User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Surtsicna. 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 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Job titles of the King’s coronation

In what way is “Bishops Assistant” in the coronation of Charles III an error according to job titles policy? All of the other titles in the list are capitalized, but they are indeed job titles? What exactly makes it wrong? Cause you’re only explanation is that it just is. AKTC3 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

AKTC3, it is an error according to the first sentence of WP:JOBTITLES. Common nouns should not be capitalized. Please be more specific about what is unclear if it still is. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

And how, pray, is “Bishops Assistant” any different of a title than “Great Officers of State?” AKTC3 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not. Good catch! Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No indeed, I still believe this is wrong. These British titles have always been referred to with capitalization, even in their respective articles. AKTC3 (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Liz & Chuck

Howdy. I'm thinking I may have to eventually open an RFC at WP:ROY concerning the intros to the coronation articles of Elizabeth II & Charles III. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey! I suggest first researching whether the monarch is crowned as king or queen of all the Commonwealth realms or just of the United Kingdom, i.e. whether the ceremony relates to all of them or just one. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Watched the video (took awhile) & read up on the Coronation oath (which was quicker). In Elizabeth II's case, all the realms are read out - "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon". I suppose the same will be done for Charles III's oath, though with a few more (and a few different) countries. On that basis, if an RFC is required? I'll include the option of listing all the countries, with a note about the oath. Either way, the United Kingdom does get listed first - no doubt due to the location of the coronations & its being the oldest realm. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, was reverted 'again' at Elizabeth II's coronation page. Therefore, I've opened an RFC on the matter. One way or the other, the two intros will become consistent. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

My friend, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Everybody can contribute, even you. The French Revolution (and Marie Antoinette) is in the elementary school programs of quite all nations. However, if you think that the phase should be improved, make it, but a simple removal of a part of the text could (as in this case) make irrational all the paragraph. Thanks.--Revolution Yes (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Images_of_(Historical)_Religious_figures

Maybe you'll find it interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

And this one: Wikipedia:Teahouse#User-created_artwork_on_Hindu_theology_articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Be aware that you are being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard

Be aware that your recent edits are being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard. Giray Altay (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits

Can you remove the boldface from the article Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal as you did with the article Bill Cosby sexual abuse cases? Also could you remove the boldface in the articles for Conservative and Labour Party leadership elections? 92.15.144.174 (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I can certainly try - and so can you! :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll do my best! --92.15.144.174 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you remove the living former leaders from the article Leader of the Conservative Party (UK)? I can't do this as an IP user as the article is protected. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Editing is so much easier when you have an account. Surtsicna (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! And yeah I can see why. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You may want to advise 92.15.144.174 not to referee your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, it came from an IP user not an admin. Had it been posted by an admin I wouldn't have removed it. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please define meaningless?

You write meaningless repetition of names and dates already provided in the table above a lot, when these tables and text you remove en mass add and or summarise information, including current age, quantifying the left alive quanta, last death of ex-serving member, last death in office, without having to contrast and compare or calculate all items in such a table, indeed your removal of the same seems meaningless and counter-productive. or does wiki have memory shortage issue no one else is aware of?2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It is meaningless because there is no reason to assume that Wikipedia readers are idiots who cannot read one table so they need two saying the same thing. Surtsicna (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

They are not saying the same things, hence you have to keep defending your actions telling other editors to include in the other table if you want, so I believe you should include before deleting this extra information, your approach adds nothing and is totally against the purpose of wiki, both wasting your time and other peoples efforts. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No, birth dates in one table and birth dates in another are obviously the exact same things. Which of them are still alive, how old they are or were, which of them lived an even number of years, which of them were born in March, etc, are all things one can read from the main table if it interests them. If you want to defend singling out and underlining some of these things, the place to do it is the RfC, not my talk page. The matter has been put to discussion and your hostility towards me is unwarranted. Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Picking one at random, and the last deletion List of United States representatives from New York this has no DOB in table and exactly my point.2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Just my opinion. But, I suspect the mobile editor is likely a ban-evading editor. Otherwise, how else can he know so much about the project, in so 'very little' time. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• FYI I have never been banned. Conversation has moved imo. Allusion and threats are not appropriate, here or where it has moved to.2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Give it a rest. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Opening an ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Re RC that is malformed and misleading in progress, should be complete in a few minutes. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:E41C:B4B2:FB86:9A61 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Another lie, apparently. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There now, thanks for the vote 2404:4408:638C:5E00:E41C:B4B2:FB86:9A61 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved topic to ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:ED45:2BCA:48B2:EEFD (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the forum shopping fork back to WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It matters little to me where the abuse is. Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Edward I

