Welcome!

Hello, Surtsicna, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banate of Mačva

I requested move in the case of Banate of Mačva article. May I ask you to tell your opinion? See: talk page. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond to you. I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mail

Hello, Surtsicna. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Cindy(talk to me) 15:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Henrietta Clive, Countess of Powis

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Charlotte Percy, Duchess of Northumberland

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


DYK for Mary Howard, Duchess of Norfolk (d. 1773)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Gladys Deacon

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitchy

The source supports the use of the word. Exactly what problem do you have with the fact that Jane has repeatedly labelled the gardening establishment "bitchy". --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:BLP. What you inserted is not covered by the source. The source doesn't say that she "dismisses criticism as uninformed and bitchy". In fact, it doesn't say anything to that effect. Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Constance Lewes

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes

in short. If you wanted to talk to me, the proper place was my talk page. If you want to repy to this, do so here: i now have the page on my watchlist. The cfd page is for discussion with wp editors in general. TheLongTone (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but I did not intend to chat. I am not particularly keen to avoid seeing that article deleted, as I haven't put much effort into creating it, but I wouldn't like it to be deleted without a proper reason. I may be naive, but the woman doesn't seem to be non-notable. Furthermore, she doesn't seem to be notable only due to her marriage. Let's see what others think. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. I csd'd because the article really in my view makes no claim of real notability: theonly things she does are not remarkable: they are just the kind of things peers' wives do. If she was attracting press coverage for these activities she would imo be a great deal more notable. I've had a look at the other articles you've written, and altho I'm not really that sure whether the two later ones are truly notable (don't worry, I've no intention of afd-ing them!) they are at least interesting. This woman seems dull, which is really why I flagged it. You say you haven't given the article much effort: maybe if you did & found something solid she's done other than sling canapes about the article would pass the afd.TheLongTone (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elgin & Elgin

No problem, Surtsicna, a mistake easily made. When I went to add your image to Mary Bruce, Countess of Elgin, I found another version of it already there. Moonraker (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not even sure why I assumed that Charlotte's governess was the subject of the portrait. Once again, thank you for correcting me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Hsiao Li Lindsay, Baroness Lindsay of Birker

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Eleanor Maguire

It's unclear whether you've formally approved this article, though your comments look as though it may be the case. If it is approved, can you please use the appropriate tick to show that the article is ready to go? (If not, then listing what checks or issues remain would be helpful.) Sorry to have to bother you, and thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, problem. I am sorry for causing inconvenience by forgetting to add the tick. Hopefully nobody minds. Thank you for reminding me! Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth I

What does Strong say exactly? I don't have a copy. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither do I, but a quick search suggests that he does not mention Elizabeth's illegitimacy at all.[1] I haven't been able to find what he says about her being crowned by the Bishop of Carlisle. I do like the present solution very much, though. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and about this... I misunderstood you. For some reason, I thought you said her reign was considered illegitimate and decided to go with it though I didn't understand how or why. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Lady Mary Grosvenor

Hello! Your submission of Lady Mary Grosvenor 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! Allen3 talk 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the issues Allen raised are fixed, but I can't find a source for her list of racing cars. If you want to fix it, let me know, and I'll put it back on hold, but judging from your comments, you were ready to write off the whole thing. Choess (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! Here's a source for the list of cars: Motorsport People. I've added it to the article. There might be more, I haven't looked very closely. Yes, I was ready to give up and it seems that you understand why. Thanks for your help and support! Surtsicna (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Line of succession to the British throne

Template instead of outright numbers.[[2]] Agreed, a template for auto-renumbering is needed-- like reflist? If I knew how, would do (un vrai naif). Can you advise where to find or how to create a template for this? If you answer here or on the article Talkpage I will see by watchlist. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I'm completely clueless. It would be a great improvement, though. I tried asking for help here. Hopefully you'll have more luck (and knowledge) :) Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going there and will attempt to do that. Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please let me know if I can help. I'd really like to see such template used in the list(s). Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No luck with this so far, hence evasive proposal for the Line of succession now on that Talk page. But would prefer retaining the serial numbers there if a template device for general use emerges. Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

need outside opinions in Crown of Castile

I have asked for outside opinions in Crown of Castile, the question is Did the the Crown of Castile end in 1812 or in 1715? I am notifying you because you have made non-trivial edits to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dutch royalty

The title Prince of Orange may be irrelevant in your opinion, in the Netherlands it is certainly relevant. So stop vandalizing these pages. Or are you planning to chop up all references to Prince of Wales? Same status, so irrelevant to you too? The Banner talk 20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not removing succession boxes related to the title Prince of Orange. It is an actual, hereditary title and of course succession boxes for those should remain. However, succession boxes for something like "Heir to the Dutch throne" serve no purpose. They can only mislead the reader, as I have explained on the talk page of a relevant article. Besides, you're reverting even corrections of grammar and orthography without any explanation whatsoever, which is really disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In your POV, maybe. The Banner talk 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not an argument. You haven't responded to any of my arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal Danish trivia

Though I completely agree with your recent revert, the edit summary was not completely accurate. Frederick VIII of Denmark was in fact born Christian Frederik Vilhelm Carl. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I did say: "as far as I know" :) Thanks for sharing that! Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ridiculous, nonsensical move on Princess Sophie von Hohenberg

