User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Photo of Camilla Ribicka

Maybe this interest you - a photo of her. http://newspaperarchive.com/salt-lake-tribune/1933-02-19/page-36 Legionarius (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Legionarius! It certainly is interesting. There's even an illustration of the incident! It must have been shocking news in its time and an astounding story for decades later. Surtsicna (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you happen to know if it is possible to save the image and upload it? I am not sure if that can be done. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Try this link for the jpg and This link for the PDF ;) Legionarius (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I will. Thanks for saving me the trouble of Googling for answers! Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. If you need anything else please contact me, as I will stop watching this page. Keep the good work!Legionarius (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

deletion of category

Could please explain your deletion of category Crown Prince of Jordan given that there are many such categories? Egeymi (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I did not delete it. I blanked it and replaced it with Category:Crown Princes of Jordan, since plural is preferred. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you have just put the plural form, but there are also uses of singular form.Egeymi (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Category names#General conventions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Aptostichus angelinajolieae

Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Aptostichus bonoi

Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Surtsicna, sorry I wasn't ignoring your suggestion yesterday. It was late here and I had to get some sleep, which is partly why I said I would defer to other editors. I see you still got a lot of hits, I hope you are not too disappointed with the count. Helen (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Helen, don't worry about it. It got rather few hits for a double hook, but I am not going to pout about such a trifle :) Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In case it helps, I had nightmares about spiders. :) Helen (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I could tell myself that the hook left a big impression on some readers? Yes, I'm going with that one! Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please check again

Hi Surtsicna- I saw the comment you made on my DYK nomination here. The list was moved from my sandbox to article space on June 28th, the same day it was nominated for DYK. Doesn't it satisfy the criteria? Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course it does. I apologize for not noticing that it was created in user space. I've also responded at the nomination page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with vandal?

Please could you swing by User talk:Francish7#Move of Diocese of Chester – having looked at his contribs. I could do with some help – he has been bold, I have reverted, but he has begun an edit war rather than getting into discussions. :( DBD 23:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Hmm, I am not sure what more to add. Hopefully he will decide to request moving those pages, and then the issue can be discussed. It appears that most editors are not enthusiastic about it. However, I've taken a look at the articles about Roman Catholic dioceses. The articles seem to be titled "Roman Catholic Diocese of ..." even when there is no non-Roman Catholic diocese with the same name. See for example: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Munich and Freising (and other dioceses in Germany), Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paris (and articles about other dioceses in France), Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Madrid (and other dioceses in Spain), etc. Perhaps there should be a wider discussion about this. Surtsicna (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Duchess

Hi. I don't care the tiniest bit about the British royals but as far as I can tell Sarah is still a "HG" because she's still a Duchess. See Duchess#The_modern_age. Regards,  Yintan  23:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, she is not still a duchess. She is "Sarah, Duchess of York". "Duchess of York" there is more of a surname than a ducal title. Even ex-wives of dukes, who were known as "Her Grace" during marriage, cease being "Her Grace" upon divorce. An ex-wife of a royal duke, who was not "Her Grace" even during her marriage, certainly did not suddenly become "Her Grace" upon divorce. You will not find a single official source that refers to Sarah as "Her Grace". Diana was also never referred to as "Her Grace", despite being ex-wife of a royal duke. Surtsicna (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And there I was, thinking that someone with the title "Duchess of York" is Duchess of York. Silly me. Seriously, to my mind this doesn't make any sense but I take your word for it. Thanks for the explanation. Regards,  Yintan  10:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The United Nations describes her as 'Her Grace the Duchess of York' Can't get too much more official than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.227.216 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can get more official than that, and it can obviously get much more reliable than that. Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Dudley, Duchess of Dudley

