advice? Also, has anymore been found out on the Bosnian nobility? Thank you--David (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been settled. I believe the current title (Agnes, wife of Ramiro I of Aragon) is the best option. In fact, I was just going to move it there when QEII's Little Spy moved it. As for Bosnian nobility, I am trying to find out more about Mary of Bosnia, Countess of Helfenstein. I've found some information about her but it's in German and I can't understand anything. Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I will do some digging on Mary as well, I think there is an issue with Elizabeth of Hungary, Queen of Serbia though. I feel that when I created her article I put her life in the wrong order, I as well as medieval lands believe that after the execution of her first husband, she joined a nunnery but escaped, she then travelled to Serbia to meet her sister Catherine and there she met her second husband. But some of her articles on wikipedia in different languages believe that she only joined the nunnery after her divorce from her second husband. I'm confused on that point do you know anything? Thanks--David (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Marie Anne de Bourbon, Duchess of Vendôme

Why!? You are being unreasonable again. Marie Anne de Bourbon is her name - no more no less! Who gave you the power to move hundreds of pages to what you please?! Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am being unreasonable? Huh. You insist on putting two numbers in the title though there are much more useful ways to disambiguate her from her namesakes. "Who gave me the power?" See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Consorts with ambigious names. Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What is Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I can not put restrictions on Prince LouisPhilippeCharles over move warring after you notify me of it, if you are going to behave in the same way as you did over Marie Anne de Bourbon, Duchess of Vendôme. If you move a page and Prince LouisPhilippeCharles moves it back, put in a requested move. This BTW is what you should do in all such cases because revert warring over articles titles is usually considered considerably more destabilising to the project than simple text reverting. -- PBS (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I should not have reverted it; however, the lack of explanation for reverting an explained edit is what made me revert it back. Discussing anything with LouisPhilippeCharles has never been successful for me. This is not the first time I have to ask for help in communication with LPC and I must have lost my patience. I'll try not to let it happen again. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cognatic descent

I see you reverted me. No problem, except that the vast majority of wikipedia readers will not have the faintest idea what a 'cognatic descendant' is - including myself (and I'm a native speaker). If you are a geanealogy expert you may well know - most of us are probably not. I decided to remove 'cognatic' because the link takes one to 'cognate' in a linguistic sense, which gives no idea as to what is meant by the phrase. So, since you decided to revert me on a technically correct point of encyclopedic precision, would you be so kind as to expand on the phrase in question and tell us all what 'cognatic descendent' in the House of Capet article means? (I had to go to google to find out). Cheers and thanks - 1812ahill (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, since were so quick to revert, but so slow to act on my suggestion or even give me a reply, I'll do it myself. (I notice that the link attached to agnatic in the same article also provides no useful information as to the meaning of these two terms) Cheers. 1812ahill (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry; I found no Wiki article about cognatic descent. We have an article about agnatic descent. Perhaps we could link to wiktionary? Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No prob. The Primogeniture article seems to cover it all. Cheers :) 1812ahill (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne de Bourbon

I created a disambiguation page yesterday to stop this from occurring in the first place. As you often support the use of titles in article name I thought I would compromise by using her French name (which is just the obvious, when on earth do you ever hear Joanna of Bourbon) and her highest title by marriage. Think about it Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What is your problem!? You cause so much drama =\ Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The drama I cause equals the trouble you cause. There is no reason to have "Queen of France" in the title, just like there is no reason to have it in the title of the article about Marie Antoinette. Why would it be obvious that we should call her the way modern French people call her? What's obvious about that? Surtsicna (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I create no trouble at all. You insist on having everything your way under what authority may I ask!? She is not the only Jeanne nor is she the only Queen of France. It is that simple =S You yourself always complain about disambiguations and I thought I would compromise but clearly you are to childish to do so. Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

But there is no other Joan/Joanna/Jeanne/Jehanne/Ioanna of/de Bourbon to disambiguate from so why do we need disambiguation? Surtsicna (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon.. Please don't be difficult, it drains me to be honest Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

She is not nearly as notable as the Queen of France. Please read WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Surtsicna

Thanks for your assistance on the Isabella Markham article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal titles

Hello! I have a question for you on my discussion page, as a continuation of the discussion we previously ended in September 2008. How time flies. Let me emphasize that I'm not after a quarrel, I'm sure we are both good faith editors.--Barend (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A little question

Hey. Don't you live in an Eastern European country? I was wondering if you know anything but discimination of the Gypsies if there is any in your country.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No I actually live the US. I'm just doing a school report on the subject. In what ways are the Gypsies discriminated in your country?----