Do you also plan on moving Manfred von Richthofen to Manfred of Richthofen? Along with all the other similarly and properly named articles? Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take it that you would Maximilian, Duke of Hohenberg to Maximilian, Duke von Hohenberg and Princess Stéphanie of Monaco to Princess Stéphanie de Monaco, or wouldn't you? Why or why not? It was ridiculous and nonsensical to call her Princess Sophie von Hohenberg; Sophie von Hohenberg and Sophie Prinzessin von Hohenberg would both make sense, but Princess Sophie von Hohenberg simply doesn't. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you would be well served by a review of WP:COMMONNAME. Dlabtot (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your concern, but I had already checked it. If you oppose the move, request one at the talk page. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeta Kotromanic

No, that wasn't me...I don't have time for that now, since I am very busy...one day maybe, and I will use the talk page as always. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lady Cosima Windsor

I do not think there is any consensus to redirect this article. Please sned it back to WP:AFD if you really think that the past consensus has changed. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have answered you on the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duchess of Richmond's ball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HSH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Describing James VI and I

You'll see from the last couple of edits on the above article that I've tweaked the box content for James. It occurs to me, however, that describing him as King of Great Britain might be an improvement, unless that looks odd beside the given dates? Kim Traynor (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid it does look odd beside the given dates, as his great-granddaughter Anne was the first monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain. James was simply king of Scotland and king of England, though he did fantasy about a kingdom of Great Britain. Surtsicna (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello fellow night owl. I thought James came up with the name, but I see from your comment that Anne was the first to use it as an official title. That would mean that the info in the box, as it now stands, is accurate. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is correct. Frankly, I've got no idea what I'm doing up this late. I really should be going to sleep. Cheers from UTC+02:00 zone! Surtsicna (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to reply, but here's something to ponder (though I hope it doesn't keep you awake). Most people 'in the know' consulting that family tree will notice Mary of Guise is nowhere to be seen. She may be impossible to fit in, but she is a key figure who seems conspicuous by her absence. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only added people who are relevant enough to be mentioned in the article. Mary of Guise is notable, of course, but much more to Mary I than to James VI. Unnecessarily adding people who are not mentioned in the article would create lots of problems and the tree would lose its purpose. Surtsicna (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point. Kim Traynor (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charlotte Williams-Wynn (diarist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Biebrich and Sir William Williams, 2nd Baronet
Marjorie Proops (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Smithfield

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley

Hmm. I've been told by other editors that articles ought to be in sections, and that detailed dates of birth and death should not be included in the lead! And you seem to have garbled her date of birth - is there a reason for repeating the year? Given that there are umpteen USA places called Florence and also one in her birth province of Nova Scotia, I think that although the Tuscan city is the primary usage it makes sense to disambiguate it in the text. I'm not sure that anachronisms matter when it's a case of identifying placenames but I'll go for Tuscany and remove the duplicated year.

I don't know how long it'll be before some bright spark tags it as "needing sections"! PamD 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, have just see WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and full dates in lead sentence seems to be right - I wonder where I saw otherwise?! PamD 17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our replies crossed.
I'm quite happy not to have sections, but interestingly Help:Section is quite dogmatic: "A page can and should be divided into sections, ...", and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_organization says "An article should begin with an introductory lead section, which does not contain section headings (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). The remainder is divided into sections, each with a section heading ...", which gives fuel to the trigger-happy taggers wanting to add ((Sections)) while they play around at Page Curation to boost their edit count. Perhaps either or both of those resources needs a comment that sections may be inappropriate for a short stub until it grows! I think I added them this time because I found a bunch of family-type info and hadn't the time or energy to put together much else but felt a section would help.
And this all started off because I spotted an edit to my old school's article on my watchlist, looked at the article, noticed they'd invented a house system, wondered who the four houses were named for, then (a) clarified that one was in WP under her married name; (b) sorted out a muddle of links for a tennis player listed under both maiden and married names; (c) identified this lady, found her in ODNB, created her article and assorted links, and (d) have emailed the school office to ask who Frances West was (quite possibly someone vastly better known by her married or professional name, but FW when at school) - after correcting the misspelling as "Francis" in the WP infobox. And that's why I haven't done any of the jobs I ought to have been doing today - another day spent WikiGnoming. Fun, isn't it! PamD 18:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ancestry charts

Hi dear Surtsicna! I think you can remember our discussion about the ancestry charts of the Japanese Imperial Family. About the ancestry of some of them you said: it is irrelevant. None of their ancestors are notable. Would a reader really care to know the name of their mother's father's mother?. I agreed with you but now I'm here about the ancestry chart of someone else: Princess Claire of Belgium. As you can see she was neither a royal person by birth nor from a notable family. Also it is unsourced. Now I think that we have to remove that section or I can rewrite the ancestry of Crown Princess Masako or Princess Akishino. What do you think? Keivan.fTalk 20:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! You are right, of course, there is no need for the ancestry chart there. Thanks for pointing that out! Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Katharine Russell, Viscountess Amberley

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Maude Stanley

There is a query regarding this DYK nomination; please discuss at Template:Did you know nominations/Maude Stanley. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Line of succession to the British throne (2)

This is about your recent edits: 1_Elimination of unborn, of course. That has previously been mentioned on Talk. 2_But are you not unduly censorious in peremptorily removing the explanation about what the line of succession is about and what not? It may be very obvious to some, but there has evidently been and is likely to be a lack of clarity among others, editors or plain readers, and a tendency in press and broadcasting to misinform. 3_HRH is used in the list, and, in view of the initial muddle about this (from Clarence House?) there is evidently need for explanation here.

