Jump to content

User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 23

The last time I looked...

English Wikipedia was not the Associated Press. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. Wikipedia's own style guide, MOS:JOBTITLES, is based on such external guides, however, and says: "The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it." Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Charles III John of Norway

Just a bit confused as to why you removed this well known & relevant fact w/o explaining. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I could have sworn it was you who once explained that he called himself "Charles XIV John" in reference to Norway too and that "Charles III John" was invented for modern lists of Norwegian kings. Perhaps it was someone else. Was he actually called "the third" in Norway during his reign? Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That must have been a much less knowledgeable person, not I. The Norwegian article, the article in their second language, the Swedish article, the French article and the Finnish article (countries directly involved) all have the correct info. I respectfully suggest you reverse yourself on this one. Bound to happen once in a while when we are in a rush. rush, rush to get as much done as we can. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Citing Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia does not work very well; see WP:CIRCULAR. Interestingly, however, the Swedish Wikipedia article says that he was called Karl XIV Johan on the coins circulated in Norway. Norsk biografisk leksikon says he insisted on being called Karl XIV Johan in both kingdoms though the Norwegians wanted to call him Karl III Johan. For that reason I objected to plainly stating that he reigned in Norway as "the Third". It does not appear to be factual. Surtsicna (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not cite "Wikipedia as a source", I just informed you of standard naming in this case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

NCROY

Might be best to seek a change at WP:NCROY, as we've a rapid growing number of RMs concerning monarch bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Information icon

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Oldest heads of state

Howdy. Just curious what's your views on @Doomer1557:'s attempted additions to succession boxes, of when a monarch or president was the oldest head of state? GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's trivia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to be sure that my reversions were correct. We may want to keep an eye on it, as he can be a tad determined. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I do not need your supervision. And please explain the cancellation of my edits, otherwise this will be considered groundless. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 17:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Your additions were trivial. What will be next? Heaviest head of state, Tallest head of state? etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
In this case, I propose to delete the article Lists of state leaders by age. This is so trivial... 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 18:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
If you want to nominate that article for deletion. That's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
It was sarcasm. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 20:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization

I will agree with you on most of your points, however, I disagree about the lower capitalization in the infobox, "Prime minister before election" and "Prime minister before election". Would we need to change the infoboxes of the entire electoral history of the pages for the United Kingdom and Australia to align with Singapore's? I am not really not enthused in getting into disputes with other editors over 50 pages for a simple capital M for the words "minister".

I would appreciate your advice, and your backing, if I were to do it alone. Seloloving (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I would just to add my point that the entire electoral history for the pages of Japan, Malaysia and Turkey capitalises the M in the infobox as well. If they are all wrong, we should really ask someone to verify this before making changes across hundreds of infoboxes as I am sure they are all copied from some template based on the similarities. Seloloving (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

All those infoboxes should indeed say "Prime minister before election". The rest of the fields in the infobox are in sentence case (e.g. Popular vote rather than Popular Vote) so I do not see why that one should be an exception. This has all already been discussed; hence the clear wording in MOS:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
And as said, I am not fond of going through 100 over infoboxes and getting into disputes with other editors, would you assist me in clearing them up with me? Me citing MOS:JOBTITLES when I don't understand its intricacies isn't going to solve anything. Seloloving (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have posted this problem to the template of the elections infobox, as the template capitalises the M in Minister. So the problem could be wider than I previously though, I also pinged you in the post also so you can find it. I know there are Wikitools to automatically update hundreds of pages, and am awaiting a possible solution if it's available. Seloloving (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