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing credit with me, Moonraker! I too thought of nominating it, but could not come up with a suitable hook. Good to see that the opportunity was not wasted :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. Moonraker (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Hi Surtsicna, thanks for your note and apologies for the tardy reply. I haven't any control when the article will be TFA and so don't really know what to advise in regard to timing, but very happy to see that some of the other pages are being expanded. Re recent copyedits, yes of course you are right, that was a mistake, and in fact written in response to a question you asked so perhaps would have been better to have caught at that time. I'm in the midst of dealing with a flooded basement (hundreds of books ruined), so excuse me for not responding immediately as this edit summary seemed to imply. If I'm still around when Isabeau is TFAd, I'll post a note for you. Regards, Victoria (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Victoria, there is really no need to apologize. I am not sure if you took that edit summary as an expression of impatience; if you did, I assure you it was not meant to be interpreted that way. In fact, it was not meant to be interpreted as anything but an explanation of my edit. The relationships between those men are a bit complicated, and the article would perhaps benefit from a family tree (I'll see if I can construct one). I only realized that the note was wrong when I started working on the article about Margaret of Burgundy. Anyway, I am very sorry to hear about your basement, and I hope your new book about Isabella of Portugal was not one of the casualties. I was looking forward to seeing the article about her expanded and improved. Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately Isabella's biography isn't in the areas flooded and thanks for reminding me - I will get back to her as soon as I can. If I don't, please feel free to give me a nudge on my talk. Re Isabeau, per FAC requirements, the text has to match the source, and sources have to be high quality. I'd feel more comfortable if changes were brought up on the talk so I can check. Better would have been to have done this when I had all the sources in hand - the most important came through inter-library loan and was kept much past its due date - now returned. I have some notes, and some other sources; will check through the edits, but don't be chagrined if some are reverted (or rewritten) to keep the integrity of the cited text. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I don't think I inserted anything contentious, though. I only specified relations between people and counted the daughters.[1] Since I was not making any substantial changes, it did not occur to me that I should first ask at the talk page. Perhaps you are referring to another edit of mine? Surtsicna (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Daughter is fine (I forgot to count the one sent to Poissy), but some of the relationships aren't specified in the sources cited, particularly Blanche's and Valentina's. I've reverted the edit re Blanche for now and will check Gibbons and Tuchman (which I do have at hand) about Valentina (which I know is right) and hopefully can source from one of those. But not today because the thunderstorms (and flooding) are about to start again. Oh, forgot to mention, a family tree would be nice. One option is to make on that's a separate file and link through the "see also" section as was done for Ernest Hemingway, here. Also if the succession box or whatever it's called below the sources is deprecated, then that definitely should go. I think I noticed one of those being removed elsewhere? Victoria (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the boxes are deprecated when the title is significant enough. As for the family tree, I thought about creating one similar in style to this one. It would only include people who are important enough to be mentioned in the text. Anyway, perhaps calculating relations between people can be considered a routine calculation of some sort? I mean, if there is a source that says A is B's sister and a source that says C is B's daughter, do we really need a source that says A is C's aunt? What I am saying is that we know that Blanche was married to Philip, Duke of Orléans, who was son of Philip VI, brother of John II and uncle of Charles V. Thus, describing her as Charles VI's grandaunt should be a matter of pure semantics, IMO. I'm sure you'll agree that having her appear out of the blue, with no indication who she is, is not a better alternative. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Found it in the sources (well not the granduncle, but I'll double source or swap out a source). I will probably tweak the wording when I have a chance - particularly in regard to Blanche & Valentina, both difficult relationships to follow for the uninitiated. Can a family tree such as that be collapsed? Probably best to move all this the talkpage. I might post something there and link to this discussion so that the reviewers and others who have helped are on the same page, just so you know. Victoria (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, such a family tree can be collapsed, but I don't think it would be as big as that in the article about Mary, Queen of Scots, i.e. it would cover less generations. Perhaps a note explaining Blanche's relationship with Charles VI would be useful. Of course, it would be good to have this discussion at Talk:Isabeau of Bavaria as well. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A question

Hi! Do you know when Henry VIII exactly became the King of Ireland? I think another separate succession box should be in the top of the article for this title, because he didn't became King of Ireland in 1509.Keivan.f^Talk 20:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The precise succession box can be found at the bottom of the article. He took the title of king of Ireland in 1541. Thanks for noticing the inaccuracy in the infobox. I'll fix it right away! Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to say infobox, but instead I said succession box. Thanks for fixing the article.Keivan.f^Talk 21:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my editing mistake for duchess of Cambridge

Thanks for fixing thrones back to throne. I didn't really notice the fact that it said 16 commonwealth nations! Guess I better pay better attention! Misspea213 08:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Misspea213Misspea213 08:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misspea213 (talk • contribs)

No problem :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Primogeniture and Accession Proclamation