In my view these explanations should be in the article, and it is weaker without them (subject to correction af any errors). Have you a better way of mentioning them, perhaps by footnotes with links?

4_Agreed that mention of Edward's abdication could be omitted. 5_Your comment on removing another editor's "Individuals are placed and numbered in the list below according to information available to this page's editors" looks OTT to me. 6_Have you thought of removing the section on "Proposed rule changes". This is surely more out of place here than anything else. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Isn't it clear what the line of succession is? If not immediately, doesn't the lead sentence explain it? I haven't seen anyone confuse the line of succession with the order of precedence. If that does happen, wouldn't a simple note such as "The line of succession should not be confused with the order of precedence" be enough? It seems a bit too much to go all the way to the Queen's long-deceased aunt to illustrate something so clear and simple.
As for the style, how about a link to Royal Highness#United Kingdom? It would be a simple, painless solution that wouldn't suggest any correlation between the style and the succession rights. Anyway, what muddle are we talking about? I suppose someone could mistakenly add "HRH" next to the names of the Princess Royal's descendants or something like that, but we surely can't explain why everything is the way it is in the text of that article, i.e. we don't have to explain things such as the style, why the Q in "Queen" is capitalised, etc. Even if we did, some would still ignore that.
I'm not sure what you mean by OTT; it led me to WikiProject Ottawa, and I doubt that's what you were suggesting :)
I haven't considered removing that section, though I do agree that a brief mention of the proposal in the lead section should be enough. I'm afraid that too much text in the article obscures the list itself. The article is, after all, about the actual line, not about succession to the British throne or the history of the British line of succession. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Broadly agree your last point and much of the rest. Leaving it for a while, but may be will revise the article later, unless you have done as above by then. Qexigator (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll make the changes immediately. Cheers! Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks good to me. It will be better still when the bill has been passed and we can drop the "Proposed" section. Qexigator (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its's good to see the Proposals section has gone, but has your recent edit for the lead taken away a needed "end" in heads of government of all the 16 Commonwealth realms agreed to take steps to adopt absolute primogeniture and the ban on the monarch's marriage to Roman Catholics? Qexigator (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course! Thanks for pointing that out. Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Somerset, 11th Duke of Beaufort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Maude Stanley

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legacy

Hi! What do you think about this? You removed this section from the article, but I think this section is needed so I added that template to it. Is that section really needed in the article to be rewritten or not? As the other dead members of the royal family have this section in their articles so I think it's needed. What do you think? Keivan.fTalk 12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I do think a legacy section is needed but not like one I removed. The one I removed contained only information already present in various other sections and appeared to be a classic case of WP:TRIVIA. However, since the 'legacy' information is already in the article (in section titled Tribute, funeral, and burial), I'm not sure if the template is the right way to do it. At first, it seemed like a good idea, but now it looks like we're saying that the article doesn't have information about her legacy. Frankly, I don't know. Surtsicna (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Rosalind Howard, Countess of Carlisle

Orlady (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley

Orlady (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations - you've done such a lot to the little stub I created on 5th December, she clearly caught your interest! PamD 13:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am grateful for your bringing her to my attention. Reading about the Baroness Stanley of Alderley also led me to create articles about her daughters, Maude Stanley and Viscountess Amberley, and expand the article about the Countess of Carlisle. They all managed to catch my interest! Surtsicna (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also considered creating an article about Lady Stanley's least favourite child, Alice Pitt Rivers,[3] but perhaps someone else will be more interested in her. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hullo!

Hullo and merry merry etc. I've greatly admired the articles you've created recently on early (proto?) feminists. I recently created an article on Aubrey House, which has strong early feminist connections, do check it out and let me know what you think. There are some great members of Clementia Taylor's circle that could be written about. The OXNDB is such a goldmine! Thank you for your great work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Thank you for noticing my contributions. I'll see if I can add anything to the article on Aubrey House, but you seem to have done quite a lot already. It's a pity you haven't nominated it at WP:Did you know, though. Surtsicna (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ways to improve Lady Mary Lygon

Hi, I'm Ana Bykova. Surtsicna, thanks for creating Lady Mary Lygon!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for making a wiki page, it looks great. Please refer to the tags added to find out how you could improve it. Best wishes,

Anastasia Bykova (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Uploading an image

Hi Surtsicna! Can you upload this image from Thai Wikipedia to English Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons? I always have problem with uploading images and this image is really needed and we can use it here because the image that is already using in that article is very old. Can you do it, please? Keivan.fTalk 08:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! I'm glad I could help. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! Keivan.fTalk 18:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Surtsicna! Can you upload these images to Wikimedia commons?

I think they don't have any problems. You can do it every time that you are not busy. Keivan.fTalk 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand why you can't upload them yourself. Perhaps I can help with that. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sorry about that. I don't know why but I always have problem with uploading images. However, you can upload them another time. Keivan.fTalk 18:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm telling you to upload them it's because of that I can't upload them in Wikimedia. I can upload them in English, Persian or many other Wikipedias but it is very hard to upload them many times in each Wikipedia. Because of that I asked for help from you and I think it should be easy for you to upload them in Wikimedia so the other Wikipedas can use it too. I'm not in hurry so please do it every time that you want.Keivan.fTalk 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I cannot upload them without knowing the license. I don't speak Thai, unfortunately. Surtsicna (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK! Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 15:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Lady Henry Somerset

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon

Hello! Your submission of Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon 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! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spices