Elizabeth FitzHugh

Is there a reason that you completely hacked up my article on Elizabeth FitzHugh? There are plenty of pages that list the legacy of people's descendants and as they did not mention all the people I did they usually do list a few notable descendants. People are always noting on pages that Anne Boleyn is a descendant of such and such. And to write that her descendants don't make her notable? Why would you write something like that? That's just rude, Elizabeth FitzHugh was a great-grandmother of many notable people living today and perhaps the whole list should not be listed, but perhaps a few should be listed. Did you take out the link to Sir William Parr's page? Also, you did take her out of the Tudor women category, why? She belongs in that period of time as she was a notable woman in the Tudor period.
Lady Meg (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You see, the thing is that a lot of people over on ancestry.com DO use wikipedia as a genealogy source which is sad, but some people do not know any better. My main purpose of signing up on here was to help list people correctly along with their descendants so that those who are still using wikipedia as a main source would actually be getting the correct information. You wouldn't believe how many people copy the wrong information and pass it on to other people who just copy each others trees. I'm guessing you are not into genealogy so you would not understand where I am coming from.
Lady Meg (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Cat breastfeeding a random adult cat.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cat breastfeeding a random adult cat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury

Hey there. This summer, I sent the Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury article to be assessed for Good Article status and it recently passed with flying colors. You made several edits to this article, so I would like to recognize you for the collaborative work that you did to improve the quality of the article. It's been a pleasure working with you. Best regards, Cindamuse (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England

I would appreciate your opinion about the proper name of (Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England, see Talk:Princess Henrietta of England JdH (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wildgrave and Rhinegrave

How should sovereign and non-sovereign Wildgraves and Rhinegraves be titled?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Shane Dawson

Hello, Surtsicna. You have new messages at Talk:Shane Dawson.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is now a Feature article nominee

Hi! Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies has been nominated as possible Featured article. She was an Italian princess and the wife of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. If're interested on reviewing and voting in favor or not of it, please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why?

If I may ask? --WizardOfOz (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession (Danish)

Hi, Surtsicna (not your real name, I know!) I was not sure that the IP who made some edits today realized that the boy twin was born first, and I was fixated on that order (boy twin, girl twin) and not really thinking about the ones in front of them. You are correct in saying that the current line of succession would have been different if it were not for the equal primogeniture rule of 2009. What I was trying to say in my edits was that the order of the OTHER children ahead of the twins was not changed (which to me meant the current line before the twins were born). Your interpretation is actually more correct, because the current line is AFTER the birth of the twins and is different because of the rule. So in that sense the IP editor was right. Thanks for stepping in. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! :) I had been following the IP's edits for some time so I understood what they wanted to say ;) Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn

Hi Surtsicna. How are you? Your eyes are definitely needed on Talk:Anne Boleyn regarding her title of Marquess of Pembroke. Thanks!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad, bad boy

One thing is to call Wikipedians who have some kind of relation to the subject being debated (someone who writes articles about it, is part of a related wikiproject, etc...). But for the sake of "winning" a mere move request by calling someone whom you know will vote in your favor? And even try to hide your true reason? That's sad. --Lecen (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC) P.S.: BTW, as you said yourself. Wikipedia is not a democracy, you can't resolve a discussion by voting. So, even if I was able to find another 3-5 editors who could support the move, even so the name would stay the same. It's about building consensus. And there is clearly too many who are opposing the move. Obviously, none of the ones who opposed cared (including you) to debate the matter. We're going still have a monarch called John VI, who is the son of Maria I, father of Pedro I and Miguel I, and grandfather of Pedro II and Maria II. Thank you very much for not helping at all. Keep cheating, you'll get somewhere one day. --Lecen (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The user regularly edits royalty-related articles and takes part in move requests similar to this one. I had no way of knowing how he would feel about the request. We've had plenty of disagreements over articles titles, when he felt that the unanglicised version was better. That you came here in such bad faith to call me a bad boy is quite sad... and, frankly, a bit disturbing. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And you...

... in this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been following the discussion for quite some time now, waiting to comment at the right time. Though, I must confess, my opinion is quite divided. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Or in this? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Earls of Shaftesbury

Very fortunately for the earldom, the 12th Earl is now married (and, in fact, has recently had a son and heir). Proteus (Talk) 14:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Isabella I of Castile

I want to get your opinion of the recent edit I made to Isabella I of Castile. I removed one image of her signature and resized a lot of the other images so they fit into the intended sections. The rest of the images were moved to the gallery page.