The need to reserve the right of succession for an unborn heir is exemplified by the accession proclamation of Victoria as Queen. Would you see it as useful to add to Heir presumptive and/or Primogeniture something based on the LG item which, you may have noticed, has lately been added to Queen Victoria as a footnote -

• The Accession Council's proclamation declared Victoria as the King's successor "saving the rights of any issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be borne of his late Majesty's Consort". "No. 19509". The London Gazette. 20 June 1837.,

and to Accession Council as an External link -

• Accession Council's Proclamation, 20 June 1837, of Victoria as Queen "saving the rights of any issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be borne of his late Majesty's Consort":London Gazette issue 19509, page1581

It seems that it could have given rise to a false inference (rectified by DrK.)[2] (There was concern, however, that Queen Adelaide, the widow of King William IV, might be pregnant. Therefore, Victoria was proclaimed Queen only conditionally, "saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be borne of his late Majesty's Consort". ) but it could only be in the proclamation as a decorous formality, given that in the circummstances members of the Accession Council would be unlikely to have entertained any expectation that Queen Adelaide would then be with child begotten by the king a few months before his death:

• per William IV of the United Kingdom, "Both the King and Queen were fond of their niece, Princess Victoria of Kent...Speaking to those assembled at the banquet, who included the Duchess and Princess Victoria, William expressed his hope that he would survive until Princess Victoria was 18 so that the Duchess of Kent would never be Regent....Queen Adelaide attended the dying William devotedly, not going to bed herself for more than ten days."
• per Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, bn 13 August 1792, she "treated the young Princess Victoria of Kent (William's heir presumptive and later Queen Victoria) with kindness, despite her own inability to produce an heir..Unbelievable rumours circulated that she was having an affair with her Lord Chamberlain, the Tory Lord Howe, but almost everyone at court knew that Adelaide was inflexibly pious and was always faithful to her husband. The Whig Prime Minister, Lord Grey, had Lord Howe removed from Adelaide's household....Queen Adelaide was dangerously ill in April 1837, at around the same time that she was present at her sister's deathbed in Meiningen, but she recovered.[28] By June it became evident that the King was fatally ill himself. Adelaide stayed beside William's deathbed devotedly, not going to bed herself for more than ten days...The first queen dowager in over a century (Charles II's widow, Catherine of Braganza, had died in 1705...)." Qexigator (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I thought something along those lines was already in those articles but now I see that there isn't. As for the false inference, I agree with your assessment that the AC more than likely did not seriously consider the possibility that William IV conceived a child on his deathbed. The proclamation may have been drafted in advance, some months before the King's death, or it may have been just a measure of precaution. There must have been a reason why such a reservation was explicitly added to Victoria's proclamation but not to James II & VII's. In 1685, Catherine of Braganza was only two years older than Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen was in 1837. Charles Greville, Clerk of the Privy Council, noted: "In the event of the King's death without children, the Queen is to be proclaimed, but the oath of allegiance taken with a saving of the rights of any posthumous child to King William." This must have been written before the King's death, so the decision to take such an oath of allegiance could not have been spontaneous. You might be interested in these search results. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to put a date to Greville's note about anticipating the accession proclamation? Or the volume/page of the published diaries in which it could be found? In view of everything else, the reservation is unlikely to have been either a sly joke at the expense of either queen, nor an attempt to con the public. Attention to politesse or constititional nicety may be the reason, or a desire to prevent persons of malicious intent having the fun of making the point; and could be there was a sidelong glance at Hanover and uncle Cumberland: what if Adelaide had been delivered of a boy child? Hanover would not have been in the picture at the time of Charles II's death, and at that time it may be surmised it would have been inexpedient to allow a whisper of official doubt about the succession of his brother with Mary of Modena as his Queen? But a need for such a reservation could recur if the succession continues for at least a generation or two after Cambridge, in the unhappy event of a king dying without living issue and survived by a possibly pregnant wife - that's leaving aside prospective abdications or renunciatioan of succession. Of course, no such conjectural matter is fit for inclusion in an article. Qexigator (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find out when exactly Greville wrote that. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I will be keeping a lookout, and let you know if something surfaces. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That form of words was used because the relevant legislation, section 2 of the Regency Act 1830, was still in force. The problem with writing "because Victoria was heiress presumptive" is that it fails to explain that it was because Victoria was heiress presumptive in 1830, when the possibility of the King fathering a child, or re-marrying, was not as evidently unlikely then as it was in 1837. DrKiernan (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for elucidating. Maybe a tweak is called for? Qexigator (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tweaks done at Accession Council, Heir presumptive, Queen Victoria. --Qexigator (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your idea that Kate is a complete commoner. My wife was at the Palace and they have all this stuff from Burke's Peerage about family - the big papers quote about her backgrpund (blue blood) but wikipadeia readers don't need to know about it or to read about it. I prefer to see her as a commoner. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you! The Kelly bag had been on my list for a while, looks like you did a lovely job with creating this long overdue article.