Hi Surtsicna, I wonder if you can help me. I thought (as a man) if your spouse got a title you didn't get anything. Though, if you are a woman and your husband gets a title, then out of courtesy to him his wife is known as Lady Something or the Duchess of Somewhere but not in her own right is it. Do you see what I mean? I know you disagree and I'd like to know where I am going wrong. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I don't disagree, actually. Everything you said is true, but could you please tell me what exactly are we discussing? I don't recall taking part in any such discussion recently. Surtsicna (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I missed your response. Was writing to you because I just read another instance where you awarded a spouse a title because the other half was given one. Viscountess Simon (above) is a classic case. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, you've gone quiet. To expand on it a little I quote "(Dear God, being the first husband of a woman who later married a king does not make anyone royal. Otherwise, Andrew Parker-Bowles and Ernest Simpson would be royal.)" well, marrying the 6th Baroness does not make the spouse the 6th Baron does it? I ahve fixed it but you might like to discuss that too. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I truly don't understand what you're referring to. Kathleen Simon was Viscountess Simon because her husband was Viscount Simon. Edward Grey was summoned to parliament in the right of his wife as Baron Ferrers of Groby and thus became jure uxoris 6th Baron Baron Ferrers of Groby. He did not become baron by marrying her but by being summoned to parliament in her right. Is this what you meant? Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I'm on overload for the next 24 hours but in the case of Edward Grey he was summoned to parliament as BF of G *in right of his wife* (as you acknowledge) he was never baron himself. He was never 6th Baron. She was 6th Baroness but unable to attend parliament, he attended in her place. If they divorced without children that title would be used in the same way by her next husband, Grey would lose it. Do you see? More tomorrow, regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case you might want to challenge the title of the article about Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, though I should warn you that no-one challenges the fact that he was the 16th Earl of Warwick. The same is true for his father, Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury. Long story short, a woman married to a peer is not in the same situation as a man summoned to parliament in right of his peeress wife. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it correct by current rules or is it just a habit that people have got into? No I'll let the kingmaker's article rest, I think you are much more challenging. You have picked on an interesting example. ODNB describes him that way too. Douglas Richardson studiously avoids giving him any number at all. I think it all depends on the terms on which he was summoned to parliament. ODNB speaks of issue of letters patent which is the King creating a new title I'd have thought, no little summons to parliament (but that leaves us the question of the number —he'd have wanted all the precedence he could possibly have). You could look in the HoP archives and see what they have which might explain all. I do notice that through his mother Warwick descended from William Beauchamp (d. 1298) 9th E of W. I wonder if that were taken into account. Any way I don't think Richard Neville's case is quite so straightforward as the Groby one and Neville was enormously more powerful than Grey. You are careful not to disagree with me directly and me likewise if you read back above. Anyway keep at it because together we might find something. Cheers Eddaido (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor at DYK

I've attempted to review this (Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor). I've ok'd it though I'm a little worried that, resting almost entirely on the ODNB, it verges perilously close to close paraphrasing, not particularly in the words so much as in the structure/order. It's really very difficult to avoid, I find, when using a single source. Can you access another source just to get another view of the subject? Beatrice Webb's diaries might be useful, but sadly I only have the earlier volumes. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gabrielle Howard

Thanks for suggesting I look at this. I fear my recollections of photosynthesis are so far in the past that I'm not sure I'm a good reviewer for it, so I'm commenting here informally instead. I'd never heard of the Blackman reaction, but a quick Google search (eg [4]) suggests that what Matthaei & Blackman stumbled over with the temperature experiments is actually now known as the "dark reactions" or "Calvin cycle". It was termed the "Blackman reaction" in 1924, but certainly isn't ever called that now. (It's the reaction, not the experiment, which was named for Blackman.) Carbon fixation is only part of this cycle, and I don't have enough understanding in this area to know whether "finding that carbon fixation is based on biochemical reactions which depend on temperature" is a reasonable description of this work, given that the details of the cycle weren't discovered until decades later.

Without access to the print sources used for the article, I can't readily determine whether the present hook (with the above error corrected) is fair, as the research cited in the book I link includes a paper by Blackman alone, and not the paper by Matthaei alone that you mention. But a straight hook just saying her experiments underpinned the discovery of the dark reactions of photosynthesis would seem to be interesting. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I see. I'll try Googling around myself in the hopes of clarifying some things. I am very grateful for your effort! Surtsicna (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Louise Howard

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Lord William Hamilton at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see 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) 09:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Gabrielle Howard

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Lord William Hamilton

Hello! Your submission of Lord William Hamilton 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! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kingdom of Iceland

Hi. I posted a question to the relevant talk page (Kingdom of Iceland) about kings just over a week ago - that is, whether they're always called by their English name on the English wikipedia, and though I didn't get an answer, I'm sure it's yes (although, that doesn't seem to be the case with the average foreigner, footballers Petr Cech and Nemanja Vidic being examples of that). However, seeing as the king was called Kristján instead of the Danish name Christian in Iceland, that should merit an inclusion somewhere (as he was not only the King of Denmark, but also the King of Iceland). Should that place be the article on the king itself, or maybe somewhere in the article about the Kingdom? finval (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I believe the article about the king would be a good place to mention it. I'll include it right away! Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor

The DYK project (nominate) 09:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