More pope-ing

[1], what do you think, improvement or not? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I think neither should be in the infobox. They are not commonly associated with Herod or particularly notable on their own. I very much doubt that any such painting or drawing appears in the sources cited in the article or in other literature about Herod. Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
You'll like this one: Abbas ibn Firnas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, greetings. I'm not pleased to be reverted, and certainly not a second time, but here I am. For aesthetic reasons, I don't like red links in lead and infobox, because they take undue attention, imho. Others may handle that differently. I respect when users don't want an infobox, for example. I am perfectly willing to write the articles (here "her article" tomorrow), and then establish the link. - Now, if you don't agree, could you please not have a bare red link, where she could have an interlanguage link, as later in the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting, Gerda Arendt. I did not mean to irk you and I certainly do not feel strongly about this. I find red links useful for the reasons explained in WP:Red link guideline but especially so when the topic is a woman because of the wonderful idea behind the WP:Women in Red project. Perhaps the best thing to do to avoid suggesting that she is non-notable by having no link would be to change the red link into a blue link by way of a one-sentence stub biography. I avoided doing it because I thought it might interfere with your plans. Then again, a full article about her might lead to a nice double DYK hook. I am currently reviewing the nomination and I do not like the reference to "a woman", but more on that here. Surtsicna (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I think basically we think the same, just it's expression ... - Nothing wrong with plain red links, - we agree. Better an interlanguage link, I think we agree. I don't like it - for reasons explained - in the lead. In this particular case, I planned to write the article, but didn't manage in time before the song had to be nominated. It will be, though, before it will appear, and as soon as she has an article, I will mention her name in the hook, sure. No link from the Main page though to a one-line stub. I won't persue a double hook, but rather give her her own hook when the time comes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, you always show up where I edit. Is this just a coincidence? i.e. Duchess of Sussex and Pippa Middleton: jk cookie monster (2020) 755 18:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm kidding. we both edit a lot of British royalty pages. cheers, cookie monster (2020) 755 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You scared me a bit haha Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Kings and queens and article names

Hi Surtsicna, you've been quite active in sorting out the articles for various monarchs and their names and titles, so I wonder if you'd be interested in a proposal of mine on that subject. Presently, the articles on the post-Union of the Crowns monarchs in what is now but was then not yet the UK[ofGBNI] handles their regnal numbers quite oddly and sometimes adds "of England" where it is either unnecessary or misleading. My proposals would be:

This would: 1.) reduce the pipeage, 2.) reduce the misleading impression of having "of England" appended to the Stuart monarchs gives, and 3.) give a generally more balanced and less anglocentric impression what these monarchs were monarchs of. Let me know what you think and whether it would be worth setting up an RfC on the issue. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, GPinkerton. It is possible that Charles I of England and Charles II of England are the primary meanings of "Charles I" and "Charles II", respectively, but it would need proving. There are 30 more people listed at Charles I but I suspect the main obstacle would be the first Angevin king, the first Angevin king of Hungary, and the last monarch of Austria-Hungary. The other situation might be complicated by an important figure in the Hundred Years' War and the last Habsburg king of Spain. I do not think the long-winded Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland would be an improvement, as it means going in the direction opposite of concision and simplicity. The other proposed moves look much more feasible to me. Surtsicna (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. If I Google "Charles I" it takes six pages of results to arrive at the first non-Charles I result: a one Charles I. Jones, Stanford Graduate School of Business. The following 4 pages (and doubtless more) are all of them about the Scottish Charles I. Encyclopaedia Britannica treats them as "Charles I" and "Charles II" with the subtitle "king of Great Britain and Ireland" (and the note that: "All his life Charles [I] had a Scots accent"). The others are given titles like "Charles II (king of Naples)" and "Spain under the Habsburgs: Charles I". Charles I is certainly primary as far as I can tell; his reign, trial, and death are all extremely important in the constitutional history of Britain (and America & Commonwealth) with an impact on English-speakers far beyond medieval European kings and a short-reigning 20th-century Austrian. For Charles II I would have difficult accepting a king of Navarre ("of where?") as more noteworthy than a king with a whole period of history named after him (see: The Restoration (primary topic), Restoration (Scotland), Restoration (Ireland), and Restoration in the English colonies) and a whole genre of literature and drama named after his reign, as well as so many children the number of their articles seems to tilt the balance towards his favour. Added to which, the two Charles Stuarts are the only monarchs, besides the French Charles I and II, to actually be called "Charles". All the others are approximations of Carlo, Karl, Carl, Carlos, Carol, etc. GPinkerton (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexander, Prince of Scotland citation mismatch

In an edit to the article Alexander, Prince of Scotland (Revision as of 23:44, 9 April 2019) you included a short citation to "Prestwich 1998, p. 356-357" unfortunately you forgot to supply the long citation. Is this the correct long citation (obtained from the article Margaret of Scotland, Queen of Norway):

  • Prestwich, Michael (1988). Edward I. University of California Press. ISBN 0520062663.