Hi @Surtsicna! We've interacted a couple times before, and I got the sense that you have a fondness for working on articles relating to royalty. If you have the time, would you mind gnoming around Edward I of England and giving feedback? I have put it up for PR and plan to nominate it for FA soon. Thanks so much, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Kalends of January

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Surtsicna!

Happy New Year!

Surtsicna,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop removing

Hey Surtsicna , it's me again , 202.84.42.187. I read what vandalism meant, and thank you for standing up for me.

But can you stop removing content like you did at Prime Minister of Croatia, Prime Minister of Georgia etc.

I agree that we do NOT need a staggering amount of trivia like ‘’oldest at independence’’ and all of that monstrosity- but if a list does not say their (mostly his) lifespan you can’t but I don’t want to say this is vandalism- but it kinda is. So can you please stop? You can reply telling me why you are doing this. 202.84.42.187 (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If anywhere, the lifespan should be in the main table and for all individuals, not just for some. Don't you think so? Surtsicna (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed your edits across different articles in the topic area; if you want to see a wholesale change to several articles, you should start a WP:RFC or Village Pump discussion, so you have a consensus to point to. I would note that what you see as duplicative may be seen as helpful to others, to not have to pore through a table to find certain pieces of information. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, 331dot. Are you talking about having to check the table to see who is alive or who is the 4th youngest person ever to hold the office? Honestly, the former does not seem difficult (no more than checking for, say, the female officeholders) while the latter is unlikely. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who is right or what should be done here-nor is it my role to know- just saying that everyone involved should consider that people use Wikipedia in different ways, and that a consensus would help here. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You may also want to involve a relevant WikiProject. Just a thought only. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Advice taken and implemented, 331dot. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not just the female officeholders, the boys too. 202.84.42.187 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually more like ALL officeholders 202.84.42.187 (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

yes 202.84.42.187 (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your many contribution to Wikipedia and for your help in me geeting started! Mvh King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC result? Remove'em all

Thou has been given the green light, to remove trivia info from office holder pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's nuke 'em, GoodDay! Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)0

Märtha's daughters

Hello! How could this possibly have been kept after a deletion review? Do you remember? I don't know how to find the discussion. Regards, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The consensus reached here is that she is notable. I am not certain that is true but neither am I prepared to nominate it again. I see you missed that discussion. You might want to nominate it yourself and see if you are more persuasive. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Princes Victoria, Marchioness of Milford Haven

On this page I have tried to change the infobox page from nobility to royalty as her renouncing her german royal titles did not stop her being a royal but I found out my change of this was reverted could you help :) Versailleslover123 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Versailleslover123. Does it matter that much? The only difference the reader sees is the color of the heading. Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

but isn't it Wikipedia rule to be as accurate as it can? Versailleslover123 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no inaccuracy here. Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Coronation edit

I hardly think “King and Queen of the United Kingdom” is not a formal title. Just because they are co-joined in this context doesn’t make them any less their title. Charles III is King of the United Kingdom, as mentioned in his article lead, and his consort Camilla is Queen of the United Kingdom. And as such, MOS:JOBTITLE stipulates to capitalize when there isn’t an article. AKTC3 (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

AKTC3, the problem is not them being described as a couple but as "king and queen of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms". "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" is not a title, much like "king of 15 Commonwealth realms" is not. Surtsicna (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Bourbon-Anjou

Hi Surtsicna,

Can you create an article on the House of Bourbon-Anjou as there does not seem to be one when you ever click on it just takes you too the Spanish royal family whihc lists the currant members, I would create it myself but I too inexperienced

Thanks Versailleslover123 Versailleslover123 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The prince and princesses of Wales

