This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

I have noticed that you have removed an image from Mstislav I of Kiev article. What is wrong with the image? It is sourced to a 1993 book and used in many Wikimedia projects. I agree that realism was not a feature of most of the Russian art before the 18th century but it least the image is historical and represent some tradition of depicting Mstislav Alex Bakharev ( talk) 06:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Alex Bakharev. My thoughts on the matter are probably best summed up by WP:PORTRAIT, though there was also an extensive discussion about such images of popes. Simply put, I do not see the value in this image: it is not a realistic depiction, nor does it illustrate how Mstislav was seen by his (near) contemporaries; and it is not even notable in itself. It might make sense in a Legacy section, if it existed, but it seems just wrong to have a man dressed in 17th-century fashion in the infobox of an article about a 12th-century ruler. It made me double check which page I had reached :) Surtsicna ( talk) 08:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I interest you in Esther Béjarano? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Consider me interested, Gerda Arendt! Do you need help of any kind? Surtsicna ( talk) 13:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I nominated her for WP:ITNN. Her article is a bit shortish, and there's much more in German. I had no time to sift there what to translate, just got some awards over. - I have DYK nominations waiting for input, need to to qpq reviews, promised a peer review, - I don't know where to start but think in a way that Recent death is more urgent than the others. - I don't know what you'd like to do: bring the awards refs to better style, translate some more, or perhaps just support the nomination which might help the process. Let's keep article changes short, to avoid edit conflicts. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: the nom has now four supports, and the refs were improved by Grimes2, - expand if you like, but it will pass if not. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: Béjarano is on the Main page now. I look at people who recently died, and care about a few enough to bring their articles to a standard good enough for the Main page, see? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What did you see? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. My first thought is that nearly everyone seems to be of the same skin tone :D But then I realized most are German too, so it makes sense. Surtsicna ( talk) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I go by Deaths in 2021, and of course - unable to do them all - pick the Germans first because - being German - that's what I can do and others can't, just for the language. I don't do all Germans even, mostly the music people, with occasional detours to a politician here and a mystic there, aware that in such cases I often lack the English vocabulary. I also do other nationalities, Amoz Oz early (as someone who impressed me in a live event), recently Michael Horowitz, Márta Kurtág (for whom all efforts came too late). Some skins are not fair ( Unita Blackwell, Jessye Norman, GA, the hardest work in terms of time so far, and Hevrin Khalaf, the hardest emotionally so far) but unfortunately I don't have an image for Naomi Munakata and Manjeet Singh Riyat. - "The only real nation is humanity" - I quote that in the infobox on my user page. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Jean Kraft added -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that Vivaldi composed cello sonatas? I didn't until I took the pic. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hugh III of Cyprus 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 ( talk) 15:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Surtsicna. First, let me congratulate you for doing a good job on articles about the Crusades. I have notice that you have been working on Hugh III of Cyprus and that's great. I wonder if you could expand the biograhy of Henry II of Cyprus. Because he was the last king of Jerusalem, I consider that he is very important. However, Henry II's biography is too short. Please, could you check it? Cheers 190.234.57.65 ( talk) 10:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your kind words. Yes, that article is on my to-do list. A biography is due to be published in 2023 too. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Service of marriage at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 03:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please improve the article List of governors-general of India as it have excessive capitalization. Soap Boy 1 ( talk) 19:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Surtsicna. Congratulations for improving and creating articles about the Crusades. But, could you improve Two articles about this topic, please? Or could you add them to you do-list? The first is John of Ibelin called the Old Lord of Beirut. He was an important crusader lord, however, there are few references in his article or nothing in many sections. The other is John of Montfort, lord of Tyre becuase his article has not any reference. It was translated for French Wikipedia, but there is no references in the French Wikipedia too. I hope you can improve them as other articles. Sorry to bother you and Cheers 190.234.57.65 ( talk) 09:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I will see if I can find some references! Thanks. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The Lyon source does show Otto I having married Judith and Ada/Adelheid of Holland. The story that Otto II married Adelheid seems unsupported.

