User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Deletion

I presume you are not stupid, so you must be fully aware that replacing a page with a redirect, especially one to a disambiguation page that contains no information about the subject of the article, is effectively the same as deleting the article. So please go through the proper process - maybe you're right that the article should not exist, but it should be discussed by others who may hold different views. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No information about the subject of the article? Have you even seen the article and the disambiguation page? The latter names her husband and parents; the former names her husband, parents, children and siblings. The difference is trivial. Please reacquaint yourself with the WP:Be bold guideline. If everyone waited for blessing of "others who may hold different views", nothing would ever be done. I saw an article about a non-notable individual and turned it into a redirect, which is what it should be. Had anyone argued that the woman is notable, I would have started the "proper process". Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But seriously, is that really an appropriate and acceptable way for bio articles to be deleted? I had no idea WP:Bold entitled us to do that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an appropriate and acceptable way to "delete" any article, not just a biography (which, by the way, this article hardly is). I wanted to "help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia" and WP:Bold entitled me to "go for it". Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if so, you redid your "bold" change three times after various others had reverted it. As an experienced Wikipedian you must surely realize this is way out of order. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You admit that I may be correct, meaning that you do not disagree with my reasoning. That means that you reverted it simply because I failed to ask for your (or anyone's) permission, which is surely not in the spirit of WP:Be bold or sensible at all. Then another user reverted because you were reverting, and the entire point of the guideline went down the drain. You basically reverted my edit because I acted in the spirit of the said guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And entirely against the spirit of our deletion policy and edit-warring policy. When we want to delete an article, we give people time to find sources. There is a PROD procedure and various speedy deletion procedures if you think it's obvious that something ought to be deleted. I haven't looked for sources about this particular princess, but give people a chance to do so, as our processes require. And you acted in the same unilateral way, on another article on the same day. I suspect many less well-established editors would have been immediately blocked for acting in the way you did, and you well know it. Anyway, further discussion not likely to be fruitful, so that's all on the subject from me. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And being the experienced user I am, I can tell you that the notion of being "immediately blocked" for something like that is simply laughable. I am not sure if you are trying to intimidate me or amuse me, but I definitely am giggling. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection: "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article." So much about me acting "entirely against the spirit of our deletion policy" and about our processes requiring prior blessing of such actions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

Your undos[1] and [2] make insufficient concession to less well-informed readers, and some of those who make uninformed edits. Such is the need to repeat information sufficiently known to regular editors here, for casual readers and occasional editors, it is better to add back "who will, from birth, be fourth in the line of succession, behind elder brother, father, and grandfather"...[3] I intend to put back what you have undone. Please do not re-undo. Qexigator (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn

Hello Surtsicna. I wanted to revert your recent edit to Anne Boleyn - (She was not a Tudor and the Boleyn family was not a royal house.) - but instead am writing to you directly and humbly suggesting that you reconsider the edit. The infobox clearly stated Tudor "by marriage" and made no claim that she was from a royal house. Anyway, just a thought. Xenxax (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I understand what the infobox said, but I don't think it was correct. What does "Tudor by marriage" mean? She never used the Tudor name. Nobody has ever referred to her as "Anne Tudor". She has never been anything but Anne Boleyn. It looks like someone assumed that, since modern women often adopt their husbands' name, queens must have done the same thing. That is not the case. Was her stepdaughter a Habsburg? Or was Henry, for that matter, a Boleyn? Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna. I have never seen her referred to by anybody as Anne Tudor. If that were the case then all his wives would have been given that surname!!! She is known to history and popular culture as Anne Boleyn.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Jeanne, long time no see! I was afraid that you might have retired permanently. Hopefully the weather is more enjoyable across the Adria! Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

All very excellent points ... my question is well answered and am glad I didn't go ahead and make the revert. Thanks for the replies. Xenxax (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking interest! :) Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Jane Seymour

From the above conversation on Anne Boleyn I gather Surtsicna is on something of a campaign. Unlike Xenxax, I did revert her or his changes to the "Jane Seymour" page, but since he or she has re-reverted them, and I don't want to get into a war, I'm opening a conversation here (and addressing the forum, rather than Surtsicna personally, not to be stuffy, but since, as above, others may want to join the discussion). Surtsicna argues,

What does "Tudor by marriage" mean? She never used that name, nor has anyone ever called her Jane Tudor. It looks like someone assumed that, since modern women often adopt their husbands' name, queens must have done the same thing. That is not the case.

