User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 10

Counts of Provence ARE German Nobility...Technically
Greetings Surtsicna, I just wanted to let you know that technically speaking, the Counts of Provence were indisputably lords of the Holy Roman Empire (as subjects of the sub-kingdom of Arles) from 1032 and were, therefore, German nobility. As such, they fit under the "de" category of that title in Template:s-reg, which includes both modern German titles and Imperial titles. It only became a part of France in 1484. Other titles that fit in this category are Count of Savoy, Count Palatine of Burgundy, and Dauphin of Viennois, all of which eventually became a part of France, but not during this time.

I know you don't personally like succession boxes and whatnot, but please stop reverting/undoing perfectly valid edits. Dukes and counts within France are not "regnal titles", they are titles of "French nobility". "King of Naples" in the context of most of the Valois-Angevin kings are "Titles in pretence", not "Regnal titles". The header categories are to make things more clear, even if they take up more space. There are no limits to the size that a succession box can be, so you're dislike of large succession boxes has no merit. I will look into adding a category to s-reg for Holy Roman Empire or Arles titles to fix some of the ambiguity here, but in the meantime, I am reverting the three s-boxes you made "compact", although I have removed the reference to Aragon in the one. That reference was directly drawn from the article itself, but I agree the evidence in the article is weak. If I find more about the pretension, I will try and expand the article (I have an Angevin history book on my desk right now). Thank you for your understanding. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 21:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: A request to add Arleat nobility using the parameter "arl" to Template:s-reg has been filed, pending input by an administrator. Once this is approved, the issue over using "German nobility" to refer to the above-mentioned territories will be resolved. I agree that the use, while technically correct, feels strange, so this fixes it through a mode that is also historically accurate. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 21:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The German nobility (German: deutscher Adel) was a class of persons who, until 1919, enjoyed certain privileges relative to other people under the laws and customs of various parts of what is now Germany." Your interpretation collides with our article on German nobility, to which the box header links. That just should not happen. One could argue that, technically, titles of all vassals of the "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" were titles of German nobility. Thus, the Count of Holland, the King of Bohemia and the Doge of Genoa were all technically German nobility. But why should we claim that? What do we gain by pushing such a view on Wikipedia?
 * Please, do not claim to know anything personal about me. We have barely interacted on Wikipedia, let alone personally. I do like succession boxes and tend to edit them a lot. For example, I was the last to edit the Angevin boxes. I believe common sense dictates the size limit of the succession boxes. I don't think we should make them gigantic and redundant to each other merely for the sake of fancy headers. It makes them less useful, since their purpose is to give a quick summary. Creating a box for every little thing also makes the boxes as a whole less useful; it would be ridiculous to have a box describing Mary I of England as Countess of Charolais. And how do you define regnal titles? The medieval Count of Anjou was in every way (but especially in terms of authority) more similar to the King of France than to the modern Duke of Valentinois, so we definitely cannot jam them all under "French nobility". And if we define a title as being -Titular- (-Titular- King of Naples), why do we need a header that says the same thing? All other parameters (predecessor, successor, years, etc) are the same, so it turs out we have a separate box merely to use a redundant header. I thought we had agreed on that when discussing the Henry VI of England boxes. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for assuming your opinion—you are current that I do not know you or your thoughts. However, through our interactions over the past few months I do know that you prefer simple succession boxes to larger ones, something we have fought over on numerous occasions. For titles of nobility and regnal titles, I see the primary purpose of the category headers as a means of displaying feudal/structural authority. In your examples above, you are actually incorrect about Bohemia (it legally sat outside the Empire as an observer and tie-breaker in the Electoral College) and Genoa (which was a part of the kingdom of Arles, like Provence). Holland, however, was legally a part of the Empire and the count owed the emperor homage for his lands, which he did on many occasions. It is not "pushing a view on Wikipedia", it is historical fact supported by contemporary evidence. Lords owed homage for their land to higher lords and, eventually, kings and emperors. While the modern English title of "duke of Cambridge" may mean virtually nothing, technically it sits in the same place within the British (or English) peerage as Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge in the fifteenth century. It is not a regnal title, it is a title of English/British nobility. Your example of Mary Tudor being Countess of Charolais is not the same and falls into a different category, that of "Honorary Titles", for she held that in right of her husband. It falls into the same place as "Queen consort" or "First lady". It doesn't mean anything and in most cases it is not included in succession boxes.
 * For me, common sense is not very common, especially on Wikipedia. Most people today would think that the County of Provence was a part of France. Why wouldn't they? It's in France today. Same with the counties of Burgundy, Savoy, Flanders, Viennois, and many others. This misconception can be corrected so easily by adding a simple title header to the succession boxes. Their purpose is not only to quickly summarise the titles, but to place those titles in a place and time, hence the inclusion of the dates, the successors, and predecessors. But we leave out a vital clue to how that person's world functioned. If we list only the titles, we ignore the fact that some of those titles were not held in the land one thinks they may be in and that the person's world was actually quite a bit more complicated than one may otherwise perceive.