Mabalu (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mabalu! You've got it right, as I'm a bit of a cat person :) That is actually my first fashion-related article. I usually do biographies, sometimes historical buildings and obscure animal species, so this was a new territory. You are welcome to review the Kelly bag DYK nomination. Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I might pass on the DYK as I always find them tough to police/assess, (though your article, on a quick scan through, looks great) but I do have a few comments. I think we need to be totally 100% cast iron positive that the bag in the picture is not a fake Kelly bag - because knowing bag mavens, we will be crucified if they spot that one of the ostrich leather pimples is unacceptably (and therefore cast iron evidence of fakery) one millimetre out of kilter. I'm being semi-serious, but yes, the bag police can be VERY picky, and given the problem with fake bags, that is understandable. Looking at the source of the pictures, we don't know for sure that they aren't fakes, so authentication may be an issue when it comes to showing the picture on the front page (a shame, because it would look great.) Mabalu (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think a third suitably licensed photograph can be found. I am certainly not a connaisseur but if this one costs £24,000, we can safely assume that it is not fake. Not sure about the one in the prettier image, though. That image is captioned as "probably real" over at de:Diskussion:Kelly Bag - hopefully the assessment was made by a bag maven. Surtsicna (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kelly bag

Hello! Your submission of Kelly bag at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Mathilde of Belgium

Hi! I saw that you wrote on the talk page of Mathilde of Belgium that the title should be consistent with that of the article about her husband. But I think you are wrong. Because we have Baudouin of Belgium and Queen Fabiola of Belgium not Fabiola of Belgium and Albert II of Belgium and Queen Paola of Belgium not Paola of Belgium and thus we should have Philippe of Belgium and Queen Mathilde of Belgium not Mathilde of Belgium. Also you can take a look at the titles of the articles of the other monarchs including: Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Juan Carlos I of Spain and Queen Sofía of Spain, Harald V of Norway and Queen Sonja of Norway, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Queen Silvia of Sweden, Mohammed VI of Morocco and Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco, Letsie III of Lesotho and Queen 'Masenate Mohato Seeiso, Akihito and Empress Michiko, Abdullah II of Jordan and Queen Rania of Jordan, Abdul Halim of Kedah and Sultanah Haminah Hamidun. Now, what do you think?Keivan.f^Talk 14:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that I am wrong? Only because that is not the way it has been done before? Why not move other articles per common sense rather than move this one to conform to a senseless semi-standard? Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You think that it is ridiculous to have "Philippe of Belgium" and "Queen Mathilde of Belgium". In some ways you're right, but I think we should move and rename hundreds of different articles about consorts. You think that "Queen" shouldn't be in front of the titles of their articles, so then we should move "Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" to Elizabeth The Queen Mother and many other examples. You can also suggest your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Why don't you suggest it at there? If the others accept it, then we will move and rename all the articles of consort from "Queen X of Y" to "X of Y".Keivan.f^Talk 10:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, not hundreds. Less than 10, actually. The article about the Queen Mother is already an exception to the rule. As a deceased consort, that guideline suggests that the article should be titled Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Anyway, I've already suggested the change at that talk page but nobody seems to care. Surtsicna (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's really funny. The title of that article was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, but the other users agreed about moving it to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. I don't understand.Keivan.f^Talk 13:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Common name, Keivan. That probably trumps all guidelines. Common sense should also trump guidelines, but it's much easier to sweep in and say "Per WP:Consorts", without making any effort to say why that should be so. Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Kelly bag

