User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 1

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)
 * 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)

Mail
Cindy ( talk to me ) 15:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henrietta Clive, Countess of Powis
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charlotte Percy, Duchess of Northumberland
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Howard, Duchess of Norfolk (d. 1773)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

DYK for Constance Lewes
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

DYK for Hsiao Li Lindsay, Baroness Lindsay of Birker
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Elizabeth I
What does Strong say exactly? I don't have a copy. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, but a quick search suggests that he does not mention Elizabeth's illegitimacy at all. 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Line of succession to the British throne
Template instead of outright numbers.[] 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)
 * 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)
 * Going there and will attempt to do that. Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * In your POV, maybe. The Banner talk 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument. You haven't responded to any of my arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Royal Danish trivia
Though I completely agree with, 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)
 * Well, I did say: "as far as I know" :) Thanks for sharing that! Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * I think you would be well served by a review of WP:COMMONNAME. Dlabtot (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I see your point. Kim Traynor (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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"! Pam D  17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, have just see WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and full dates in lead sentence seems to be right - I wonder where I saw otherwise?! Pam  D  17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 Manual_of_Style 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! Pam  D  18:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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.f Talk 20:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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? 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)
 * 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)
 * I'll make the changes immediately. Cheers! Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

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)

DYK for Maude Stanley
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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.f Talk 12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

DYK for Rosalind Howard, Countess of Carlisle
Orlady (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley
Orlady (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations - you've done such a lot to the little stub I created on 5th December, she clearly caught your interest! Pam  D  13:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I've also considered creating an article about Lady Stanley's least favourite child, Alice Pitt Rivers, but perhaps someone else will be more interested in her. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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.f Talk 08:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! I'm glad I could help. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Keivan.f  Talk 18:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.f Talk 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.f  Talk 18:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.f  Talk 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * OK! Thanks. Keivan.f  Talk 15:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Henry Somerset
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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 ) 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)
 * 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)

DYK for Louise Howard
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

DYK for Gabrielle Howard
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you. :-) Turns out the reason is that it got Reddited: . Prioryman (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Because she was Baroness Petre. I suggest that you read something about her and WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, 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)

DYK for Lord William Hamilton
Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Vane, 2nd Viscount Vane
KTC (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)