I ask because in the article Margaret of Scotland, Queen of Norway the short citation is also broken (date mismatch) and its short citation has the same date and page numbers as the short citation in the Alexander, Prince of Scotland article (Prestwich 1998, p. 356-357). -- PBS (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, PBS, that is the citation. I included it when I expanded Margaret, Maid of Norway. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah! that useful to know. Which year is correct for the citation 1988 or 1998? -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, PBS, I did not realize that was what you meant by date mismatch. 1988 is correct. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed that one, but it has lead me to another diff. You added the short citation "Oram 2002, p. 107." to the article Margaret of Scotland, Queen of Norway on 9 April 2019 would the long citation to that be the same as the one in Margaret, Maid of Norway:

There is another similar mismatch problems with Margaret, Maid of Norway. There is a "Reid 1990," in some of the short citation and "Reid 1982" in other short citations with a long citation of "Reid, Norman H. (1982)." You added both long and the short citations in a series of edits back in April 2019 (diff on some of them). Do you have a long citation to support the short "Reid 1990" citations?

-- PBS (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no. Thanks, PBS. I asked several users to review the article before the GA nomination and this went unnoticed. "Reid 1990" should be "Helle 1990". I'll sort that out. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I have an advantage over many editors that makes it easy for me to see this type of error. If you add the line
      importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
to the file "User:Surtsicna/common.js" — in your case you will have to create "common.js" (see Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Customizing Wikipedia/Easier editing with JavaScript#Your personal JavaScript page
the resulting in-line error reporting will make such things obvious (See also Help:Citation Style 1#Error checking).
-- PBS (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Was I right in assuming that the Richard Oram (2002) listed above is the missing long citation that the article Margaret of Scotland, Queen of Norway? --PBS (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, PBS. I have added it to the article. I'll see if I can set up this "common.js" since I am evidently prone to this kind of blunders :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
If you run into problems let me know and I will try to help. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Category :Remarried royal consorts

Hi, If you don't like a category, the approach is NOT to empty all the contents, but to take it to Cfd. This is a gross breach of all procedure, which I would not have expected from you. Not everyone is likely to agree with your personal opinion that it is not defining. Cfd is probably quicker anyway. I will revert all your changes, using rollback if you don't mind. Feel free to take it to Cfd. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Johnbod. Could you please direct me to the page where I can learn about the procedure for dealing with mass adding of controversial newly created categories? Borsoka and I have reverted the inclusion, and Ealdgyth and Aciram have supported the reversions. I very much doubt that a category once created and added to dozens of articles in the space of a few hours must be retained in those articles. Retaining it despite there being no consensus for it is not really in the spirit of WP:BRD. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit. The page where you learn about the procedure is WP:Cfd. Our whole Cfd policy consists of categories being discussed by the community rather than just taken out by random individuals who don't like it. If a category exists, all articles clearly meeting its definition should be included. It's the category itself you don't like, and you should have attacked that. It is harder than it ought to be to find a clear statement of the long-standing consensus view thart what you did was wrong, and I have raised the matter at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Where_does_it_actually_say_you_should_not_just_empty_a_category_you_don't_like?. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a side remark. I have no problem with the category. I think Jadwiga of Poland can hardly be included. Borsoka (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough! You have tracked down where I got your name from. A particular article not fitting the category is a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Morlachs

As a foreigner, I was not supposed to be aware of that (now I will, of course :-). In the future, to avoid revert wars, state such things clearly in the edit summary. "Same thing" is a hardly helpful edit summary. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right, Staszek Lem. I should not have assumed that everyone would know what I meant by "same thing". Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Spanish queen consorts

Note: Some recent changes have been made to Queen Sofia of Spain's main lead & infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We're getting Sofia & Letizia mixed up. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Grigorije Durić

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing

Dear Surtsina, Your editing is welcome to make the page accurate. Please note that E.Lippens was not born with a title: https://gothanjou.blog/2019/07/25/les-maisons-du-gotha-bismarck-2/ Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.51.246.126 (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Central Business District

Your attention is called to the addition of this display to the article on the Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s). Do you have any feelings, for or against? Discussion should take place on that article's Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Margaret, Maid of Norway

I draw your eyes to this article. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

PAustin4thApril1980, is there something wrong with it? Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Royalty-Cruft Winnowing Barnstar

The Winnowing Fan Barnstar
For your good work on highlighting the wheat by removing royalty-cruft chaff.   // Timothy :: talk  18:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