 * Lastly, about the "Pretenders" title above the "titular" box, that was actually a compromise made a while back. What we ended up doing with Henry VI was create an entirely new type of box, the "disputed" box, which I think is probably a good solution for a lot of pretenders since many pretenders until recently actually did have some authority somewhere within their claimed lands. Disputed titles should definitely go under the title header of that title rather than a pretender header. In contrast, the "pretender" header was a formatting coup. We were having issues converting "s-ttl" to have italics and a vaguer look about it when referring to pretenders so we created a new box with the "– Titular –" header above it. The title headers came afterwards and "Titles held in pretence" just joined the rest of them. There is technically a difference between titular and pretender, although I don't think it's ever been agreed upon. Titular rulers usually are undisputed but just lack the land. The first exiled kings of Jerusalem, for example. Nobody replaced them, they just lost their land. They kept using the title but it no longer meant anything. Pretenders, meanwhile, are often rivals against a legitimate ruler or are claiming a title that they legitimately lost, either through a coup or something else. The fact that we don't differentiate between these is probably one reason why the "Titles held in pretence" header still survives, but I'd be willing to try to find a new way to document pretenders and titular rulers in s-boxes. I've never been satisfied with what we have. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 22:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are again endorsing a fringe theory or creating your own; very simply put, both the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Republic of Genoa are always found on the map of the Holy Roman Empire. In other words, they were part of the Empire. If both Provence and Genoa were part of the Kingdom of Burgundy (Arles), which was itself part of the Holy Roman Empire, what makes the Count of Provence but not the Doge of Genoa part of German nobility? Anyway, you cannot possibly argue that the Earl of Cambridge had as much authority over Cambridge as Louis III of Anjou had over Anjou. The British system of peerage, both present and historical, is incomparable to the virtually autonomous vassals of the Kingdom of France. As for Countess Bloody Mary of Charolais, I am afraid there are users who insist on such frivolous boxes.
 * Yes, the headers might correct some misconceptions. But succession boxes are not supposed to that. Succession boxes (like infoboxes) are not meant to present the reader with new information; they are meant to recapitulate information already present in the article. Firstly and foremostly, they are supposed to illustrate successions, such as when multiple titles (even if, and especially if, held in vassalage to different lords) converge to the same successor. We lose that if we separate those titles into individual boxes, each with its own predecessor and successor though identical to other predecessor and successor fields.
 * And that brings me to a possibly eureka idea, tied to the last part of your comment. Is it possible to reform the box headers completely, so that they function more like the -Titular- header? They would then not require separate predecessor and successor fields. The boxes would be as detailed as you'd like them and as concise/illustrative as I'd like them to be. Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually funny that you propose that because I was just thinking the same thing. I actually tested the code briefly to see how easily it could be done. No luck so far, but it is possible. What I imagine is to pretty much make it so the header could be nestled above any or all of a row without breaking any shared succession. I'll try to test the concept this weekend. I'd have to make sure not to break the code, though, which should be easy right now since all the relevant templates are protected. It's a good idea that I think would satisfy both of us. I agree wholeheartedly that I want to see succession boxes that show shared predecessors and successors—it is definitely one of the visual benefits of the system. However showing the title categories can be helpful as well in many cases. I'll see what I can do. Hopefully some solution can be found. It may be as easy as turning the colspan from an automatic parameter to an adjustable one using an If/Then formula, that way I could keep the default to colspan=3 but have the option for it to span fewer columns to allow for merged successions. Unfortunately there is no way at this point to nestle the title code directly into Template:s-ttl because of all the different type of title header parameters and templates, but that probably is what we should have done years ago. I can test that concept, too, although I doubt it would be adopted immediately.
 * Just to reply to a couple of your other points, there are many reasons to consider Bohemia a full part of the Holy Roman Empire: 1) it was essential created by the emperor and the pope (although the duchy had been outside the Empire before then); 2) it was held in personal union with the Emperor almost continuously from the 1500s onward; 3) the king became an elector in 1356, albeit one with restricted powers; and 4) most people writing this history of the Empire in English since the 1800s don't differentiate it from the rest of the kingdom. Wikipedia's own article attests to that. However, until its personal union with the Habsburgs, it was an outlier client kingdom, attached to the Empire but apart from it, its people not German much like the Hungarians and Poles. I am not currently working on Bohemian history but if I run across references to the status of Bohemia in the Empire, I'll work on cleaning up the article a bit to better represent its relationship. The Wiki article on the kingdom is very poorly cited and could definitely use improvement.