So angry you created the Kelly bag first :) It's been on my list for ages... I'll see what I can add. Beautiful work once again. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Gareth! You could have easily beaten me to it since I first wanted to save it for the anniversary of Kelly's death. I could not bear to wait a month, though. Please add whatever you think is missing. That is the first fashion-related article I ever created, so it's quite possible that I overlooked something. Would you happen to know whether the bag in this picture is a Kelly? Surtsicna (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I'll demur in my judgement, lest the way a woman turned her hands 40 years ago starts an edit war :) There is a mine of DYKs in bags and accessories. The Simone Handbag Museum has an amazing catalogue. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Looks like I wasn't the only one to have this on my (lengthy) list... I've already commented on the photo in question, but I think unless we can see the front of the bag, we can't say with certainty that it IS a Kelly (as opposed to a Kelly's bag.) 22:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretender, titular and/or de jure

Ok. How about we make a consensus? Pretender, De jure and Titular ruler all mean basically the same. My edit has been in good faith since I consider the two latter are more appropriate for a section covering medieval history. De jure means someone who is professing the claim on something...which means they are King, Duke or whatever in title only. You can have as many pretenders (de jure) titular claimants/rulers as you wish. As you can see we are arguing about semantics here. So my proposition is to keep all three versions for clarification. My main reason to change it in the first place and link them is to clarify....pretender has a certain modern ring to it and it implies they were pretending to be something which they were not...which does not correspond to the existing situation at that time. All three have been recognized/appointed by someone and were in fact Titular Kings of Bosnia (per their Template:Succession box). In fact Nicholas of Ilok held a northwestern part of the kingdom and even minted his own money as King of Bosnia but failed to defend it against Ottomans. The second two were puppet kings. So as you can see they were not just pretenders, some of them actually held some power in at least some parts of their claimed kingdom. But as I said I am prepared to compromise. Shokatz (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I can agree with your premises. There is a definition of the expression de jure. According to that definition, they cannot all have been de jure kings because the Kingdom of Bosnia was a monarchy, not a diarchy and not a triarchy. Furthermore, probably none of them can be considered a de jure king, as the monarchy was elective rather than hereditary, and none of them was elected by Bosnian nobility. "Titular kings" would make sense, as that is factually correct. Those men were certainly pretenders. See the very definition of the word: "A pretender is one who claims entitlement to an unavailable position of honour or rank." The throne was certainly unavailable to them, yet they all claimed it. The reason the word has a modern ring is the fact that many monarchies were abolished in the 20th century, but there are nevertheless the Old Pretender, the Young Pretender, and many earlier pretenders who are described just as such. Henry VIII of England was no more than a pretender to the French throne; although he ruled a tiny bit of France and styled himself as King of France, signing documents and minting coins as such, no historian would ever describe him as a French monarch, nor as a de jure French monarch. Anyway, can we agree to name the subsection "Titular kings"? Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained the use of the term de jure in medieval context. It refers to a pretender, someone who holds the titles but does not exercise their power (that comes with the title) over the territory it refers to. Main example are the De jure Lusignan Kings of Jerusalem in later period when it was already lost and occupied by Arabs but they still referred to themselves as Kings/Queens of Jerusalem although they only held Cyprus where they escaped. I would point you to the Sovereignty#De_jure_and_de_facto where it is more clarified when concerning this issue rather than the default De jure article which mostly refers to the term as used in modern-day law practice...which are two completely different things. Also I must say Bosnian kingdom was surely not an elective monarchy, it was a hereditary kingdom ruled by a royal family. Anyway, I will then add the Titular in the brackets besides Pretender section. I also think we should link Pretender so if someone is in doubt he can follow the link for clarification. Shokatz (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I have moved/copied this discussion to Talk:List of rulers of Bosnia. Shokatz (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think there is any need for us to interpret the expression de jure. It has a clear meaning that has not changed since the Roman times, so it does not make much sense to talk about its meaning in medieval context. What makes you think that the Kingdom of Bosnia was an hereditary monarchy? It did not pass according to any form of primogeniture, tanistry, rota system, agnatic seniority, etc. Tvrtko I was succeeded by a cousin despite having sons, one of whom may have been legitimate. Dabiša was succeeded by his widow despite having agnates, a daughter, a son-in-law, a granddaughter and a grandson-in-law. Helen, whose election is clearly attested, was succeeded by her in-law, an illegitimate son of Tvrtko I. Ostoja, whose election is also clearly attested, was deposed by a (half-)brother, restored and then succeeded by his son despite having a (half-)brother. Ostojić was deposed by his (half-)uncle. Tvrtko II was succeeded by a younger rather than elder (half-)nephew. Thomas, who claimed to have been designated heir by his predecessor, was nevertheless subsequently formally elected by the diet and eventually succeeded by a son despite having a brother. I see no obvious pattern in these successions. The monarchs were far too weak to impose themselves as hereditary rulers. They all reigned by the grace of the nobility. Tvrtko I's successors were merely figureheads during the raging feudal anarchy. The nobility elected them and deposed them as they saw fit. Anyway, I tweaked the title of the subsection a little bit. It seems clearer, I think. Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already elaborated on the meaning of de jure in the medieval context...and yes it does have a medieval context which is different from a modern point of view, but that is completely irrelevant now. As for the nature of the Bosnian monarchy it is quite clear all monarchs came from the same family until the family was basically erased with the Ottomans. Now it's a completely something else that they fought and deposed each other from various points in time....that does not make it an elective monarchy. But this also is irrelevant now as it has nothing to do with the issue we discussed here in first place. Anyway I am glad we reached a consensus regarding the issue in first place. And I agree with your last edit, it makes it even more clearer now. Cheers. Shokatz (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Move of Philippe, King of the Belgians