Your thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, see the WP:Articles for deletion/Ada of Holland discussion where it was pointed out that Ada could not have married both father and son. The Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, which was found to establish the notability of the topic, says she was married to Otto II and does not mention Otto I. German Wikipedia says that she was wrongly described as the wife of Otto I in older literature, but does not cite a source that discusses the confusion. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

— Maile ( talk) 12:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The article Hugh III of Cyprus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hugh III of Cyprus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 ( talk) 15:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Wars of the Roses family tree § Reversion. — GoldRingChip 15:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 —  Amakuru ( talk) 00:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Surtsicna, I've noticed on a few pages where I've contributed significantly about America's relations with another country, you've removed the lead sentence where it states the relations between the two countries refers to the relations between Country A and Country B. I've been creating a list on a subpage of mine with all countries' foreign relations in alphabetical order. Many of the articles have that sentence redundancy issue. If you feel the need to remove them, then you can take a look through the list here. Be aware the page isn't finished yet. Hope this helps. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, WikiCleanerMan. There does seem to be a consensus that such sentences should be removed, but so far it seems that I am the only one doing the removal. Your list will be of great help! Surtsicna ( talk) 01:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll inform you when the list is done. Be aware of the notice at the top of the page. There are no links to any countries relations with the United States. But the U.S. foreign relations article also have this issue. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The list is complete. Again, no U.S. relations articles are linked. For me, that is a separate project. If you find any errors, feel free to message me on my talk page. Also, where a link exists but is a redirect, "(Redirect)" is right next to it, making things easier to navigate although they shouldn't be redirects. Glad to be of help. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, WikiCleanerMan. I have started using the list to delete the silly sentences. The number of articles is overwhelming, to say the least. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mass removal of former Prime Ministers, Governors etc.. Thank you. -- Pete ( talk) 23:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A certain editor at a certain discussion concerning removing a section from Prime Minister of Australia, calling you a crusader? darn near had me on the floor laughing. That fellow has been (off & on) for over 20 years, trying to get Wikipedia to deny that Elizabeth II is Australia's head of state. GoodDay ( talk) 14:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Truth be told, I have been into crusades lately! Surtsicna ( talk) 23:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

—valereee ( talk) 00:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your wonderful work in reworking and reformatting the British royal family article, nearly single-handedly. It was long overdue, especially given the significance of the subject. Kudos to you! Bettydaisies ( talk) 02:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to point out that I have inadvertantly re-inserted the ancestors table into the above article - this was due to temporary amnesia rather than any disrespect for your previous removal. I find these sections add considerably to the historical context for people from famous families. I gather that you do not. Icairns 2 ( talk) 14:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It's been nearly 3 months. Please return to Wikipedia. GoodDay ( talk) 23:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you see this? And this?

Sourced by this website. Is this source reliable? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 03:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna, we can only hope all is well in your corner in the life's ring.-- ౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 08:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Baby reading and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 15#Baby reading until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dronebogus ( talk) 08:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna. I recently admired what I think is your latest family tree at Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany. It is verified by a citation "Turner & Heiser 2000, pp. 256–257", which seems to references a graphic that resembles the one you drew. I think I found it in the preview in Google Books, which however lacks page numbers for some reason. So far so good. You probably remember me from James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault where you replaced my family tree with yours. May I ask you some expert advice: is it licit to draw a family tree based not on a published graphic but on a series of genealogical descriptions that say "son, daughter of ... by ..." or similar? Or would you consider this WP:OR? MOS:DIAG does not seem to object but states "Like articles, all maps and diagrams should include a complete set of references". If such "constructed" family trees are allowed, how should it be supported by citations? I have in such cases added citations that contain page ranges covering the written genealogical descriptions, but then I read that large page ranges are not acceptable as references. WP:FASOURCE says "Check ... that the ranges are not too long (e.g. pp. 150–200 should be questioned)." I would guess similar instructions will be found elsewhere. Sometimes editors come along and add citations to particular blocks in the family tree. I find that if this would be generalised, it would clutter the tree and reduce its readability. Do you know of any precedents?