Nobody calls Elizabeth II "Elizabeth Windsor", either, but nobody, I think, would argue that she is not a member of the House of Windsor. Nor did anybody, as far as I know, call her mother "Elizabeth Windsor" (or, after her marriage, "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon"); yet I have never heard it suggested that she had not become a member of the House of Windsor by her marriage to George VI. (I gather that Prince Philip, the current Prince Consort, is also regarded as a member by marriage of the House of Windsor—otherwise his children wouldn't belong to the royal house—so these things can go both ways.)

I daresay that nobody referred to Jane, during her life, as "Jane Seymour" once she had joined the House of Tudor—at least not in public, as doing so might well have been taken as a denial of the legitimacy of her marriage to Henry, quite a dangerous thing to suggest in those days.

In the English tradition, going back well before Henry VIII, women become members "by marriage" of their husbands' families, or, in the case of royal or noble houses, their houses (unless, as with Prince Philip, the wife's house outranks the husband's). If Surtsicna wants to introduce the novel (as far as I'm aware) proposition that Jane Seymour did not become a member by marriage of the House of Tudor, I think it's incumbent on Surtsicna to support that proposition, not merely with logical argument, but with a citation to published authority. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I first have to contradict your claim that "nobody calls Elizabeth II 'Elizabeth Windsor'". Many do. That name always refer to Elizabeth II, though, never to her mother. I would also like to add the "" template next to your claim that "women become members 'by marriage' of their husbands' ... houses". And who decides which house ranks higher? Did Mary I of England become a Habsburg or stay a Tudor? Did Empress Matilda go Normandy> Salian> Angevin and then Normandy again during the Anarchy? I doubt so. The concept of royal houses is mostly a genealogical one, and genealogy almost exclusively uses "maiden names" for women. That is why Matilda of Flanders, daughter of a member of the House of Flanders and wife of a member of the House of Normandy, is never called anything but Matilda of Flanders. Matilda of Normandy was another person.

Anyway, it is up to you to find a source that supports your claim, not up to me to find one that disproves it. WP:Burden of evidence: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..." It does not lie with the editor who removes it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I yield. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Irene of the Netherlands

Sorry about this but could you come to the talk page? There is no habit of referring to pretenders (or their wives and widows) by their obsolete monarchical titles on Wikipedia. Her son and she are not generally known as Duke or Duchess but as Princes Of Bourbon-Parma or Bourbon de Parme.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right, of course, since those titles never existed. Irene was, however, generally known as Duchess of Parma during her marriage. Her husband was referred to as Duke of Parma for decades. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sofia chopped a bit

Wondering why you rm the image caption and the Swedish name form here. I know you work very fast, but ? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my. The Swedish name form was removed inadvertently and should be restored, of course. The image caption provided no information, however. Who other than Queen Sophia could that be? A proper caption would include the name of the photographer and/or the year the photograph was taken. Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Еmperor of Bulgaria listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Еmperor of Bulgaria. Since you had some involvement with the Еmperor of Bulgaria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 00:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edward Curzon, 6th Earl Howe

Why he succeeded in earldom by his second cousin? He had daughters, so why didn't they succeed him? Is there an error? In male-preference primogeniture his daughters would succeed him because he had no sons. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I presume the earldom passes to heirs male rather than heirs general, i.e. by agnatic rather than cognatic primogeniture. See Second creation (1821). The article does not explicitly say so, but it does say that the title of Baron Howe passes to heirs male. It would have been inconvenient and undesirable for the two titles to split, as there would then be two men known as Lord Howe (the Earl Howe and the Baron Howe) and/or two women known as Lady Howe. Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Grace Kelly

Hello,

We are contacting you because we are Cornell students who are currently taking an Online Communities class and one of our projects consists on editing a Wikipedia page. Our final goal is to accurately inform readers and to improve an article from a C class level to a B. We chose to work on Grace Kelly's page. Since you have previously edited her page, we wanted to reach out to you and ask for any tips, advice, or important aspects that you would like us to consider when we start working. We would like to add features of her personal life, professional achievements, and her legacy in different areas–especially focused on fashion.