Thank you, Surtsicna

Surtsicna, this cup of coffee is on me, for your continued diligence in ensuring that articles for royal biographies meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I regret that many of my earlier articles on Wikipedia fell short of meeting these guidelines and policies, and I appreciate your efforts to root them out as consensus warrants. Thank you, and cheers! West Virginian (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, West Virginian. I too regret some of my contributions from 10 years ago, and have been cleaning up my own mess as well. Cheers to the good work ahead of us! Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, Surtsicna! You've inspired me to clean-up some of my other articles that would likely fall into the "cruft" category. While now is not a good time, I hope to assist you and the other editors with this effort in the future. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

I noticed that you contributed to the George IV requested move discussion. Just FYI, there is a very similar requested move discussion on George III if you wish to contribute. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Christchurch mosque shootings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sjö (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral stuff

Lecen & his friends, are not gonna like you, over at Pedro II of Brazil, but you're correct. That article does have 'neutrality' issues. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: I restored your NPOV tag at the article-in-question, but since I've clashed many times before with that group's ownership of that article, I'll be mostly staying away from there. Good luck. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Prince Harry edit

Hello,

I made the edits to the Prince Harry article in good faith. However, I appreciate your fix, as it taught me new policies on Wikipedia of which I wasn't aware. However, as I explained in my act of undoing your undo, the new edit that I made violates neither policy you cited, as there is no possibility of there being a different article titled "Queen Elizabeth II," and even if there were, then the redirect would kick in. However, as I also stated, in the WP:NOPIPE article, it says that "President George Washington" is preferable to "President George Washington," hence why I made my edit that way. This new edit violates no policies, as far as I can tell, but it makes no sense to have "Queen" within the link and not outside of it, as it presents no clarity issues, and does not interfere with any future links which may need to be made with "Queen Elizabeth II."

I wanted to make it clear that I did not undo your edit to be belligerent or because I was upset. However, my main concern with fixing redirects like that (although I will be very judicious in the future about it, thanks to what you've taught me) is that, on mobile, in my experience, one cannot edit pages they've been taken to from redirect links.

I should have spoken to you before making the undo, and I apologize for that. I just want to make Wikipedia a better place. I hope this explains my actions better.

Thank you, and all the best in the future,
Packer1028 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Marie-Adelaide

I saw that you reverted my move to Marie-Adélaïde, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. There is a disambiguation page that exists at this topic at Princess Marie-Adélaïde. Do you think the disambiguation page would be best moved to just Marie-Adelaide? There are almost no redirects to the disambiguation page. Let me know. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think so, Interstellarity. There are some notable women called Marie-Adélaïde who were not princesses. Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have moved that page and changed a few redirects. Interstellarity (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Feel free to tell me if you consider the other sources in those two articles are reliable or unreliable.

Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be very hesitant of the Merlet source. The Adams & Adams I would likely consider reliable barring any bad academic reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I would not outright label him as unreliable but surely Merlet has been superseded by now. The Adams & Adams book is an academic publication so its reliability would probably not be an issue. Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Any thoughts on the other sources?--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome. Merlet is the weakest among them, I'd say. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A friendly request

Dear Surtsicna, may I ask you to post a brief opinion on this talk page regarding the moving of the article William IV of the United Kingdom to a simpler William IV? Gratefully yours, M. Armando (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes being added??

Have you seen IP188.238.102.151 adding infoboxes to a multitude of articles? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits, King Khalid etc

Thank you very much for your edits, but please do not insert what has been deleted per wp rules such as the deletion of the "name" parameter. The other point is that ancestry info on the page Moudi bint Khalid is fully sourced. So please instead of deleting smth and claiming that it is unsourced read the related articles first. --Egeymi (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Egeymi. There is no WP rule against the name parameter. If there were, the parameter would not exist. The ahnentafel is not sourced. There is not a single source in that section. Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Listen if you have a problem with my editing, just say so, all UK Peers should have the correct links, please stop trolling my edits on them, they need to be correct.Mr Hall of England (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Hall of England, I do have a problem with your editing. You have been told multiple times by multiple users not to insert unnecessary pipes. Redirects are fine. For a hundredth time, take a look at MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOPIPE. Read those pages already. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There are problems in the world and your bothered about this, I have a learning disability leave me alone.

Mr Hall of England, please do not replace redirects with "correct links". Redirects are also perfectly correct links. They are useful. Surtsicna (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Just get on with amending all the ones I have done.