A few days ago you approved Template:Did you know nominations/R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal - I thought you might be interested to know that the article got nearly 50,000 views over the last 3 days, making it the fifth most successful non-lead DYK hook of all time. Not a bad result. :-) Prioryman (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a bad result? What a gross underestimation, Prioryman! I am glad that I am far from alone in liking the hook and the article. Congratulations and thank you for informing me. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. :-) Turns out the reason is that it got Reddited: [5]. Prioryman (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who does one have to pray to to have their hook Reddited? :D Now, in all fairness, it was a great hook. Scientology does not engage in religious worship? I bet Tom Cruise vomitted up that placenta last Tuesday ;) Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catherine Petre, Baroness Petre

Hi again, I have the nastiest feeling this woman was never known as Baroness Petre or Baroness Stourton and your (European-style ideas?) statements should be changed. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that idea really is nasty. Lady Petre was never Baroness Petre? I do hope that is not what you are suggesting. European-style Surtsicna out. Surtsicna (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I do, can you tell me why you believe she should be known to your Wikipedia readers (a select and fortunate group) as Baroness Petre? Eddaido (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because she was Baroness Petre. I suggest that you read something about her and Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Location, if you can manage that. Now, I do not appreciate your hostility and I would like you to cease posting on my talk page. If there are any other questions I can answer for you, ask them on article talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Lord William Hamilton

Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for William Vane, 2nd Viscount Vane

KTC (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Árpád dynasty family tree

While reading the Árpád dynasty article, I noticed Ladislaus IV of Hungary is missing from the dynasty's family tree. He was the son of Stephen V of Hungary and reigned between 1272 and 1290, until his assassination. Sorry, I could not fill the gap, because that template is too complicated for me. Could you fix it? :) --Norden1990 (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! --Norden1990 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon

KTC (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the reviews and your overall work at DYK! LlamaAl (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry 'bout that...

Apologies for leaping before looking. 'Twas a real beetle ... learn something new quite a lot around here. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, I am quite sure that the only purpose of that little creature's name is to raise people's eyebrows :) Surtsicna (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for updating the image of Abdullah II of Jordan! I added a caption. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! As you can see above, I've a plate of very stale cookies here and the new one is much appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Tamoya ohboya

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Russell, Viscount Amberley

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gimnazija Mostar

Dear Surtsicna, I checked the first link you use in the article Gimnazija Mostar, but it looks like it doesn't mention this school, or the City of Mostar at all: http://books.google.ba/books?hl=hr&id=bzXzWgVajnQC&q=Mostar#v=onepage&q=Mostar&f=false If I am wrong please let me know on what page you found the information, otherwise I think it should be removed.

PS. Great work on the article, I was in process of writing one with the same title when you published yours.

--Prof saxx (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Prof saxx! Thank you for your kind comment. Google Books sometimes acts very odd; for example, while expanding the article on Mary of Hungary, I was searching for the word "Mary" in a biography titled "Mary of Hungary: second regent of the Netherlands". According to the search results, no Mary was ever mentioned in the book. When I searched for "Queen Mary", however, I got plenty of results. That obviously makes no sense. Sometimes the system tries to cheat on you, but it is very easy to cheat on the system itself (using tricks to get to the information that is supposed to be hidden from view).
Anyway, the encyclopedia mentions the Mostar Gymnasium on page 34: "...as part of a general strategy to create a 'genuinely Bosnian' national identity that would be at the same time detached from the Ottoman past and repellent to the aspirations of pan-Slavism, a number of representative buildings - such as the Mostar Gymnasium or the Sarajevo Library - were built in a peculiar orientalized style. Sometimes dubbed 'pseudo-Moorish,' these buildings would combine a pastiche of Muslim Spanish, North African, and Mamluk elements to create an 'Islamic architecture" of European fantasy.'" Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Tyrannasorus rex

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love it ... I'd completely forgotten about this article until this came up in my watchlist. Did we even have DYK 4 years ago? If so I knew basically nothing about it. —Soap— 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I am very, very sorry that I forgot to inform you about this. I assumed that my edits would appear on your watchlist. Your opinion would have been much appreciated at Template:Did you know nominations/Tyrannasorus rex. Anyway, I am glad the hook has your approval now. It seems that DYK was created in 2004, but I too only started contributing to it in the autumn of 2012 (after 4 years of editing). Luckily for this bug, the article about it was only a few sentences long when I came across it, enabling me to expand it sufficiently. None of the articles I created before learning about DYK will ever be eligible for DYK because they are now too long to be expanded fivefold. Ah, well. Surtsicna (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were on my watchlist, I just have been too busy to pay attention to most of my watched articles lately so I didn't click to see what the edits were. I'm not upset about not being there for the nomination though because I wouldn't have had anything real to add other than to endorse the hook that we went with as opposed to the alternate, and to encourage not waiting for April Fools'. I've heard of Carmenelectra shechisme too ... I remember some time ago I found a website, http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/, full of all names of creatures with funny names created "when zoologists get bored". That's where I first read about Tyrannasorus rex as well as many others, and I created the article after finding that no one else had. —Soap— 04:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is where I found out about T. rex too! You'll be happy to hear that our T. rex got 15,612 views yesterday, which more than enough for it to be listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics. I am certain that the hook would have attracted much more attention had it not been last on the list, since only the last hook on the list cannot be seen without scrolling down on the Main Page. Oh, well, my hooks always seem to end up at the bottom anyway. I would truly appreciate if you could review Template:Did you know nominations/Neal Evenhuis. I think you would be interested in him. Besides, it would help ease my mind about failing to seek your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Tyrannasorus rex :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK: Jean Giambrone

Thanks so much for reviewing it as she has now made the list (7:00 pm)! — Wyliepedia 08:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on your achievement! I hope to see more hooks from you :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Carmenelectra