Our group members have the following user pages:

- dcl248

- Kategruenberg

- Mfrosselot

- CeciliaIachetta

In this link you can find our Wikipedia class page and the description of our assignment: Cornell University Online Communities (Fall 2014)

Hopefully we can count on your constructive feedback and hear back from you soon! Kategruenberg (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Venetia James

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Fernando Sanz (cyclist)

If you want Fernand Sanz moved, note there is already a page for someone else at Fernando Sanz. Please suggest how you would like to disambiguate the cyclist. Or if you think the cyclist is more famous, how do you want to disambiguate the other one? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston! Sorry, I thought Fernando Sanz redirected to Fernand Sanz (hence this mistake). Fernando Sanz (cyclist) looks fine, but the namesake should probably be Fernando Sanz (footballer), as Google Books search does not indicate that either of them should be considered primary topic. Surtsicna (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Mahidevran

Hi. I think Mahidevran's article should become semi-protected. These IP users just revert our edits without a clear reason! Keivan.f^Talk 12:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And also please explain that why you removed the image on the template of the British Royal Family. Keivan.f^Talk 21:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What purpose did it serve? Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was a symbol of the royal house. So why don't you remove the images of the other royal families' templates? Just British Royal Family? Keivan.f^Talk 12:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't understand you. Imagine I accepted your idea. Then shouldn't we remove all the templates' images? Keivan.f^Talk 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the yesterday's message. There might be a reason to keep the images, but so far I haven't been able to think of any, and your questioning whether other [admittedly] useless content should be removed did not help much, to be honest. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I removed all the images of European, Asian and African royal families' templates. It was the best decision. Keivan.f^Talk 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Royal House

I noticed that you removed the royal house from the Spanish Queens. I think it is weird that you don't consider them to have a royal house of Spain because they are queens of Spain. If we keep it that way, I'll have to edit the Queen of Bhutan and other Bhutanese consorts articles because women in Bhutan don't change their names upon marriage either. People in Bhutan are given their names based on religious guidance and no one has a surname except those descended from royal families.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it weird? Certainly nobody considers Letizia Ortiz a Bourbon. Otherwise she would be known as Letizia de Borbón. Is Felipe an Ortiz? Will Leonor's future husband, a prince of Spain, be a Bourbon? Surtsicna (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere than consorts of the queen regnant change their names. I think I read it on a talk page. I'm going to fill in the space. I just don't want to leave it blank.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No offense...

...to you is intended here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You fascinate me. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Same to you. If you really are that bothered because I suggested, and warned a 17-year-old, that it often looks like a few exclusive royalty editors feel they own all the articles on that subject, why not let's argue that? I've long been thinking about starting a big bruhaha about it. It's about time, and I wouldn't mind getting everybody involved in that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what fascinates me here is you posting on my talk page to tell me not to be offended by you offending someone else on another talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's not discuss whose input there is really offensive and insulting! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarah, Duchess of York

Hi. I think infobox image of her is too old and she has changed a lot. Can you find a new image of her from Flickr or somewhere else? Keivan.f^Talk 16:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If I stumble upon one, I'll be sure to add it. Surtsicna (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also please add a new image to Empress Michiko's infobox. And why Empress Michiko's article requires clean-up? Keivan.f^Talk 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I forgot something. Also please find a new image for the infobox of Princess Eugenie of York. The file that is used is too old. Many thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 14:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:British Royal Family

Your removal of the image was reverted by multiple editors, not just one, and the issue should have been discussed on the talk page of the template itself, or linked to from that talk page, not in some 'private' discussion at an undisclosed location. When an change has been disputed by multiple editors, it needs to be discussed on the Talk page of the location in question, and a consensus established between all interested editors, not between you and some particular person. Looking at the talk page of the template, this talk page, and the talk pages of the editors who reverted you, I don't see such a discussion at any of those locations, and your use of edit summaries for 'discussion' rather than for an explanation behind the reason for the edit makes it seem unlikely that an actual consensus has been established somewhere. In case you are unaware, the 'slow edit war' here was followed by keivan.f deciding to remove similar images from over 50 other similar templates, without any edit summaries, in a fairly blatant display of 'disruptive editing to make a point', and by fairly agitated discussion and a help request on the talk page of one of those templates.