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty is an example for such a family tree. This is at the moment under review for A-Class ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Donough_MacCarty,_1st_Earl_of_Clancarty). The reviewers have not yet attacked the family tree but this might come, or would you be ready to participate? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 12:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Johannes Schade. I am back after a while. Citing such sources when making family trees is indeed difficult and I do not have a solution. My rule of thumb is to avoid creating family trees that can only be sourced to such descriptions, both for my sake and because the lack of graphics in published works specializing in the subject strongly suggests that the family tree is not really necessary to understand the topic. So, in a nutshell, if you find yourself having to bend over backwards to cite a source for this type of content, or indeed any content, I believe you should question whether the article really needs it. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I was on a sabbatical of sorts for quite a while. I needed it and, honestly, it felt very good to be off Wikipedia. Editing tends to stress me out, but the urge to make things better has now prevailed. I will try to take it easier this time. Sincere thanks to Bettydaisies, GoodDay and Santasa99 for their kind words! Surtsicna ( talk) 21:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank goodness you're all right. I was concerned a medical issue had occurred or worst. GoodDay ( talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ever so vigilant! No, I was just tired. I am ready to lock horns over trivialities with you again! Surtsicna ( talk) 22:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I too am pleased to see you back. DrKay ( talk) 22:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sort of blushing now. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - really glad to hear that all is well. Welcome back.-- ౪ Santa ౪ ^99° 07:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Surtsicna, I’m glad you are back. If you are not occupied, I want your help. I tried to create a genealogical table for Leonardo III Tocco, but I failed many times. I put an ahnentafel; I used Nicol (2010), The Despotate of Epiros 1267-1479: A Contribution to the History of Greece in the Middle Ages as a source. However, there are names in the ahnentafel that doesn’t appear in Nicol’s book. I beg your help in replacing the ahnentafel for a genealogical table because this last chart links Leonardo III with other rulers of Epirus and not his relatives, who are not relevant. Cheers Kardam ( talk) 06:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Kardam. I'll gladly get to it. I removed the 17th-century portrait because it looked way out of place in the lead of the biography of a 15th-century ruler, in addition to possibly being intended to depict other people. Do you agree? I think it would make more sense to have it in a legacy section, if such existed, but the best place for it would probably be the article about the family. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Which relatives would you like to be included in the table? Surtsicna ( talk) 12:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my call. I Just want to include only his relationship with the rulers of Epirus. I do not consider relevant Leonardo's maternal relatives. This source is in the book that I mentioned before from page 252 to 256. Thank you again and cheer. Kardam ( talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I went up to John II Orsini. We can go four generations further with this source, but I think that would be more appropriate for a more general article, such as Tocco family or despots of Epirus. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand, thank you a lot Surtsicna for helping me. Cheers Kardam ( talk) 21:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Perhaps for Leonardo III his wife and siblings would be pertinent. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Why do you call this image fanciful and revert it? Look at Blanche of Burgundy. Does this picture look also fanciful? Klapi ( talk) 14:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Klapi, the depiction of Blanche is contemporaneous with its subject. It was produced in or shortly after the subject's lifetime. This image of Zbigniew was produced eight centuries after he lived and is of no informational value. See WP:PORTRAIT for a more detailed explanation. If nothing else, readers should not have to wonder why an 11th-century ruler appears to be dressed in 16th-century fashion. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't get your edit summary on Ivan the Terrible. You shouldn't add back unsourced info... Ak-eater06 ( talk) 22:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ak-eater06, you should normally not delete unsourced information without discussion just because it is unsourced. This is practiced only in the biographies of living people. If you dispute the veracity of the information, first state so on the talk page and explain why you find it suspicious. Tag the information with {{cn}} and wait for response. Removing so much text effectively ruined the article by making the remnants unconnected. That did not improve Wikipedia. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"This is practiced only in the biographies of living people." is there a Wiki policy that says that? Ak-eater06 ( talk) 23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Surtsicna ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you link it? I can't find it. Ak-eater06 ( talk) 00:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:CHALLENGE, third paragraph. Surtsicna ( talk) 01:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Surtsicna. Your name was mentioned in a complaint on my talk page about two other people. Perhaps you have some relevant information to add. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to follow up after that discussion was closed - because those varieties don't seem to have the same baggage, and the occasional anonymous edit war about AE vs BE is manageable. I honestly don't think the state of hr vs sr edit warring would be manageable. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point, Joy. I suppose I am a bit more optimistic in this regard. One of these POV fork Wikipedias has already been denounced by academics and a government minister, so how much worse could it be than it is now anyway? :D Surtsicna ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I assure you they'd stand by it on the matter of using standard Croatian consistently instead of a hodgepodge. They'd send Nives Opačić after you :) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 18:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