Archduchess Marie-Astrid of Austria

Hello, I noticed your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archduchess_Marie_Astrid_of_Austria&diff=967016863&oldid=966608570

Unless the subject is a child actor, it's silly to have the photograph of a 10-year-old in the lead of the biography of a 66-year-old.

I believe nothing was wrong with that. Were you removing the image per Manual of Style or WP:GNG? CuteDolphin712 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! MOS:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be ... the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." I do not think a reader would expect to see a woman notable for her role in adulthood depicted as a child, and certainly no high-quality reference work would depict her as such. Surtsicna (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"Princess Eudocia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Princess Eudocia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 23#Princess Eudocia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. GPinkerton (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Surtsicna reported by User:93.138.26.51 (Result: ). This is a report of edit warring at Vukovar. It seems that both you and the IP may have broken the 3RR. There may be time for you to respond and promise to wait for consensus before reverting again. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston. Could you please tell me how one would go about confirming that User:93.138.26.51 is the sock puppet of User:IoannesII? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The edits of User:IoannesII are more than 3 months in the past so could not be checked anyway, even if a justification existed. Can you explain what the dispute is about? Is it a question whether a name in Cyrillic letters should be included in the article? Has an agreement been reached anywhere? EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I did not know about the time limit. Yes, the dispute is about the inclusion of the name in Cyrillic script. A consensus was reached on the talk page. I have directed the IP to the talk page several times but he or she either does not understand or does not want to participate. From what I can see User:IoannesII behaves like that too, though that's probably irrelevant now. Surtsicna (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

revert

Hi, Surtsicna, what to you mean with your remark Again, please don't and why should this link be incorrect in your opinion? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Is the the image you are having a problem with? Do you prefer this one because it is at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls ? Lotje (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Lotje. Neither of those sets of images should be considered. They are repeatedly reintroduced despite a clear consensus that they are unsuitable, being encyclopedically worthless cookie-cutter images. Please see this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
If that is the case, there should be a way of informing users beforehand, instead of having to revert. How can possibly anyone be aware of those "rules" and "regulations. Lotje (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
We could also ask Pope Francis if he agrees this image to be added to the article and to replace the the one which is now on Formosus (Q170499), because the friezes in the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls must be familiar to him . In the old basilica each pope had his portrait in a painted frieze extending above the columns separating the aisles from the nave. Thank you for your thoughts. Lotje (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje

I assume you're able to speak Serbo-Croatian to some degree, and I would like to ask for your help at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje to either confirm or reject my misuse of the sources that were written in SC language. There's a dispute between me and one other user who insists I misused some or all of the sources in Serbo-Croatian. If you have available time at your disposal, of course. Cheers! --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Technical textile

Hi! You were there on the subject. Kindly review the recently made changes. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Request

Greetings dear...you have a very good understanding of Wiki policies and have also voted at Afd's for many Royalty related articles. I would appreciate if you could provide your opinion on this discussion. Best regards 185.205.141.123 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Jill Biden

Hi, I didn't mean to reverse your edits. Will she be designated as Dr. Biden or the First Lady? cookie monster (2020) 755 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi cookie monster (2020) 755 18:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, I don't want to engage in an edit war with you so I will leave your revisions on Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff. However, can we please start a discussion about this at a centralized location about these issues? Thanks. cookie monster (2020) 755 20:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course. I have started it at Talk:Jill Biden and have asked you to join. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! cookie monster (2020) 755 21:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't fixing them because they were inherently broken, but I see no reason not to pipe them. (Admittedly, part of my reasoning is that redirects prevent one's ability to edit on mobile, where I do a lot of my editing work.) If it were for something that might get spun off or have its article title changed, I could understand the prohibition on piping completely. However, I don't see the justification here. Could you, at your convenience, explain? Thank you for your help. Packer1028 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Packer1028. Thank you for your message. I think you will find the best explanation at WP:NOTBROKEN, or even MOS:NOPIPE and WP:NOPIPE, but I'll give it a try. In this case, the pipe is unnecessary hidden text; the more such invisible text there is, the more difficult it is to navigate the page when editing and the heavier it is. Having links to both Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou and Geoffrey V of Anjou provides information about the subject's common name as used on Wikipedia. WP:NOTBROKEN also says something about the "What links here" tool but I do not have experience with redirects in that context. Surtsicna (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.Packer1028 (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Truce

I offer a truce, but I would like you to this for me please: According to the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 Hereditary Peers, Law Peers (not many left) and Life Peers can retire from the Lords (in my view they should retire at 80, I digress).