It seems fairly obvious to me that a consensus about the removal of this image, and/or the removal of all such images has not been established, and your reversion of my restoration of the image, without discussion on the talk page of the template in question, is again a violation of the intent of BRD, which is that a discussion occurs that is open to all interested editors. Revent^talk 11:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit was reverted by two users: one without explanation (and thus reverted by a third user) and one who agreed that it should be removed. You then reverted it on the grounds of it being reverted before, rather than on grounds that it should be kept, which is absurd. If someone believes that the image should be kept, and has reasonable arguments (i.e. those that do not include admitting that the image is useless), I am happy to discuss it. For all I know, the image might have a purpose that I am unaware of. Surtsicna (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I do think the image should be kept, but I'm not particularly interested in edit warring about it. From the edit history, however, the revert by DrKiernan was not on the basis of 'no explanation', but because the use of Twinkle was inappropriate. Even ignoring those edits, when your removal was reverted by Keivan.f, the appropriate response by you per BRD should have been to start a discussion on the talk page, not to re-revert him, and especially not to try to engage in 'discussion' in edit summaries. Instead you have edit warred, and shown no real inclination to discuss the issue. You should have done so after your removal was reverted, and my restoration of the content on the basis was not 'absurd', as you put it, but instead in accord with the BRD process is supposed to work... you discuss after you are reverted, and that discussion takes place with the page in the original state, after a single revert. Also, you still have not pointed at the 'discussion with the person who reverted you' that you claim took place, or shown that they agreed with you after such a discussion... instead you merely claimed that in an edit summary, which was again an inappropriate use of edit summaries for 'discussion'. Your behavior there has been inappropriate, your response to me here describing my revert of you as 'absurd' was both rude and argumentative, and the only reason that I haven't reverted you again is that I'm specifically trying not to escalate this. Regardless, your removal was reverted, and after you are reverted the 'burden' is on you to justify and discuss your change on the talk page. You are giving me the distinct impression that you are more interested in 'winning' the issue than in trying to establish a consensus version, and not giving the impression that you are truly willing to discuss the issue. Revent^talk 13:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

DrKiernan's revert was not on the basis of "no explanation"? Have you seen the edit summary? "I do not necessarily agree with Surtsicna's removal of the image, but it was explained and to undo that explained edit using Twinkle is not only rude but frankly disruptive." Why would he point out (twice) that the edit was explained? As I said, I would have happily discussed if my edit had been reverted with an edit summary explaining the relevance of the image. Instead, it was reverted once without any explanation, once with a summary describing the image as useless, and once apparently on the basis of I like it. Believe it or not, I am more interested in finally being told what makes the image useful (and in many cases at least relevant) than in "winning the issue". Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I specifically don't think DrKiernan's revert was on the basis of 'no explanation' so much as on the basis that it is a misuse of Twinkle to revert a good faith edit in that manner, and I have no 'complaint' about him doing so. I really don't think Keivan.f described the image as 'useless', though, and mere 'illustration' is actually a valid use for an image. The point, however, and the reason for my revert (which was not 'I like it') is that since you were not removing the image on the basis of a 'content policy', but merely on the basis on your editorial opinion that the template was better without it, you had no justification for re-reverting instead of taking it to the talk page at that point. Per BRD, when you are reverted you then discuss instead of re-reverting, and it is not allowed to try to 'discuss in edit summaries' as you did. Once you did so, you were edit warring, and you then continued to edit war with me after I told you that you needed to discuss it on the talk page. You don't have the right to disregard other editor's opinions simply because you don't personally think they are 'valid'... once people disagree, it becomes something that needs to be opened to input from other people so that consensus can be determined. It so happens, based on the response to Keivan's removal of the image from the Swedish template, that there are people who do think the images belong... there was a significant amount of wtf from several editors there. I don't know if that is so much the case on the English template.... nobody knows, because the subject hasn't been opened to discussion.