shudders Surtsicna ( talk) 18:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Surtsicna! I see you've removed many 19th century depictions of medieval people. Some of them are uninteresting anyway and of little value. But I think some portraits of this sort are interesting and informative parts of encyclopedic articles. They may not tell us what the people in question looked like but they do tell us something about their historical reception and importance. Haukur ( talk) 20:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Haukur, I agree. This is why I move them to a legacy/historiography/reception section if one exists. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I nominated the closure for review here, if you don't feel like it's a waste of time. I know it's largely inconsequential, but this does set a poor precedent, and the closer's interpretation was so at variance with the discussion itself that it may deserve comment. Avilich ( talk) 19:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that's ... bizzaro world. Ealdgyth ( talk) 00:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Just be sure to leave a formal vote, just in case. Thanks. Avilich ( talk) 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Baldwin IV of Jerusalem 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 Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade ( talk) 13:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TylerBurden ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you've got a lot of edits then to make, concerning all the rulers of Monaco. PS - Yes I know, you're not going to make that consistency effort. GoodDay ( talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you think case consistency is the main issue there? Shouldn't the lead sentence be phrased for maximum clarity? Surtsicna ( talk) 16:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you removed the title of "Duchess consort of Burgundy" on the infobox at the bottom of Margaret III, Countess of Flanders' page. May I ask why? All other Burgundian duchesses, not to mention all consorts, have that title featured. It might not be her most significant title, but it still is one and I believe it should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlimitedlead ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Unlimitedlead. Before adding content, we should consider whether such content appears in reliable sources specializing in the subject. As far as I can tell, reliable sources do not mention Joan III of Burgundy as Margaret's predecessor as "duchess consort of Burgundy", so neither should Wikipedia. It is a minor technicality. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Surtsicna, thanks for the clarification. The "duchess consort of Burgundy" title was already there, but I was just adding dates to it. I thought it was commonly assumed that since Joan III of Burgundy was married to Duke Odo IV, and he was the most recent duke before Philip I, that Margaret succeeded Joan as duchess consort. At least that's what it says on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlimitedlead ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly true, but not everything that's true should be included. Some things are just of minor importance. See WP:VNOT for an explanation. Surtsicna ( talk) 00:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Should Amadeus IV of Savoy infobox be changed from nobility to royalty? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not see how he could be considered royalty. On the other hand, I find Infobox royalty more pleasing to the eye, and since the two infoboxes do not differ in functionality and readers cannot tell them apart, I do not have an opinion on which should be used. Come to think of it, I do not even know why we have both. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not that worried about infoboxes, honestly. However, I have noticed such editing usually ends up with misleading or error ridden information. Stay safe and healty. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, why did you reverted my edit on Teuta? The Albanian word tetane stands in connection with Teutana ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/t%C3%ABtan%C3%AB) Kind Regards AlexBachmann ( talk) 23:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

AlexBachmann, it is not sourced to a reliable source that discusses the queen. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, could you please respond to the discussion on Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulêmes talk page. Orson12345 ( talk) 02:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If you email me via "email this user" I can send you a pdf of the ODNB article. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs

Thank you for your help with no-pipe for Bach's No. 1! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you for that fabulous article! Is that your first FA? Surtsicna ( talk) 18:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you, but it was the work of many, and it wasn't my first, Messiah was my first, invited by the masters Brian Boulton and Tim Riley (to appear again soon, 10 years after the first round), and BWV 172 was my first solo -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have yet to have my first! I did not know they could appear twice. Surtsicna ( talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a rather new invention, provided to fight a dominance of some topics, and a lack of sufficient new ones (but that seems over), and it makes celebration of anniversaries easier. A minimum of five years must have passed, and you need community consensus. - Go ahead with your first, pick a narrow topic, and let me know. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Gladly! Surtsicna ( talk) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, are you trying to say that no images of people that are not accurate are allowed? -- 65.94.99.221 ( talk) 02:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! No, definitely not. Sometimes inaccurate depictions are closely associated with the subject in reliable sources. Even contemporary depictions are not always accurate. WP:PORTRAIT might best describe my stance, though it can just as easily be summed up in MOS:LEADIMAGE's advice that the lead image should be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". Good arguments have also been put out during the RfC on 19th-century drawings of medieval popes. Surtsicna ( talk) 07:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we agree that we often are precluded from using "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" by the fact that many of those images are not free to use? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 08:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

In the case of 20th-century subjects we often are but the problem discussed here arises exclusively in the articles about medieval people. The "type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" should always be free to use when the subject is a medieval person and the image a reproduction of a 2D work of art. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I must be missing something, but doesn't line 5 of the second column of MOS:JOBTITLES mention "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972?"