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the way the hook was altered. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on making the all time list. StAnselm (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion to include the image; it certainly helped attract attention. If only we could have avoided all that whining about it! Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carmenelectra

You have reverted six times on this article today. I don't see any reason why this should not result in a block for 3RR violation - you are an experienced contributor and this is a content dispute, not reversion of vandalism as you claim. I suggest strongly that you self-revert your last edit. I have also informed the other editor, who has "only" reverted four times. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

DYK for Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

regarding Fredrick II edit

Heya Surtsicna, sorry about that, I was just going off the template:infobox royalty where it said "The Houses, Dynasties, or Families to which the subject belonged/s (by birth, marriage or otherwise)..." and being that it's plural and his mother was from the Hauteville family thats why I added that. Should the template verbage be corrected then? Or am I just interpreting that wrong? Just trying to explain why I did what I did. Thanks, —  dain- talk   20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! A person is very rarely considerd a member of two seperate royal houses, and Frederick is no exception. The instructions may indeed be misleadingly worded. Perhaps you should mention that at the template talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Touche! That sounds like a good idea, would you mind giving your two cents on it over there as well? Cheers, —  dain- talk   21:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mostar

Hi, Surtsicna. I'm afraid my only connexion with Mostar is that I have visited it a few times since the destruction of the Stari Most. The picture is there on my page because I found crossing the new bridge quite touching and I like the symbolism of the rebuilding. I have seen similar bridges elsewhere which are simply antiquities. Moonraker (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anne St. Leger

Just wanted to let you know — someone else approved this hook already, and I'm fast-forwarding it per your request. It should appear on the Main Page at 8AM tomorrow, UK time. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for expediting the process and for taking part in the Thomas Hogg discussion. The hook was approved by Moonraker, who was also anxious for it to be promoted as soon as possible. You have picked the best time for it to be featured. Thanks again. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. I almost put it in the queue that will be going up next, but then I realised that it wouldn't be that helpful for it to feature from midnight until 8AM. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right, of course. Besides, I am an hour ahead of the UK, so I would not have been able to proudly stare at it at the main page :) The position of the hook is also excellent, as it is as close to the portrait of Richard as possible. You have done a wonderful job! Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How long do you sleep? Either you should still be up at 11PM or awake by 7AM :-) I didn't think of the placement near WP:ITN; it was simply that the hook in the second spot was conveniently removable, and the bolded links in the first and third hooks were far to the left of where this one's is, so this one really stands out better. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant that I would not have been able to watch it at the main page had it been featured from midnight until 8 AM. Ah, whatever, I am already not functioning properly :D I always wondered what is taken into consideration while preparing the queue. Either way, the hook is going to be a nice addition to the main page. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Anne St. Leger

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you pay attention to hit count, be sure to count two pages — both Anne St. Leger and Anne St Leger. As far as Gimnazija Mostar, I'm not clear what you now want; did your second message mean "Never mind, don't do anything", or do you still have something in mind for me to do? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, since more than one in eight nominations are accompanied by pictures, we can't include all of the nominated images (I suppose you're probably well aware of this), and I don't want to get involved in discussions with other queue-fillers about which one is more suitable than others. I've had The Anne St Leger issue was different, since it was going to be featured at some point, and moving it up in time was the only "modification" that needed to be done. I've made lots of nominations-with-images that appeared without the images. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, no objection; I wasn't thinking anything was wrong with what you were doing or saying. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Gimnazija Mostar

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Frances Vane, Viscountess Vane

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frederik or Frederick (for Danish monarchs)

Thanks for your interesting suggestion on the spelling in connection with Frederik V on Horseback. Nowadays there seems to be a tendency in Denmark to use the Danish spelling "Frederik" in English rather than the anglicized "Frederick". In the English language version of the official royal website here, the statue is referred to as "Equestrian Statue of Frederik V on Amalienborg Palace Square". Similarly, the Queen of Denmark always refers to herself as "Margrethe" (rather than Margaret) and to the crown prince as "Frederik". I therefore think we should keep the title of the statue article as it is although I have also made a redirect from Frederick V on Horseback.--Ipigott (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I understand that the Danish tend to use the Danish spelling when writing in English, but I am not sure how relevant that is. Surely a wider English language usage is more relevant, don't you think? I am also not sure that the monarchy website is an authority on the issue; "Frederick V on Horseback" is as common as (if not more common than) "Frederik V on Horseback". I suggested the move because someone will surely be inclined to perform it once the hook is on the main page, and moving an article while it is featured on DYK makes tracking views a little bit more difficult. Besides, I am not sure why the article about the statue should not be consistent with the article about the king; the arguments are the same. Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what authority you are using but I would point out that a Google search on "Frederik V on Horseback" gives 9,370 hits while "Frederick V on Horseback" gives 7 hits. But that may indeed be a result of the WP articles. I see however that searches on "Equestrian statue of Frederi(c)k V" provides more balanced results with only about 30% more in favour of the Danish spelling. I see too that the BBC constantly used Frederik in connection with the crown prince. See here. Ditto the [New York Times]. I think this must reflect wider English usage today although I agree that the history books have preferred Frederick over the centuries. --Ipigott (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how the Crown Prince fits into all of this, but you are right about the web results: even without Wikipedia-related results, 84 use "Frederik" and 5 use "Frederick". I was referring to Google Book Search results, of which 12 use "Frederik" and another 12 use "Frederick". Once again, the move would avoid a possible inconvenience and certain inconsistency, but it is by no means obligatory. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Maria Leopoldine of Austria