Personally, I don't particularly 'care' if the images are there or not, I don't think they are especially 'useful' but I realize that some people may disagree. I do care that people act in a way that is in accord with the rules of editor behavior... that's why I mass-reverted Keivan, not because I necessarily had an opinion on the specific edits, but because it was obvious that he was 'being disruptive to make a point'... he has actually acknowledged that he was wrong to do so on my talk page, FYI.

Sorry for basically 'repeating myself' again, but I really think the point needs to be made... you should discuss the presence or absence of the image on the talk page, and not just revert people based on your opinion of their edit summaries. At this point you really have no idea if the majority of interested editors want the image there, and a 'consensus' of interested editors that the image should be there simply because they 'like it' would be perfectly valid... your desire to remove it is based on opinion as well, after all (from what I have seen) and your opinion has no more weight than that of any other editor. Revent^talk 14:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize for repeating yourself, I believe I am doing the same thing. Anyway, I did discuss the issue with the user who explained why he reverted the edit. Have you seen the #Mahidevran section on my talk page? I maintain that I am not required to treat unexplained reversions of explained edits as a normal part of the BRD course, such reverts being obviously disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to 'justify' the use of Twinkle to revert you with no explanation, it's perfectly clear that it was inappropriate. And no, I had not found that little conversation... I think I'd said before that I'd look at about 4-5 talk pages of the various people, and not seen any section that appeared to be discussion of the image. You can just take this all as a comment that, in my opinion at least, you are being too fast with the revert button on something that is a matter of 'editorial judgement', and that you don't have the 'right' to dismiss other people's objections on something that is a matter of editorial judgement, not policy, just because you personally don't think that they 'proved their case' in an edit summary. The removal 'was' objected to, clearly, by multiple people, and Keivan's 'pointy' removal of them all did stir up significant objection to the removal of such images elsewhere (see the talk page for the Swedish template). After you were reverted, you should have taken it to the template talk page, and discussed it where other people would be able to find the discussion and contribute. You do not own the template, and don't have to right to 'require' that people satisfy 'you' specifically on a content matter, especially not in an edit summary, on something that is purely, when it comes down to it, a matter of if editors think it's 'better' one way or the other. Given that it's obvious that we disagree, I think we can drop this now, but I really hope you'll consider what I've said. Revent^talk 23:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Note

Keivan.f is identical to Biar122 68.100.172.139 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you tired of posting this sentence on many users' talk pages? I think you should read Wikipedia:Canvassing. Keivan.f^Talk 07:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Biar122

Last week, I had suspected of you and thought that you were Biar122 and reverted some of your edits. Now, I realized that User:Keivan.f is Biar122 and behaving like an editor.. 68.100.172.139 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@68.100.172.139 I think you're Biar122. Because of that you avoid from creating a new user page, and you scare of becoming blocked again. I have edited many pages on Wikipedia since 3 years ago, but you're just editing Ottoman related articles. Keivan.f^Talk 06:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Surtsicna You might be interested in this.Keivan.f^Talk 06:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I could have been interested, but I am really not, to be honest. Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested too. I'm just tired of of this IP user. Keivan.f^Talk 16:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I need your advice

My edithas been reverted several times. I gave up because I don't want to be in an edit war. But I only changed born to né (which is shorter). And the editor who reverted my edits says it's not proper English and we can't use it because it's not common. That is nonsense. I really can't think of a better argument to convince them.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I can be of much help. English is my second language, and French my third, so I cannot estimate which of the two sounds more natural to a native speaker of English. Né(e) literally means "born", so if the former is very rarely used in English, I don't see a reason to insist on it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We already used it on Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark's article and Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland's article. The reason it's not common is because men rarely change their names unlike women who decide to change their names upon marriage. It is technically borrowed English or English borrowed from French because the female version née is used and it is definitively not of English origin (I don't know any words of English origin that use accents). In English we would not use the accents. The article even says "the accents are sometimes omitted". --Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that you changed the one on Prince Daniel's article.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should change all the née to born too.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already started mass editing articles of female consorts changing née to born. No doubt they will be reverted by people who prefer tradition. But I think it's ridiculous we have the term née for females and for males it's simply "born" when born is just as correct.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But why bother? Who says that everything has to be consistent, either one way or another? Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not because of consistency but because it doesn't make sense to use the term when it isn't even considered English by some people. Also born isn't gender-specific.-Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge

Hello Surtsicna, why that? I'm quite sure that the image is indeed cc-by-sa. By the way, if it is not free also the uncropped version of it should be removed from the article, I suppose. Bye --Jaqen (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The licensing is fine, as far as I can see; nobody has complained about it so far. I believe I wrote about the image on the talk page, but it must have been moved to the archives by now. My point is that the image is already in the article, so repeating it is pointless. The crop is bad because he is not facing the camera. There is no requirement for a lead image (WP:LEADIMAGE). Besides, the child surely looks rather different after 6 months. Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Heiress presumptive

User FactStraight keeps changing heir to heiress. And not thoroughly either, FactStraight changed the word in one paragraph but forgot to change other mentions of the term.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there are instances where "heiress presumptive" works better than "heir presumptive", but in the case you linked to, I wouldn't say so. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Queen Mother

I see your point in removing all of this, but it was quite an ax job that sort of leaves the artilce without a lot of relevant information about women who have held positions that could be interpreted as more-or-less officially being that of a queen mother. Couldn't we reword the introduction of that list so the info isn't lost at the same time as no invalid allegation is made or inferred they they officially were called "Queen Mother"? I do not know whether most of them actually were or weren't, but though e.g. Queen Hedwig Eleanor of Sweden officially was called "Riksänkedrottningen" (Widow Queen of the Realm), her position certainly was fully equal to that of a queen mother (in a country where such a title was completely unknown at the time). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, after I removed it, it occurred to me that rewording the sentence might have made the section more sensible. The information was either misleading or outright inaccurate, though, so my first instinct was to remove it altogether. "Catherine of Bosnia: Queen Mother of Bosnia?" Bathsheba and Tiye? Anyway, the question is: should we try to apply the definition of this position to places and times when it was "completely unknown"? In my opinion, it would be better to explain various roles played by mothers of kings, from Blanche of Castile to Hedwig Eleonora of Holstein-Gottorp, noting (if necessary) the title they held as such, than to merely put them all in the same basket. Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try something there and you see what you think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That looks great! Is there a way to indicate that these women were queens dowager as well as mothers of kings? Some were not, so they do not fit the definition of queen mother. I'm also not sure about the correct plural for "queen mother". We have "queens consort", "queens regnant" and "queens dowager", and in the previous section we have "queens mother". Surtsicna (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Spencers

Hello
A (belated) thanks for replying to my query here, though I’m still not sure the phrase at issue is saying anything much. Anyway, I’ve requested a citation; maybe if nothing turns up it can be deleted. Swanny18 (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: I've also raised a question here, just to let you know. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I've replied there. Basically, I agree with you. Surtsicna (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Japanese throne

There is clearly something wrong with the page. I tried removing (and was reverted) the princesses from the list as they are not actually in line but they are kept because the article starts with "The line of succession to the Japanese throne is the list of all people who may become Emperor of Japan". "May" become the Emperor of Japan doesn't make sense especially if the princesses are listed because then it would be Empress. In the succession act, only males are eligible to succeed and if the princesses are listed then technically anyone in Japan "may" become Emperor. May is a very vague term.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. I was the one who added the graphical representations of the succession lines into the majority of articles, including that one. Normally, I only added people already in the line of succession and those who could enter the line of succession without any changes to succession law being made. When it came to Japan, though, I made an exception. I thought it would be good to name the females as well in order to illustrate how many members of the family are left out, i.e. how much the line of succession would expand if the proposed change to the succession law were to be implemented. Those who are actually eligible to ascend, i.e. the males, are numbered, so it's clear that Naruhito is number 1, Akishino follows him as number 2, etc. If the matter really is as confusing as you say it is, perhaps we should look for another solution, or simply remove the princesses. Surtsicna (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Make it more like this article. It also has people not in the line of succession but it is easier to understand.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's easier to understand because all the people not in the line of succession come after all the people in the line of succession. They are all mixed in the other one. Another difference is that the Dutch princes and their children can enter the line of succession per current succession rules, while the Japanese princesses cannot. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean that it says "The list below contains all people currently eligible to succeed to the throne (numbered 1 to 8) and the descendants of Princess Margriet who would be eligible if she were to succeed". And it helps because we know that not all the people on the list are in line to succeed. In the other article it just says line of succession which would lead people to believe that those people really are in the line of succession.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Princess Consorts of Orange