-- WikiEditor50 ( talk) 20:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have the same understanding of this as WikiEditor50. The title that was recently reverted should be lowercase because it's modified by "Iraqi". — Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiEditor50, Eyer. Bullet point 1 applies. MOS:JOBTITLES is absurdly complicated due to the futile desire to appease the proponents of excessive capitalization and this definitely needs clarifying. Judging by the proper, real-world style guides, however, titles should always be capitalized when preceding a name and only when preceding a name. All that modifier stuff (and the rest of bullet point 3) is Wikipedia invention, so when the two clash (as they do in this case, apparently) I suggest going with what is supported by actual usage in the press and academia. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style appears to allow for de-capping job titles before a person's name when the title is modified by a country. See page 394 of the 16th edition, which gives the following as an example: "German chancellor Angela Merkel (but Chancellor Merkel)." It also allows de-capping when "former" is used. So I am not sure your statement that titles should always be capitalized before a person's name is correct. It however appears to be the case for AP style.

This book also contains an instance of "former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney." This one uses "former Russian president Boris Yeltsin."

WikiEditor50 ( talk) 22:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna. I feel bad about the GA review of the article Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. You stopped responding. Did I chase you away with excessive demands? Please tell me how you feel about it. You know that I am only a apprentice-reviewer still learning his job. Should we call for a second opinion (WP:GAN/I#2O)? With greetings and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 08:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Johannes Schade. Your review is excellent. You are impressively attentive! You said there was "more to come" so I thought I'd give you time to finish before chipping in, and then I thought you might be too busy. If you'd prefer to work side by side, that is certainly also possible. Surtsicna ( talk) 18:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna. A misunderstanding. We were waiting for each other's next move. Please go ahead and act on the suggestions that are waiting. Greetings, Johannes Schade ( talk) 19:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Surtsicna. This is only a minor thing, but recently I noticed that the articles for the Holy Roman Empresses starting from Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress have had their infoboxes changed from:

|succession= Holy Roman Empress; German Queen;
Queen consort of Hungary and Bohemia;
Archduchess consort of Austria

to

| title = Queen of the Romans
Queen consort of Bohemia
Queen consort of Hungary and Croatia
Archduchess consort of Austria | succession = Holy Roman Empress

Was there a reason that this was deemed an appropriate action? It looks somewhat clunky to me. But if everyone is okay with it, then so am I. Thanks and have a great day. Unlimitedlead ( talk) 12:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's clunky. I think it should be reverted and discussed if the editor feels strongly about it. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 9,564 views (797.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 02:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

Precious anniversary

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna. Do we still want to go on with the GA review of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem or are we both too tired of it? What went wrong? Best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 13:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have proposed moving the page Letters Patent (United Kingdom) to Letters patent (United Kingdom), and have opened a discussion at Talk:Letters Patent (United Kingdom)#Requested move 20 May 2022 where comments in support or opposition may be made. As you have previously commented on the naming of the page, I invite your input.

Mauls ( talk) 11:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna. Please be not cross with me. I have failed the GA review of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. Somehow we could not get on together any more. I have probably been too demanding. I hope you get a better reviewer and the GA distinction for your article. You are almost there. Johannes Schade ( talk) 09:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The article Baldwin IV of Jerusalem you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Baldwin IV of Jerusalem for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade ( talk) 09:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! As you have recently been involved in edits to the form of Prince William's name in the first line of his article, I am informing you that I have begin a talk page discussion on the topic. A.D.Hope ( talk) 18:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Egad, see the RM we missed, which resulted in the renaming of Pope Clement I to Clement of Rome. Now, we've two papal bios out of sync, with all the others. GoodDay ( talk) 20:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not that bad. Dropping the "pope" prefix from the titles may be for the best anyway. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

I saw you reverted my recent edit. Wikipedia is written with the present perspective throughout, therefore referring to Kate as 'The Duchess' is no longer correct. However, I have kept the reference to Duchess to avoid edit warring.

AussieWikiDan ^{( talk)} 15:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

AussieWikiDan, that is not the established practice nor is it in line with the Manual of Style. Please see MOS:CHANGEDNAME. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Surtsicna, All other pages have been changed to Princess, and the Manual of Style you referenced does not state this. It actually states any former names be referenced once in the lead only. AussieWikiDan ^{( talk)} 05:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not quite true. See Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, Wedding dress of Catherine Middleton, etc. MOS:CHANGEDNAME says:

A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy, so material about the time before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani. In some cases, it is helpful to the reader to clarify, e.g., Albino Luciani (later to become Pope John Paul I). The principle of avoiding anachronistic naming is also usually employed in the subject's own biography (including that of John Paul I), especially when the article is no longer a short stub.