hi there,

you might want to chime in on the discussion at move review going on about moving the article on King Philippe per your request, otherwise I might have to undo the move. cheers Gryffindor (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

House of Windsor#Family tree

At the above section I see a red link "Template:Chart/celltTemplate:Chart/cellbTemplate:Chart/celltTemplate:Chart/cellb" at the top of the tree. Any ideas how to get rid of it? Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, it's been bothering me as well. It first appeared when I was editing the article about the British Royal Family. It seems that there is something about the Prince John entry that causes it, as it appeared as soon as I removed the line that connected him to the rest of the family. I've tried everything until I gave up. Perhaps someone at Template talk:Family tree can help? Surtsicna (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

British Royal Family

Hi. Can you discuss with other users first before you do such major edits like you did in the sections Family tree and Collaterals? Please, enter the talk page of the article British royal family. Just to remind you, the article is not about the current BRF. I mean, the term "British Royal Family" does not mean the current BRF, it is not understandable this way per se. Best regards, Kowalmistrz (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond at the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem

Hi! I want to tell you a problem. As you know the page Princess Elizabeth of Belgium is now moved to Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, but we have two talk pages now. First, Talk:Princess Elisabeth of Belgium and second, Talk:Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant. These two talk pages should become one. I can't do that and I think you cannot also make them one. So, should I ask one of the administrators or not? Keivan.f^Talk 15:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You are right, of course, there should be only one talk page. It's not like that one is used very often! Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the problem has been solved, Keivan. Good thing you noticed it! Surtsicna (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In reference to the IP editor's uncivil comment at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge

I noticed your comment indicating that the uncivil IP should be sanctioned immediately. I should note that it is up to YOU and I as ordinary editors to warn errant editors, prior to their being formally sanctioned by an administrator. I have gone ahead and issued the IP, User:84.19.48.14 User talk:84.19.48.14, a level one warning for incivility. But in the future, you should do that yourself. Administrators usually will take no action unless a user has been warned at least twice, unless the violation is extremely over the top. Safiel (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right, of course. I am a bit busy at the moment, though. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Title from birth?

OK! but let me tell you something. Nobody is named an hour or in the day of his/her birth. Of course, except some few ones. But just think for a moment about what I've said. He was born Prince (name) of Cambridge. His style was specified even before his birth. That section is for titles and styles not for names. Keivan.f^Talk 22:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Some people are named an hour or in the day after his or her birth. Traditions vary. He was a Royal Highness from birth. He was a prince of the United Kingdom from birth. He was not, however, "Prince George of Cambridge" before he became "George". How can we say that he was styled as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" from 22 July when nobody styled him as such before 24 July - when nobody could have styled him as such before 24 July? It is simply anachronistic. We say that he was named George on 24 July but that he was known as "HRH Prince George of Cambridge" from 22 July - how is that possible? Surtsicna (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

OK! I think you should do what you have done in Prince George of Cambridge with all members of the British Royal Family and other Royal or Imperial families. I mean you should do it even with dead ones. So, it gets a lot of time. I think it should be like this:

• 24 July 2013 – present: HRH Prince George of Cambridge
• 28 June 1982 – 29 April 2011: HRH Prince William of Wales

and the other monarchs, consorts, princes, princesses and princesses by marriage. Keivan.f^Talk 08:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think that leaving only the year would be best? "2013 - present" and such? Surtsicna (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

For the people like William and George, because we know the exactly date that they were named, we can write it like I wrote above. About those who we don't know the exactly day, we can leave only the year. Any other idea? Now what do you think?