Hi, Surtsicna. I saw you deleted Template:Princess Consorts of Orange from the page of Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange. I don't know a lot about princes and princesses, but I saw the page Princess of Orange and noticed that the template was not on the page of Catharina-Amalia. As you ask How is that relevant? my answer is: I don't know. But I think it must be relevant because there is a special page about Princess of Orange. If it's not relevant that page should be removed? Kind regards, Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! First of all, I apologize for such a brief edit summary. It should have been clearer. A consort is someone who holds a substantive title through marriage. Catharina-Amalia is thus not a consort; not only is she unmarried, but she holds the title in her own right. In that regard, she is more similar to men who held the title than to women listed in the template. I hope I've made up for the [somewhat inadequate] edit summary. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian monarchs

Hello! Do you agree with this edit? --217.197.177.13 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. Do you? Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Liechtensteiner throne

Should we include people who are left out of this line of succession?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. As far as I know, there is no initiative to change the current succession law. Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Imperial Family template

Can we change this template like you changed the Swedish one? On the official site they are referred to as Their Imperial Highnesses Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako, not The Crown Prince etc.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also the Nowegian Royal Family is listed the same way as the Swedish one on their website.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Lady Sarah McCorquodale

On her article is it necessary to say that Prince Harry resembles her?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it is. If anywhere, that piece of information would belong in the article about him. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mother's in infoboxes

Which name is the mother supposed to be known by? I changed Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway's infobox to match Prince George's whose mother is known by her married name, but Princes Elisabeth's mother is listed by her premarital name.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Maiden names are always used in genealogy, i.e. when listing one's parents, grandparents and further ancestors. That might provide the answer. Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I would do it for the British royals (most, if not all of their mothers are listed by their married titles) but I don't know what to put in the edit summary.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Swedish Royal Family

I tried to make it look better after someone added the extended family such as Christopher O'Neil. I think we should keep the extended family, after all they are family.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Norwegian Royal Family

I listed the family as King Harold, Queen Sonja, etc like the way they are referred to on the official site, but it got changed.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop it now

This conversation ends here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by You all love me (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Claro que si. All there is to do now is report you. Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. this is the English wikipedia. We speak English, - basic English words like "widow" should not be necessary to explain to idiots. Do not make reverts. Do not call good editors like me "trolls" or "vandals" - this is a sure mark of a troll and a vandal. This conversation ends here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by You all love me (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, do not follow me around prick and cite your sources. It isn't common for a birth to be registered 2 years before someone's birth - it is quite common for young ladies to lie about their ages. prick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by You all love me (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, basic English words such as "widow" do have to be explained to idiots, so allow me to explain the said word to you. A widow is "a woman whose spouse has died and who has not remarried." Rosita, Duchess of Marlborough, divorced the 11th Duke in 2008. He remarried the same year. Since he was not her spouse when he died, she is not his widow. His widow is his fourth wife, the one he was married to at the time of his death. I thought it would be fun to clarify this, although you are obviously a troll who "ended" and then resurrected this conversation twice. Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I do not see how this is vandalism. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Going through a user's contributions and reverting random edits without explanation, and doing so solely because that user reverted your edits, is something I consider vandalism. Surtsicna (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Exactly, Troll Susrtcisnca did it to me, and lied about me being a troll, ergo (get me I'm using a dead language!) he is a troll. Ergo his vandalisms should be reverted. This ends very shortly with a ban for sursitina. Here endeth the lesson. You all love me (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

US Presidents infoboxes

Howdy. It's practiced across the infoboxes of US Presidents, that vacancies be pointed, when there's no vice president. This way, less knowledgable editors won't be tempted to place incorrect dates. For example at Theodore Roosevelt, nobody will change the VP service dates of Fairbanks from the correct (1905-1909), to the incorrect (1901-1909) if the (1901-05) vacancy is mentioned :) GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for my manky comma splices in Onassis! My style is still evolving, but slowly, yet a hint of exasperation, remains. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg

Hello! Your submission of Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg 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! Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Princess of Asturias

Do you think Letizia's parents are relevant to the article where it says father?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Maximilian William of Brunswick-Lüneburg

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

I created versions of the Spanish Royal Family's signatures. Do you think that the children are too young for their signatures to be in their articles?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't. I am not quite convinced in the value of such images, but I also can't think of a reason to restrict them only to adults. Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland

I thought we had an agreement that we would not use the bullet point in her titles and styles, but one IP user is very insistent on it. I find that users edits distruptive. I previously undid all of that users edits but they were restored for some reason. I also don't like the styles box either but it's not inaccurate or anything.