I removed the "appearances in xxx" as it's mostly trivial. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Prince of Asturias

Please respond.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Irish monarchs

Can you look at List of Irish monarchs and tell me what your opinion is? User:DinDraithou seems to think that Henry VIII of England was not Monarch of Ireland because Europe and the Vatican didn't recognize him as such, he didn't rule all of Ireland, and that Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone was a king of sort on Ireland also at the time. I feel like more editors should discuss this and agree on a consesus.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, can you help in arguement on the Lords of Ireland and also the Talk:List of Irish consorts? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV

Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Need an opinion/help

In your time on Wikipedia, have you had any dealings with self-published books as sources? If so, what exactly are the restrictions(if any) on such sources? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I haven't, as far as I recall. You might be interested in WP:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources. I'm sorry I can't help much more. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Such books are OK to use as sources only if they list a bibliography that would give them credibility in spite of the fact that they are self-published. An author who publishes a book obviously based on the scholarly and reliable work of others would have to be citable as a source, I think. It's sort of like WP articles - no sources, no good. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Surtsicna, how are you? I was wondering if you could help me look for some information on Isabella Appiani. I have looked around for information but haven't been able to find as much as I expected. I've done a google book search but many results are in Italian (I believe ) so I have trouble understanding. Due to the era she was from I couldn't find anything on medieval lands. Thanks for your help! --David (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I too searched for info but I could not find much about her in English. I can help you with information in Spanish, French and perhaps Italian if you need translation :) Surtsicna (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Boleyn

Hi Surtsicna, your help and extensive knowledge of titles is needed over on the Mary Boleyn article due to a stubborn editor who insists she was Lady Mary Boleyn. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I've tried to attract attention to the issue. The editor is theorethically right in saying that she would've been Lady Mary Stafford but I haven't been able to find a source confirming that she was styled as such or denying her that style :( Surtsicna (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Leon

Please voice your opinion on Talk:Sancha of León (born 1191/2)#Request Move and Talk:Dulce of León#Request Move.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Anne Laurence

Dear Surtsicna,you may not be aware that the first time someone is mentioned in Wikipedia,we use full name with no titles.Afterwards,we use the last name,not the first name.I wasn't sure if you were aware of this(Wikipedia policy),so I put a little note on your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.124.234 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realise that the Princess Royal holds no surname whatsoever and if she uses a surname, it's never "Laurence". Please provide a source if you insist that her surname is Laurence. If someone doesn't have a surname (as is the case with royalty), we use his or her first name; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Royal surnames. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists of consorts

Maybe we're thinking wrong. This project could have a glorious climax: List of the spouses of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. I see a list of 500 spouses, each with a portrait, or her husband's company logo, emblazoned tastefully on a heraldic shield. Kauffner (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fantastic, Kauffner! But we must not forget to add their fathers' names and the period fduring which they held that mighty status that affected history. Surtsicna (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Berry move

PLEASE don't do this sort of thing without raising on talk first. This is by far the best known Duke of Berry. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE don't shout on my talk page. He was not the only Duke of Berry named John and it makes absolute sense to disambiguate him from his successor by using the ordinal, as French Wiki does. Anne, Queen of Great Britain is by far the best known Queen Anne but it doesn't hurt to be more precise when we're able to be. If you disagree, revert the move or request a move. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't revert the move, as you ought to know by now, or I would. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that gets the nobsquad their bad name. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop being so melodramatic and acting as if I moved the article to Elizabeth, Archempress of Saturn. The title is perfectly accurate and doesn't make him one bit less recognisable. If you have any arguments (other than mere childlish name-calling), I'll gladly read them. If you only have ad hominem arguments, please leave my talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

With pleasure. But please stop acting like this, which is against procedure. It involves other users in a considerable amount of effort to reverse such changes, one made, and a quick talk page would enable you to see first if there is concensus. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No 'procedure' takes priority over a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. If you have any substantial arguments against the move, please let me finally see them. It seems to me that you are just demanding to be asked for your blessing before an article you edited is moved, as you continue to scold me for being bold without saying what is wrong with the new title. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Duke of Berry, the only other Jean to hold the title is John, Dauphin of France, Duke of Touraine, who was already Dauphin by the time "Jean I" died, & so will never have been Duke of Berry as his main title. The change was totally unnecessary, and only liable to lead to confusion. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusion can only be created when the title of an article can equally refer to two men. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because nobody has ever referred to John II, Duke of Berry (a redlink when I wrote this). Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. Please get your facts straight before jumping to conclusions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See the article talk - neither of these refer to the correct & actual "Jean II", the Dauphin you have now created a redirect to. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)