Hi Surtsicna, I just reviewed your DYK nomination for Maria Leopoldine of Austria, which I'm afraid I declined. Unless I'm missing something, it's nowhere near 5x expanded in the last five days. Let me know if I've got it wrong or if you add more content and want me to take another look. --Canley (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lady Wilson of Rievaulx and Lady Baltimore

Hello. Is this the right place to contact you? As you have much experience in articles to do with titled persons, and as I much appreciated the logic behind your putting forward the proper title for the page on Baroness Stanley of Alderley, I thought, in case you have not seen already, to bring to your attention that the articles on Lady Wilson and Lady Baltimore are under the titles "Mary Wilson, Lady Wilson of Rievaulx" and "Charlotte Lee, Lady Baltimore". Would they not be better under the titles "Mary Wilson, Baroness Wilson of Rievaulx" and "Charlotte Lee, Baroness Baltimore", in line with their husbands' articles not to mention with those of the many other wives of barons, both life and hereditary? There was a discussion for a requested move on Lady Wilson's page with the rather confused arguments in favour of "Mary Wilson, Lady Wilson of Rievaulx" that nonetheless prevailed. I have begun a new discussion without yet requesting a move and should be very grateful indeed if you might make known in that discussion your interpretation of the question of titling the artices of wives of barons. 129.67.121.166 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

==DYK nomination of Blanche of France (nun)==

Hello! Your submission of Blanche of France (nun) 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! Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

==DYK nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gil de Vidaure==

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gil de Vidaure 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! Rosiestep (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Eleanor Manners, Countess of Rutland

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Maria Leopoldine of Austria

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know about Wikidata interwikis -- for whatever reason, I got extremely confused about everything :D For that reason, I give you this Invisible Barnstar.

The Invisible Barnstar
Thanks for all that you've done for the project. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 01:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, you really didn't have to! It was bound to look suspicious. An anonymous user removing massive amount of material - which experienced user wouldn't revert that? I am yet to learn how this new system works, but hopefully it will at least spare us the annoying bot changes on our watchlist. Anyway, thanks for the barnstar. See-through is my favourite colour! Surtsicna (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Blanche of Burgundy

Carabinieri (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Blanche of France (nun)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mary Fox

I looked at Lady Mary Fox after you edited Anthony Roll. Is it really justified to a have a separate article on her if the only notable thing about her is that she sold part of the Roll to the British Library?

Peter Isotalo 12:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! That is a genuine concern, but I doubt that is the only notable thing about her. Another notable thing would be that she was a king's daughter. I am currently working on an article about another Mary Fox (which is one of the reasons why I insisted on using Lady Mary Fox in the article about Anthony Roll) and so I stumbled upon the article about William IV's daughter. I will do my best to expand the article about Lady Mary as soon as I am done with the one about her namesake. Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being the illegitimate child of a later king is not automatically mean notability. There's been thousands and thousands of those throughout history, and we´have no need to write articles on literally all of them. If her notability does not actually extent beyond owning and selling part of the Anthony Roll, there's no more point to having an article on her than there is to have a separate article on Anthony Anthony.
Peter Isotalo 14:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course. I agree with you completely. That is why I will see if there is a sufficient coverage by sources and attempt to expand the article. If I find that there is nothing to be said about her, I will redirect the article. You are welcome to do the same, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Well, all is settled then.
Peter Isotalo 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Beatrice of Falkenburg

Gatoclass 15:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Teresa Gil de Vidaure

Nyttend (talk 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Line of succession to the Liechtensteiner throne

 — Nyttend (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Bertha of Holland

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar

The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
Your beautiful and informative articles are making a wonderful contribution to the encyclopaedia. They are a real treat. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for such a nice feedback! I hope I won't disappoint anyone in the future :D Surtsicna (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Whatever the Western world calls or knows him, using just his name is not respectful, I think.Egeymi (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's task to respect anyone. If it were, we would refer to him as "His Majesty", to Kim Jong-il as "Dearest Supreme Leader" and to Barbara Bush as "Mrs. Bush". Of course, we do no such things. It is perfectly acceptable to use the man's name to refer to him. See WP:MoS (biographies). Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I known the guidelines you referred to. It does not have reference to the use of names in infoboxes, stating "use just first names" or "use the name as known in the Western world." I also know that Wikipedia has any task to respect people. But it does not reinforce the use of informal language and informal addressee forms, either.Egeymi (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a very well-known guideline called WP:Use English. Since this Wikipedia is in English and not in Arabic, it is not surprising that the preferred name is the one that is most commonly used in English speaking world. There is also Template:Infobox royalty/doc, which is why the infobox in the article about Charles, Prince of Wales, does not name him Charles Philip Arthur George. There is nothing informal about referring to King Faisal as Faisal; Queen Elizabeth II is routinely called Elizabeth throughout the article about her and I am not aware of anyone ever objecting to that. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is even worse because it is redundant to the very next parameter which describes him as "King of Saudi Arabia". Look at the above mentioned infoboxes and at the one in the article about Beatrix of the Netherlands. It does not call her "Beatrix of the Netherlands" or "Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard", but simply "Beatrix", which is perfectly reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Neal Evenhuis

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Prince Eugen, Duke of Närke

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Archduke Alexander Leopold of Austria

Carabinieri (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Marie Fox

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marie Fox

Please read the article talk page and do not keep saying that her father being unknown amounts to her biological parentage being unknown. It amounts to her father being unknown. Thanks. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was not the Pearl Countess of Richmond?