See, for example, Elizabeth II, who is not called "the queen" in the sections discussing her early life. Surtsicna ( talk) 07:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edits to the lede of Investiture of the Prince of Wales don't make a great deal of sense, putting prince of Wales in lowercase. Prince of Wales is a title, not a job. It should surely be capitalised - as for that matter it (and Earl of Chester) is elsewhere throughout the article. Sionk ( talk) 20:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sionk, nobody says it's a job. The word "prince" is a common noun though, and common nouns should not be in upper case. That is what our manual of style says and also how it is in academic publications (including ODNB biographies of the princes of Wales, for example). Surtsicna ( talk) 20:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There were princes of Wales and there is also the ceremonial title Prince of Wales. I look forward to seeing what reaction you get when you change it across the rest of Wikipedia. Sionk ( talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Do explain the difference between the princes and the ceremonial Princes to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography editors. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Briannemartindale - Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

i was never notified of this

please speak with me directly if you have an issue with me instead of speaking behind my back it is only polite and respectful especially since you added my name

if there is an issue with ahnentafel s then all should be removed and banned or quit removing people's knowledge and work and they need to be left up to be fair or else it is discrimination where only some people earn an ahnentafel and some people are not good enough to earn one

if you disagree with me please speak to me directly and i will leave wiki for good knowing that people don't like my help and years of knowledge and my degree in library technology

thank you brianne martindale Briannemartindale ( talk) 18:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna, Grandmaster Editor 1st Class, >123,564 edits. I had not realised how experienced you are. I am completely outclassed. You still delete {{ Ahnentafel}}s referring to WP:NOTGENEALOGY, which states "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". Right you are. Here is a list of biographies from my watchlist that have ahnentafels that you would probably like to delete:

1. Cormac na Haoine MacCarthy Reagh
2. Donal of the Pipes, 17th Prince of Carbery
3. Frederick Stewart, 4th Marquess of Londonderry
4. Gerald FitzGerald, 14th Earl of Desmond
5. James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond#
6. James FitzGerald, 10th Earl of Desmond
7. James FitzGerald, 13th Earl of Desmond
8. James FitzGerald, de jure 12th Earl of Desmond
9. James FitzThomas FitzGerald
10. James Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Arran
11. Piers Butler, 8th Earl of Ormond

I have never added an ahnentafel, but I think I have in certain biographies added too much family history. It seems that lists of children are accepted but not lists of siblings. I have added quite a few of those. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 13:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Flattering as always, Johannes Schade. (I am now exactly twice as old as I was when I began editing. Isn't that interesting?) I myself added ahnentafeln all over the place when I was younger. Monkey see, monkey do. It is to be expected. The articles you listed really have no need for them. I will get to decluttering them soon enough, I hope. In general, biographies should mention those relatives whose relevance can be explained in the prose. Surtsicna ( talk) 17:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna, you are very young. I agree with you that the above-listed biographies do not need ahnentafels. I am looking forward to your decluttering, but I believe that there are good reasons for presenting children in lists rather than in prose (e.g. the FA Edward the Elder and many GAs present the subject's children in lists). I believe a list is clearer than prose for this purpose. In this regard, we must not imitate the example of the biographies born on paper, which avoid lists because they lack the space for them. Wikipedia, born on the web, is free of many of the restrictions that limit the DNB, the ODNB, and even the DIB. Childrens' lists should however stay brief and not include sublists for grandchildren (as one sometimess sees). Generally, each child should be presented in a single sentence. I also find that lists are shorter and more elegant than tables, which are however common in biographies of British royals (many of them FAs). I think that many of the lists or tables of brothers and sisters that I have added in the past should be replaced with wikilinks to the biographies of their parents, as done e.g. in Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 20:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you, concerning the removal of ahnentafels. I see them as relics of Wikipedia's past & have recently deleted them from the Lietchensteiner monarch bios. If there's an RFC at some central venue about this topic. I'd be happy to take part. GoodDay ( talk) 18:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, @ Mcferran: disagrees. GoodDay ( talk) 21:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)