I think some are missing from the list, I may be wrong though, but also I think the Life Peers should have this style about the table:

Date of creation Name Title Territorial qualification Date of retirement
(if applicable) 		Date of extinction
(if applicable)

Hope this is an olive branch.

Stay Safe

Daniel Hall

Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC signatures

About this: When the person who adds the RFC tag isn't the author of the question, then signing the 'wrong' (non-author's) name to the question can be confusing and is not really the best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Archduchess Marie Astrid

"Lead images should be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." I do not think a reader would expect to see a woman notable for her role in adulthood depicted as a child, and certainly no high-quality reference work would depict her as such.

For example if the person is notable in both childhood and adulthood, what image should be used?CuteDolphin712 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, CuteDolphin712. It is my understanding that in such cases the more recent image should be preferred if the subject is alive, and if the subject is not alive, the image from the peak (or closest to the peak) of fame would be best. Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Pope Eugene II

Is Pope Eugene II a saint? So far I have found nothing to confirm this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot offer any insight. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Could you stop reverse my edits without any reasons, only to annoy me? If you could read, you would see, that every person has a father and a mother (in the template "Infobox royalty"). It's also not hard to look on Geni. Your reverts have no relevance for Wikipedia and there are people who would like to know more about the origins of rulers Phillipm0703 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

(talkpage stalker) Actually Geni.com is not a reliable source, so please do not add information based on that site. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Phillipm0703. Nobody is doing anything to annoy you. That is very odd way to look at things. I have explained my reversions. Please see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Also see WP:Reliable sources and WP:Biographies of living persons. This matter has been discussed at Template talk:Ahnentafel. Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

18th century references (or older) like Anselme de Sainte-Marie's work

I would ask that you refrain from removing material that is referenced by older sources. To remove them is WP:RECENTISM. I realize that is an explanatory supplement, but even if you are systematically removing {{ahnentafel}} templates without references, it is no reason to remove ones that have reliable sources that happen to be old. To do so would discount authors like John Adams, Leonardo Bruni, & Jean Froissart. Peaceray (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A 1735 genealogical work is unlikely to be reliable - the historical and genalogical fields have greatly improved their ability to separate fact from fiction in genalogical works since then. Much early genealogical work is suspect as the authors either wished to inflate their own or their patron's ancestry. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: I open to being educated on this. I am well aware of the puffery involved in many genealogies. For instance, the claim of some of the Visconti to be descended from Aeneas. If there is a more recent & reliable work, then of course the more recent citation should be substituted & any corrections should be made. However, that does not mean that we should categorically reject older sources until they are shown to be unreliable. That would be WP:RECENTISM pure & simple. Does that give us the grounds to dismiss the work of Sir Andrew Halliday or Pompeo Litta Biumi simply because they wrote in the first half of the 19th century?
The removal of the reference that I am questioning is one with which I am unfamiliar:
These sources seem to give it credence:
Please educate me as to what is unreliable in this book. Peaceray (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
We should reject the sort of content that is not found in peer-reviewed sources specializing in the subject of each individual article (WP:PROPORTION). We should not have huge genealogy charts in individual biographies just because they exist in an 18th-century genealogy book. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Surtsicna, did you read the Manchester Centre / Manchester Metropolitan University article? Paragraph seven describes a rigorous approach: What makes these volumes different from genealogical books that went before, and other genealogical histories for other noble families printed about the same time, was a renewed passion for preuves, roughly translated as ‘proof’, that is, primary source material emerging from ancient manuscripts often kept in monasteries, that could verify ancient family traditions and stories. This trend is sometimes known as the antiquarian movement, and spread throughout many works in the 17th century. As the the article does note That didn’t mean of course that they are to be treated as infallible records of accurate truth. & These massive nine volumes ... were even corrected, reprinted, and augmented with a tenth volume in the 19th century. So, unless you already have peer-reviewed sources, I would submit that this is next best thing. If you have problems with the 17th century version, then seek out the 19th century editions.
I also question the need for peer-reviewed sources. Sure, we should use those when they are available, & we should discard anything fanciful. But this is not like WP:MEDRS; nobody is likely to die if we do not have a 99% confidence interval while waiting for a peer-reviewed source to come along. Peaceray (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not talking about reliability. I am talking about pertinence. A peer-reviewed genealogy book is still a genealogy book, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be general biographies, covering what is covered by general biographies of their subjects. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Then, if it is the case that you are seeking to remove what you believe to be gratuitous use of {{ahnentafel}}, then please state WP:NOTGENEALOGY in the edit summary & not Surely we can do better than an 18th-century genealogy book. Since you are "not talking about reliability", WP:RS must not be an issue for that particular source. Peaceray (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. You have a point. Surtsicna (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Hey noticed this is a pattern for you, please check the source of text before you revert! You mentioned one of my contributions in Ferdinand was "dubious." This is the fact that his grandmother was the Jewess of Toledo, a very interesting and relevant historic fact.