It makes sense but I'm afraid others would not agree with that. The year-only solution might be a good compromise. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK! If the year-only solution is a good compromise, then we should do it with all members of different royal families, not just with two of them. The section "titles and styles" should include only the year for all royal families. If anyone doesn't have any other idea, then we can do it. But if you like, you can also discuss with the other ones. Keivan.f^Talk 11:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I also wanted to notice that don't forget to move Queen Anne-Marie of Greece to Anne-Marie of Greece, as you are trying to move all the pages of consorts who have a title like "Queen X of Somewhere". Keivan.f^Talk 12:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, that's right. There's Queen Anne of Romania too. I forgot about the abolished monarchies. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

More info

I found an archived pdf that describes the collection that the Alice Vickery image came from. It has some biographical material (page v) that you may wish to add to Rosika Schwimmer. The photo of Alice Vickery is labeled "J. photos" by the library. This could mean it is in the 'Juvenilia' section of the collection or Rosika Schwimmer could have created 'J. photos' meaning from other associates like Jane Addams or Julia Grace Wales who is probably worthy of an article if you wish to create one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I Googled a lot but somehow missed that pdf. I'll see what I can add. Surtsicna (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that I cannot open it properly. I have no idea why. Surtsicna (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50919224/schwimmerr.pdf I put a copy in cloud storage for you. Right click, save target as... Remember where you save it to because Windows likes to hide stuff on us.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it still refuses to open. I get the message that "the document might not be displayed correctly" but it's not displayed at all. I suppose it's my viewer but it doesn't have any problem opening other PDF documents. Thank you for your effort anyway! Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you save target.... to your hard drive and open with Adobe?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it opens fine now. It appears that all I had to do was update my Adobe Reader. Thanks for the link. I'll see if I can find anything interesting. Surtsicna (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Very good. I will rem it from my cloud. Let me know if you need it again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince baby pic.

Why undo that pic?[3] [4] - its worth yards of the text. Qexigator (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

--Oh, I see where it is now: bravo. Qexigator (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't fit into the article about Catherine. I would love for it to be there but it ruins the layout. Perhaps we should try removing some other photographs? Anyway, it was very kind of the author to allow us to use the image. For some reason, I did not think that he would. One might call me a doubting Thomas. Bravo to him! Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there it is in the Prince's infobox, and you detached it from the source pic., which is a brilliant edit. Let it stay there. Qexigator (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

New pic for Diana

Hello again. I was wondering that can you upload or find a good and free image for the infobox of Diana, Princess of Wales? I don't know, maybe you can find a free one on Flickr or somewhere else, or ask Flickr users to let us for using it. I also asked you because I cannot visit sites like Flickr and the other similar sites. It's because sometimes we have some internet problems in our country and it's difficult for me to view those sites and other sites like Facebook, YouTube and .... . Please try to find a good photo, no matter how time it takes, just do it every time you can. Keivan.f^Talk 11:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've looked for it already. Everything that could be found on FlickR has already been uploaded, I'm afraid. Surtsicna (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

OK! So you can try to search for a good image somewhere else. Please do it every time that you're not busy. Keivan.f^Talk 21:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Imagine that we found a good image of Diana in Flickr. Can't we ask the copyright holder to let us to use that image? Keivan.f^Talk 10:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that we could. I asked a FlickR user to allow us to use the photograph of Prince George and he was kind enough to agree. There is no guarantee, however, that others would be so generous. Surtsicna (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