Hi, there. I'm just wondering why you reverted my ancestry edits in the articles for George, Charlotte and Louis of Wales? The only reason I added it was because it follows the same format of other royals' articles. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Therealscorp1an. I gave a reason in the edit summary. To expand on it, I'll point out to the talk page discussions about ahnentafel inclusion at Talk:Prince George of Wales and Template talk:Ahnentafel as well as the WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. The siblings' descent from Dorothy Harrison and most others listed there is of no encyclopedic significance and does not deserve to be mentioned in general biographical articles. Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden arbitration restrictions

Hello. You made an edit to Joe Biden it was reverted, and you reinstated the edit within 24-hours without discussion. That is a violation of the arbitration restrictions on the Joe Biden page. The restriction is: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. I understand the content dispute has been resolved at this point, but I want you to understand that the course of action you did violated the arbitration restrictions and could potentially lead to sanctions if such type of editing persists. I'm also going to notify you that American politics (post-1992) has been designated as a contentious topic and you should exercise increased caution when editing such articles:

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 21:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Horizontal family trees

Howdy. Concerning the top "Ahnentafel", I noticed they're within the bios of members/past members of the British royal family, including the monarchs. I had considered deleting them, but given the high profile of those pages? there might be opposition. Perhaps an RFC, covering this entire general topic, at the appropriate place, is required. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, GoodDay. I would leave those be for now. That weed is in [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ahnentafel thousands of articles]. If you do remove it from the high profile ones, I suggest replacing it with a link to, say, Family tree of the British royal family. In any case I suggest citing WP:NOTGENEALOGY and/or WP:OR and/or WP:PROPORTION because "trivial" may seem subjective to some. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Improper feedback

Please refrain from such negative and openly critical opinions in the future; there is no need to talk down to anyone who is trying to make honest edits on this platform; if you have nothing positive or constructive to say, please remain quiet; thank you! --✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Emperor, I can assure you that I will not be quiet. Opposing and openly critical opinions are as valid feedback as any other. If you intend to collaborate with others on this project, you would be wise to get used to them. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna its that behaviour and attitude that is driving the casual editor from this platform! There is no need for negative floccinaucinihilipilification... I will leave it at that! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:CIII

Hello. Just in case you missed it, there's a task force up at WP:CIII which you may be interested in. There is, of course, no obligation to participate, but if you do, it is very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the invitation - despite our disagreements, Tim O'Doherty. I will be glad to help out. Surtsicna (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry

I was wondering why you are going around and deleting ancestry trees. It’s been standard for years for important figures to have their genealogy displayed. Did I miss something saying why they are being taken out?? Lady Meg (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Lady Meg, you may have missed the discussion at Template talk:Ahnentafel. Yes, the ahnentafel proliferated for over a decade, creeping into articles and becoming "standard", despite concerns over it from the start. Long story short, ahnentafeln are extremely uncommon in published biographies and it is against Wikipedia policy to display genealogy without any context (WP:NOTGENEALOGY) and without reference to a reliable source specializing in the topic and featuring such a chart (WP:PROPORTION). Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

But some of them were sourced from genealogical publications. Some people worked particularly hard on those charts—-doing research and finding sources for the tree. It’s just a shame and makes me feel like I’ve wasted a lot of my time. Lady Meg (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, it is not enough for them to be sourced from genealogical publications. These biographies are supposed to be general biographies and their content is meant to reflect the content of such publications, not highly specialized ones. For example one can also find out in a cuisine history book what Henry VIII had for Christmas 1525, but that does not belong in a general biography. I too have added my fair share of ahnentafeln to articles when I first started editing, in imitation of others.
What I am doing now, Lady Meg, besides removing these unhelpful one-size-fits-all charts, is checking published biographies of each figure to see whether they use any charts and which relations those charts show. Then I recreate such custom-made charts that actually illustrate important connections. For example, at Lady_Jane_Grey#Family_tree, it is essential to show her relationship with Edward VI and Mary I, whereas her descent from a Nicholas Wotton is of no consequence at all. The chart now shown at Lady_Jane_Grey#Family_tree is drawn directly from a scholarly biography of her while an ahnentafel could not be. Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been here for well over a decade now. I didn’t just start out editing yesterday. Your name comes up the most on these pages I edit as taking out what I would consider important info. Not sure why genealogical sources that actually state their sources is not a good enough source. We’ve been using them on Wiki for quite some time now. Seems like you’ve taken it upon yourself to include what you want in these articles. With that tree, you point out the royals, but miss the important connections to people like Cecily Bonville who was an important figure in her own right. Just disappointed by people constantly screwing with stuff I worked hours on. But I already said that. Wish you would consider working with people instead of just doing your own thing. Lady Meg (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not doing my own thing. I have told you about the community discussion and the policies. And which biographer of Jane Grey mentions her connection to Cecily Bonville? Surtsicna (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