Same here: Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg

Another disruptive edit is this edit. Which made things complicated and the user didn't even check for consensus. I already reported the IP although I'm not sure how that will work out and reporting won't help for style of an article.

--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It really is absurd to have a list if there is only one item in it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Princess Nathalie

I am not by any means going to start an edit war. Still, I would love to have a conversation with you on the (non-)obviousness of these claims...--The Theosophist (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! An obvious fact about her: she is a female human. Whether or not she is styled "Her Serene Highness Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein Berleburg, Mrs Johannsmann" is hardly obvious. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, certainly. But I think that “common knowledge” extends beyond gender. I am certain that there is an all-county manual-of-style for royal styles and these can be referenced from there. On the other hand, the absence of such information should not be a big problem. Have a nice day!--The Theosophist (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

British Royal Family

Please check the talk page or the BRF article to discuss your deletion of the list of members since 1707. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. 2.83.177.21 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Caption in Princess Athena's article

Do you think it is a good caption?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine to me :) Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia

Hi,

Taking in consideration that we had a dispute at talkpage, I wonder if you would mind if I review this nomination?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I don't think there is anything that could preclude you from reviewing the nomination, although I believe a review by someone mostly (or entirely) unfamiliar with the subject would bring up more suggestions. The reviewers of my previously nominated articles (Maria Theresa, Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands) and Elizabeth of Bosnia) have suggested that I don't always provide enough context for the information to be understood by those unfamiliar with the topic - i.e. while it is perfectly clear to someone interested in history, it might not be as clear to a casual reader. I would be very grateful for a peer review, however, considering your contributions to related articles. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Peer review also counts at wikicup, so peer review it is. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Duchess of Cambridge photo

On the talk page, I have shown two other versions of the photo. Can you help decide which one is better?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Japanese Imperial Family

Hi. If you like please participate in this discussion and support or oppose this request. Keivan.f^Talk 19:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've completed my review at Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia/GA1. I wanted to congratulate you on a job well done. It was a privilege and a pleasure reviewing this article. I only had a few comments and suggestions. Thank you for your hard work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Saint Mary's Church, Jajce

Allen3 ^talk 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia

The article Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I finished my review of your article at Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia/GA1 on January 17. Further delay in your response may result in the closure and failure of this Good Article review. I think the article is definitely Good Article material and would like to pass it once you address my comments. -- Caponer (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia

The article Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your effort, Caponer, and I sincerely apologize for the inconveniece caused by my 3-month long absence. Had I known what was in store for me, I would have nominated it later. All is well that ends well, however, both for me and for the nomination. Thank you for your understanding! :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Surtsicna, thank you for writing this phenomenal article. I knew you were probably busy with real life issues, and it didn't require many fixes, so I went ahead and passed it with slight modification. I always look forward to your next articles detailing royalty and nobility! Thank you again for the kind note! This review was certainly a pleasure. -- Caponer (talk)

Orthodox Christianity in

If you insist, please make a multiple move request of such categories in Category:Eastern Orthodoxy by country.--Zoupan 20:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see now there is lots of inconsistency. Thank you for bringing the category to my attention, Zoupan. We have Orthodoxy in Hungary, Orthodoxy in Estonia, Orthodoxy in Croatia, etc, yet Orthodox Christianity in Guatemala, Orthodox Christianity in Madagascar, Orthodox Christianity in Syria, etc. Then again, we have Eastern Orthodoxy in the Republic of Ireland, which is also the format used by all the subcategories. In my humble opinion, "Eastern Orthodoxy" and "Orthodox Christianity" are both preferable to simply "Orthodoxy", and now that I think about it, the former might be the best option (so as to differentiate it from the quite distinct Oriental Orthodoxy). What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)