It is not a fact. The "Jewess of Toledo", Rahel la Fermosa, is said to have been the lover of Alfonso VIII, who reigned in the 12th century. Genealogists know nothing about her. Ferdinand was the son of Juana Enriquez, daughter of Mariana Fernández de Córdoba, daughter of Inés de Ayala. None of the dozens of biographies of the Catholic Monarchs say they were Jews. Surtsicna (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi, do not add these. What is the probleme with those? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you prefer this one perhaps? Lotje (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Lotje. No, I do not prefer that one. I have already answered your question at #Revert. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Surtsicna, noticing your revert, is this better? Matilda of Flanders (Q391944) Personally, I would have added this one because it is in the église Saint-Étienne (Caen). Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Lotje. Those images are problematic for the same reason as the one I reverted. They are romanticised, fantasy portrayals not found in modern biographies or reference works. They are anonymous doodles and do not add value to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, do you have an example of an image you think might be acceptable? It is allright to criticize and revert, but undertaking something would be nice too. :-) Lotje (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
A contemporary image is always welcome, Lotje. Sometimes no image is suitable and then the lead is best off without an image. See MOS:LEADIMAGE and this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I guess you would have a lot of work to do at Wikidata to start with then... :-) Lotje (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

Natalis soli invicto!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Bolesław I the Brave and Mieszko I of Poland

1. Why do You remove the maps? They're all correct. 2. Those images of Mieszko and Bolesław are not "fanciful images", but widely known and often used paintings (drawings) by the most important Polish historic paintner Jan Matejko. These images are even on the covers of academic books eg. written by prof. Jerzy Strzelczyk (Mieszko Pierwszy) or Przemysław Urbańczyk (Mieszko I Tajemniczy). Popik (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! The maps should not be in the lead nor in sections in which they are not relevant. For example, a map of Poland during the reign of Mieszko II is not relevant to the Early life section of the biography of Mieszko II. As for the images, a detailed explanation as to why non-contemporary are better suited to an appropriate section than to the infobox can be found at WP:PORTRAIT. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Jill Biden consensus

The consensus was not to add the title of first lady of the United States (Jill Biden) or second gentleman of the United States (Doug Emhoff) until January 20, 2021 at 17:00 UTC. Thank you for opening it, Surtsicna cookie monster (2020) 755 04:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

“Father of racism” unknown who cited and Croatia

I put the Kingdom of Croatia to clarify what Croatia is being talked about. As it wasn’t a separate Country in any article in which a figure born in the Kingdom of Croatia is dubbed “Austro-Hubgarian” not Croatian. It’s always been confusing with national status. And used to de-Croatify individuals when convenient. Also I assume it is Dajilas who is citing him as the “Father of racism”? Seems strange to out of context says he was cited as but not credit who cited him. I think the source is saying Dajilas is saying so? If you could take a look I'd appreciate the extra set of eyes. The “by who” w was removed and never addressed in the edit by the other editor. So made the fix. Thanks and stay well. OyMosby (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Catherine of Valois

Is www.tudorplace.com.ar a reliable source?--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be self-published. I would say it is not a reliable source. Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pope Linus; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Choosing to warn me rather than the user speedily copy-pasting the doodles across dozens of articles is rather disingenuous, especially since you are well aware of the consensus reached at WP:Wikiproject Catholicism in April 2020. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Surtsicna, it takes two to edit-war; the other editor has received plenty of warning already. Elizium23 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Boris Johnson. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not edit war  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surtsicna/Archive_18&oldid=1011487761"