“Documents of Lady Jane Grey Nine Days Queen of England, 1553” By James D. Taylor · 2004, and “Memoirs and Literary Remains of Lady Jane Grey” By Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas, 1832 mentions Cecily. Are you telling me Eric Ives doesn’t mention Cecily, wife to Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset in his biography of Jane? Lady Meg (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Catherine Parr

Not sure why this was undone by you, but Parr was the “first English queen” to write and publish a book. Her book “Prayers or Meditations” became the first book published by an English queen under her own name. Her biographer, Dr Susan James states: “She was the first queen of England to write and publish her own books and to become a recognized author during her lifetime and the first Englishwoman to publish a work of prose in the sixteenth century.” (pg 12) Really wish you wouldn’t mess with Parr’s page. I did a LOT of updates and corrected several MAJOR things like her marriage to Sir Edward Burgh—I started his page because Wiki had her married to his grandfather still over a decade ago. Would appreciate if it was either changed to this statement or keep “English queen”. Thanks. Lady Meg (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Was she the first woman or the first queen of England to do it? If she was the first woman, then we do not need "the first queen" because all queens of England were women. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Princess whatshername

it's SOP to use ILL to connect to other-language wikis and/or Wikidata entries where we have them and that creates a red link by default. I don't know how to change that setting so I guess we'll just leave those resources disconnected. Oh well. jengod (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles III, Count of Alençon

Hello! Your submission of Charles III, Count of Alençon 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cielquiparle (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Charles III, Count of Alençon

On 1 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles III, Count of Alençon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles III abdicated to become a monk, leaving his land divided between his younger brothers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles III, Count of Alençon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charles III, Count of Alençon), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 18,273 views (761.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Earl of Orford

Hello, @Surtsicna, I notice that you usually make edits where you remove unnecessary pipes. There is a user named "HandsomeFella" on Earl of Orford who keeps adding unnecessary pipes and does not understand how WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN works. DDMS123 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Charles III of Navarre

On 7 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles III of Navarre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that King Charles III's wife left him after she found four mistresses living in his palace? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles III of Navarre. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charles III of Navarre), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Limia melanogaster

Hello! Your submission of Limia melanogaster 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SnowFire (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus pygmaeus 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 III 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) 12:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Xiphophorus pygmaeus

On 2 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Xiphophorus pygmaeus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that female pygmy swordtails prefer male Panuco swordtails, which court them, to males of their own species (pictured), which merely sneak up on them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus pygmaeus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Xiphophorus pygmaeus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Xiphophorus nigrensis

On 2 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Xiphophorus nigrensis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that female pygmy swordtails prefer male Panuco swordtails, which court them, to males of their own species (pictured), which merely sneak up on them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus pygmaeus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Xiphophorus nigrensis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Xiphophorus milleri

On 11 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Xiphophorus milleri, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Xiphophorus milleri only rarely eats its young? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus milleri. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Xiphophorus milleri), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

In section Description you have the sentence:

Nearly a half of specimens are melanophore markings of varying sizes.

shouldn't that be better as

Nearly half of specimens have melanophore markings of varying sizes.