I hate to warn such a helpful and productive editor like yourself, but I really think you need to drop your crusade to remove the dates of births from the "honours and styles" lists. I appreciate your concern about the WP:BLP implications, but the consensus is clearly against you, and if you keep on going, it would seem to be a case of WP:IDHT. StAnselm (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that the consensus is against me? At Talk:Prince George of Cambridge another user asked why the date needed to be inserted at all. Indeed, why? Even the user with whom I discussed the issue agreed with that. I truly don't understand this logic. We say that William's name was not announced until 28 June, but then list 21 June as the date when he became known as "HRH Prince William of Wales". 21 June is not given there as his birthday but specifically as the date people/sources/whoever started referrring to him as "HRH Prince William of Wales". How can that be right? The talk about retroactive application is nonsense. We cannot pretend that journalists and palace officials went back in time and started styling him as Prince William just because the individual is legally considered to have been named from birth or whatever the argument is. For the same reason, we do not pretend that Charles II's reign started in 1649, as the Parliament (and thus the law) did at the time. We also don't pretend that Henry VIII's ex-wives were never considered queens, though the law retroactively stated that they never were. So why should we pretend that on 21 June 1982, William was styled "HRH Prince William of Wales"? Ah, whatever. Surtsicna (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kelly bag

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

title, not name

...revision 18:30, 28 July "Title and style: per talk"....umm: which bit of Talk? This is about title not name. His birth title was "HRH Prince... of Cambridge" - Yes/No? Is it not common ground (in lawyer-speak) that the title runs from birth as pre-determined (by monarch), the name is retroactive once given by whoever? Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have noted which section I was referring to. See this edit. I thought it was a reasonable suggestion, and so did the user with whom I disagreed. Do you disagree with that suggestion? Yes, he was entitled to princely title and the style of Royal Highness from birth but isn't it somewhat contradictory and confusing to claim that he was known as "Prince George of Cambridge" from 22 July right after saying that his name was announced on 24 July? The sentence should be sufficient, as George has only had one style throughout his 6-day-long life anyway. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Let us not get into a non-argument. Your edit removed my edit of the citation which was solely to make visible the name of the source and the date,[5] that was all. Was your edit to remove the text, not my expansion of the citation attached to it? If so, no contest. Qexigator (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I did not intend to remove your expansion of the citation. I just moved the citation to the end of the paragraph. Or am I missing something? It's over 40°C here, so forgive me if I am! Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine as to that, if not heatwise. Only 14c here, but I had missed the edit move. So, merrily on. Qexigator (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alice Vickery

Hello! Your submission of Alice Vickery at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Travolta dress

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad you posted, but.....

Hey Surtsicna,

Wanted to register that I'm glad you finally posted to the NCROY talk page, but I wish you had worked on the RfC a little more. It's not exactly clear what you're proposing from the single line RfC. NickCT (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I thought the "brief, neutral statement" ought to be, well, brief. I guess it was too brief. Thanks for clarifying! Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Succinct is definitely good. But I think you may have gone a bit too far.

Look like you are getting some positive feedback. You'll have to forgive me if I say "I told you so" later...... ;-)

Best, NickCT (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to forgiving you for saying that! :D Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Frances Anne Vane infobox

well, don't denegrate infoboxes around User:Pigsonthewing ;-> they are considered an inprovement allowing machine reading of data. (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes). cheers Duckduckgo (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I generally do support them, but not when they harm the layout. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Vickery

Alex Shih(talk) 08:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Victor Edelstein

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hi Surtsicna. As per ANI rules, I am required to discuss the issue with you here before posting a grievance about you. You have made an unconstructive edit in a talk page discussion I am involved in here, simply because I (and the consensus) disagreed with you on a separate issue. Please retract the edit and refrain from such disruptive editing. HelenOnline 10:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry if you felt offended by it. Hopefully you didn't interpret it as being directed to you personally; you had no reason to do so. It is a talk page comment, not a controversial edit that can be described as disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not about my feelings, but about disrupting Wikipedia. A talk page comment is still an edit and it can definitely be described as disruptive editing (please see WP:DE: "such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article"). HelenOnline 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And how exactly does that comment harm an article? Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reread the quote: "may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article". HelenOnline 14:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still do not understand what you are talking about. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully when you said "before posting a grievance", you intended to indicate a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue you alluded to, and not, as that might be read, merely seeking to fulfill some requirement to doing so. 84.203.35.31 (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I wanted to let you know I was trying to resolve the issue between us, rather than just starting an argument on your talk page for the sake of complaining and arguing. My intention to resolve it between us should be clear from the above conversation, although we don't seem to be making much progress. HelenOnline 07:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, I should note that I am not 84.203.35.31. Surtsicna (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops sorry. HelenOnline 07:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)