A sentence below from Eleanor of Brittany and her Treatment by King John and Henry III by Gwen Seabourne could be Googled:"In 1208, John allowed her to use the titles of Brittany and Richmond." While [6] also lists Eleanor as c. Richmond as well as the date she acceded (27 May 1208, just the year that Arthur was believed to have died).——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been doing a lot of work on Earl of Richmond and Duchy of Brittany from December 2012 through today. The use of titles in the context of Brittany in the case of Eleanor raises several issues. Please visit her article page and that of Arthur, her brother, as well as Alix of Thouars, her half sister and view the current Succession Boxes for a glimpse at the issues. In Brittany Eleanor's case raises the issue of rightful heir, using either the Salic, and strict, tradition of France or the alternatives mechanism that sometimes emerged in Brittany. That said her legal rights and ability to reign were moot because of her imprisonment by both John followed by his successor. It is fair to consider her a titular Duchess of Brittany and a titular Countess of Richmond. John would go on to offer the Earldom of Richmond to Pierre Mauclerc of Brittany, so his permitting Eleanor to use the titles, was a courtesy at best. The king of France also held sway on these issues, and would have treated Eleanor's use of the title as that, a courtesy at best. Such a sad history, but in the case of France there is no doubt that the House of Dreux becomes Dukes of Brittany even if the Earldom of Richmond becomes more complicated. That is a synopsis of a complicated story. In one form of the article on Earl of Richmond I had clearly added Eleanor to the list with a suitable statement on the contingency and limitations of any title she used or that an overlord such as John asserted was her right to use. If that has been taken out by someone you may consider looking at the History record to see what was taken out, how it was displayed at the time and what to do know. Good luck ! Breizhtalk (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Frederic, Count of Luna

Carabinieri (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Ernest Gibbins

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Keep up the good work on here! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I hope I will. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Trial of Thomas Hogg

Carabinieri (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say congratulations on the DYK today; I found it absolutely fascinating, the hook was very funny and the article is written extremely well. Thanks for cheering me up :) Staceydolxx (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. It truly means much to me, especially since two of my recent hooks have been criticised for unclarity after appearing on the main page. I hope you and me were not the only readers who found it fascinating! Surtsicna (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Robert Hathaway

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benedict XVI

Howdy. It's pointless to have Vacant in the succession box, during the current sede vacante, as there's a vacancy before & after every pope's reign. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I've thought of that, but it doesn't make sense to say that he was succeeded by "To be determined" either, does it? Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does, when to be determined means he's going to have a successor, eventually. Anyways, your compromise is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Papal conclave, 2013

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for John Michael Beaumont

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Lady Mary Fox

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Frederick Collings

Harrias talk 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haseki Sultan

I saw that you moved Haseki to Haseki sultan, but I think the "s" of sultan should be capitalized, like Valide Sultan. I also checked Turkish Wikipedia about this. I tried to correct it, but I couldn't. So please correct it yourself. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 21:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't it possible that the "s" in Valide Sultan should not be capitalized? It is not a proper noun. Compare it with Queen consort, Queen regnant, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know Turkish very well, but according to Turkish Wikipedia the "s" should be capitalized. I think it's different from European titles and also the other Eastern titles like Queen consort, Queen mother, etc. And also if Turkish people write those royal titles like that, we should also write those titles like them. Keivan.fTalk 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does not make sense. This Wikipedia is in English and it is natural to adhere to English language grammar and orthography. We have Stari Most instead of the native Stari most because in English, proper nouns tend to be capitalized and common nouns (as in haseki sultan) tend to be uncapitalized. Should it be Ayasofya instead of Hagia Sophia? Surtsicna (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek Crown

Good evening my friend. Of Course there is a source that suggests that the crown passed according to male-preferance cognatic primogeniture. Article 45 of the constitution of Kingdom of Greece describes that clearly. http://norfid.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/suntagma-ths-elladas-19521.pdf --Peeperman (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Interesting. I searched for something like that in English, but could not find anything but indications that the succession law was bizarrely vague. What exactly does it say? Also, how do we know that Irene is the last in line? Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Greek Crown, and its constitutional rights are heritable and contained in the direct and legimate descendants of King George I by seniority, with male preference. Explanation reference: The fact of the article is that by preference the Greek Crown is inherited by the issues of the current monarch by seniority, with male preference. That's it. Sorry for my bad English! --Peeperman (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Papal intro consistency

I'm trying to bring consistency to the intros of all 266 papal bios articles. If you're gonna revert my capitalization of pope? then do so for all those articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For God's sake, since when is being consistent more important than being correct? Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for contributing to Wikipedia for sheer joy rather than for recognition. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Surtsicna edits articles primarily related to Royal Families and nobility
Surtsicna
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning March 31, 2013
One of the many silent workers on Wikipedia, Surtsicna has been an example for all of Wikipedia through his ceaseless editing without a single page about himself. His 30000+ article edits and 140+ articles created speak volumes about his dedication to the project. His articles are based primarily on Medieval nobility and royal families and have been the focus of over 40 DYKs. His simple talk page showcases the humility of the type of underappreciated editor who forms the backbone of this encyclopedia.
Recognized for
High quality contributions on Noble families
Notable work
Robert Hathaway
Submit a nomination

((subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box))

Many thanks! This message is probably the nicest Wikisurprise I've ever had. I'll try to live up to the praise :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More