The fish have markings, the fish are marked. Shenme (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Ye. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Limia melanogaster

On 13 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Limia melanogaster, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that male blue-bellied limias spend more than 26 minutes per hour courting females? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Limia melanogaster. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Limia melanogaster), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Mostar phonetic transcriptions

Hi, I hate being drawn into an edit war, but it annoys me immensely when accurate and relevant content is deleted based on subjective criteria ('seems excessive' – well, doesn't seem so to me). When it comes to phonetic transcriptions, people turn to Wikipedia for two reasons: first, they want to know how a name or word is pronounced in English; second, they want to know how it is pronounced natively. For both, transcriptions can be included in an article. The fact that these transcriptions are relevant for potential readers is not contingent upon their number. When there is variation (i.e., there is more than one transcription because there is more than one common pronunciation variant), it should be documented rather than removed. But I can see how transcriptions, especially if there is more than one or two, can distract from the content of the introduction, in which case they can be moved to a separate paragraph or a footnote. But deleting them just because speakers of English have the audacity to use different pronunciations seems wrong to me and at odds with how transcriptions are dealt with in other articles. Please consider this before making any further edits. Thanks. Isoglosse (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Isoglosse. There is no exonym for Mostar in English. It is just Mostar. That native name is pronounced [mǒstaːr], which the reader can also hear pronounced. That the speakers of various standard varieties of English ever so slightly mispronounce the name in their own ways does not strike me as something that needs to be documented in a general encyclopedia article. It is certainly not a common practice to do so. Besides, it is virtually impossible for an English language speaker to mispronounce "Mostar" badly enough not to be understood. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Surtsicna. This is not about exonyms, but about what is referred to as 'established anglicisations' (i.e., customary ways of pronouncing foreign names in English). From a certain perspective, one could say that established anglicisations are just mispronunciations, but they are mispronunciations that have been used so frequently that they are now considered to be correct in English while other mispronunciations would be considered incorrect. Anglicisations are not (always) predictable from the native pronunciation. When checking a dictionary, I don't want to be left guessing, based on a native transcription that I may not fully understand, how a name is customarily pronounced in English. I want to be able to just look it up. There are countless articles about cities where both a native pronunciation of the name and established anglicisations are documented. I am just listing a few examples where no exonym is used in English either: Strasbourg, Madrid, Sarajevo, Basel, Amsterdam, Kortrijk, Versailles, Bratislava, Zagreb, Budapest, Málaga – do I have to go on? As I said, I agree that the large number of variants that exist in the case of Mostar distracts from the content of the opening sentence. I am happy to move the English transcriptions to a footnote, but deleting them would be inconsistent with how anglicisations are treated in other articles. Isoglosse (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Bosnian queens has been nominated for renaming

Category:Bosnian queens has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Peter II, Count of Alençon

You removed my addition of "Ancestry" to the page Peter II, Count of Alençon for the following reason: "Wikipedia is not a genealogy database." However, per a Wikipedia discussion from February 2005: "While Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic." (Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, which promotes the following: "Expand articles needing expansion.") My reasoning for adding a family tree to this article is because the subject's ancestry is directly relevant to their position as a noble and a royal. (Also see: Help:Family trees, which also focuses on family trees for royalty and nobility.) Please explain your full reasoning for removing the Ancestry table I added to the article Peter II, Count of Alençon before I seek to revert your edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obversa (talk • contribs) 01:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Obversa. Whatever it was that was discussed 18 years ago, it is a present policy of Wikipedia not to include extraneous genealogy. Peter II of Alençon being the son of the daughter of the daughter of Elizabeth the Cuman is of no relevance to his biography, since you will find no historian who discusses Peter II of Alençon's descent from Elizabeth the Cuman. Surtsicna (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Humphrey and Runciman

Hi, what work do you mean by "Runciman 1989" in this edit? The article has a Runciman 1989a and a Runciman 1989b. DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, DuncanHill. Thank you for bringing that up. It seems the matter has been cleared up! Surtsicna (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, after I went to bed! All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

See the latest RfC to include the "ancestry" section, see Talk:Marie Antoinette#RFC: Ancestry. 2001:4451:824F:B700:5007:9004:1AE9:2312 (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

RM notice

Hello Surtsicna. A few months ago you participated in an RM at Talk:Wedding of Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Requested move 23 March 2023. There is now a similar RM at Talk:Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling#Requested move 4 August 2023 if you'd like to participate! Cheers, estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Matilda of Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Matilda of Wales has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Matilda of Wales until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Ways to improve Duchess of Gloucester

Hello, Surtsicna,

Thank you for creating Duchess of Gloucester.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for the article. Please consider adding citations to the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lightburst}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Phallichthys tico

Hello! Your submission of Phallichthys tico 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

List of Justices of the High Court of Australia

Hi Surtsicna, I've got another ongoing move discussion that's encountered some resistance. Would love to read your input on it. Cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Phallichthys

On 7 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phallichthys, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Phallichthys (literally 'penis fish') species are so called because the males (example pictured) have "comparatively huge" sex appendages? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phallichthys. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Phallichthys), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for helping me keep an eye on Swenglish, such as "the Crown Princely couple". It's quite a task. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing, SergeWoodzing. I am impressed by, and grateful for, the considerable expansion of that article. Correcting a bit of Swenglish is a small price to pay for such an effort. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Me too. She certainly deserves a good article, or her legacy does, as popular and appreciated as she was. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Tvrtko

Hello!

About your recent edit on Tvrtko I - isn't he the first of 3 sons, making him the eldest, not the elder? 93.87.123.180 (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you may have counted Dabiša or Ostoja, but the sentence is about the sons of Vladislav and Jelena. If Dabiša and/or Ostoja were Tvrtko I's half-brothers, they were certainly not the sons of Jelena. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the clarification. 93.87.123.180 (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Phallichthys amates

On 9 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phallichthys amates, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that merry widows like soft bottoms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phallichthys amates. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Phallichthys amates), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Poecilia catemaconis

Hello! Your submission of Poecilia catemaconis 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Panamitsu (talk) ^Please ping on reply 05:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Poecilia gillii

On 11 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Poecilia gillii, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that small Poecilia gillii males have longer sex organs than larger males, to facilitate mating with females that flee from them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Poecilia gillii. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Poecilia gillii), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Love your quirky DYK hooks! I wish I had the creativity to make some actually decent hooks myself.... #prodraxis ^connect 15:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Prodraxis! That is so kind. Sometimes I get inspired and I appreciate the love! Surtsicna (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Phallichthys tico

On 12 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phallichthys tico, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the dwarf merry widow is not very brave? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phallichthys tico. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Phallichthys tico), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Poecilia chica

On 13 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Poecilia chica, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that dwarf mollies hit rock bottom when they grow up? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Poecilia chica. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Poecilia chica), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Legacy/Tribute in biographies

Hello. I've seen you've deleted sourced and well referenced Tribute/Legacy Headings on Lalla Latifa & Lalla Salma's pages.

Legacy/Tribute is part of a biography for a wikipedia project. E.g.: Augustus, Saladin, Henrietta Maria of France, Napoleon III. Augustus has paragraphs of his Tribute/Legacy Heading detailing the month of August as tribute to his person. And not everyone as a religious worship place as tribute, it is a huge part of one's legacy/tribute to have a mosque named in one's honor. --~~~ AvaBrandon2000 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.221.7 (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your fishhooks (see what I did there) at DYK - they're really cute and fun. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I do see what you did there! I will keep them coming :) Many thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Mary Josephine Shelly

Hi, did you notice that the nominator has responded to your suggestions by adding more citations to Mary Josephine Shelly and adding a new hook to Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Josephine Shelly? TSventon (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Poecilia catemaconis

On 26 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Poecilia catemaconis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bicolor molly inevitably goes off the deep end in adulthood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Poecilia catemaconis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Poecilia catemaconis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing pictures for a Japanese emperor page

Why did you remove that picture? I know it was long back, but if you removed it, the others, like in Emperor Ninken, they will also get removed. #bodyContent aFlag Creator { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ggggggg; font-weight: monoscope; } 10:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Which picture? Did I not leave an explanation in the edit summary? Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Japanese Emperors

Can you please provide althernative images to the Emperors rather than removing them for someone else to replace? It would be really helpful, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Knowledgekid87. No alternatives are needed. Please see WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." We should not aim to have an image at any cost. Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are you getting the information that the images you removed don't accurately represent the given Emperors? Unless its contemporary artwork, any image done years after can be considered hypothetical. I urge you to self revert per WP:BRD so this can be discussed someplace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh? The images were created 15 centuries after these emperors lived. Of course they do not accurately represent them. More importantly, these images are never used in reliable sources. I might as well draw Emperor Richū myself and upload that. We've had this discussion about the popes and the consensus was overwhelming. Do you want to have another? Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)