 * Regarding the "authority" nobility in France had versus English nobility had, I am not arguing that it was comparable, because in many cases it was not. However authority does not play a role in feudal hierarchies. While we both can agree that the Duke of Cambridge held much less power (though more than is generally acknowledged) in England than the Duke of Anjou held in France, we can also both agree that the former was a member of the English nobility just as the latter was a member of the French nobility. Indeed, marsher lords on the Scottish and Welsh borders and in Ireland held about the same amount of power as many of the counts in France, who were either vassals of dukes or directly of the king. Just because the large apanages such as Anjou and Burgundy were in many ways autonomous does not mean that other lands like Orléans, Normandy, or Toulouse were too. Essentially the more powerful French lords were powerful because they held mostly interconnected territory, which the lords in England generally did not have. Thus in England lords had to contend with rivals as neighbours and had to travel long distances to visit all their lands while major French lords could sit in Angers or Dijon and rule more centrally (especially under the rule of John II's sons and descendants).
 * Right. At least we seem to be in agreement on some of the major points. On the other issues, we are not the first or the last to debate and discuss them, and I feel that is perfectly acceptable in the quasi-academic setting of Wikipedia. I will get to work this weekend on testing a new header style that we can hopefully use to replace the current style (although it will take a while). I also have made my request at Template:s-reg to add the Arleat nobility to the list, since it is really something that should have been there from the beginning. While technically all German and Arleat (and most Italian) nobility to 1806 was "German nobility", it makes much more sense to set the nobility within the context of its immediate kingdom-level superior, I think. I'd prefer to replace the title with "Holy Roman Empire nobility", but since so many Imperial titles continued in German after 1806, this just won't work. Fortunately, in Italy and Arles, the French Revolution and Napoleon pretty much destroyed the old hierarchical system allowing for a clean break between titles. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 00:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated: Okay, I've been trying out a few things and wanted to run them by you to see if either comes close to what you are thinking about. Check out User:Whaleyland/Sandbox2. The two templates are based of a simple recoding of Template:s-reg that makes the colspan parameter adjustable, allowing the header to span from 1-3 columns rather than the current default of 3. It's not perfect, but test sample 1 does imbed the header more fully in the title, which sounds like the idea you were looking for. I'll wait for your comments and suggestions before working on this further. Cheers! – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 03:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I had in mind! There might be a better solution, of course, but I cannot think of it.
 * Another thing I've been considering is possibly scrapping the national headers completely and replacing them with headers such as "Vassal titles", "Sovereign titles", "Titles by marriage", or something like that. The last one would be especially useful, since it would allow us to use simple and accurate "Queen of Spain" rather than clumsy and somewhat made-up term "Queen consort of Spain". Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Succession box for Earl of Wessex and Duke of York.
I have started a discussion on the topic here.--Editor FIN (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ingelgerians
I bow to your expertise. Why not start an article on the subject, or translate the French one? Isananni (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rise, Sir Isananni! We do have an article, House of Ingelger. For some reason, however, Ingelgerians did not redirect there. Surtsicna (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gisela Januszewska
Minor issue concerning the QPQ. But I don't want to hold up giving you a tick. Please fix/clarify. Cheers! 18:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also unclear as to the meaning of "ordination" in this article. It seems out of context to me.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a rather embarrassing case of improper translation. The German word Ordination and the Serbo-Croatian word ordinacija/ординација clearly do not mean the same as the English "ordination". The first two mean doctor's office. I suppose I can replace it with "practice". Thanks a lot! Surtsicna (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Good to have a second pair of eyes.  I of course thought of ordination, which my Oxford Dictionary means "ordination >n. the action of ordaining someone in holy orders."  I also tried looking up "ordination" in Wikipedia, and found that some modern female Jewish reform rebbes would fall within the term.  I was concerned that I had missed something in the article, or that we had a cultural disconnect.  I also looked at the Unabridged Random House Dictionary of the English Language, which provided five definitions: "1. Eccles. the act or ceremony of ordaining. 2. the fact of being ordained. 3. a decreeing. 4. the act of arranging. 5. the resulting state, disposition, arrangement: the ordination of animal species."  I did not look in the full version of the Oxford English Dictionary.
 * Going between two languages requires interpretation, not just bare translation.
 * In any event, we've worked it out. I am personally good to go with the article.  She was a remarkable doctor and person.  Thank you for creating the article.  7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 03:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Catherine of Bosnia page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=694843786 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F694843786%7CCatherine of Bosnia%5D%5D Ask for help])

re Sancho I
Hello, thanks for the fixes. Wanted to know if you have any reference for this assertion: "Aragon was thus the first Iberian kingdom to recognize the independence of Portugal". I don't and am not sure if the marriage per se would imply a recognition of Portugal's independence. Also, on his daughter Branca, I requested a move, but then, on second thoughts, perhaps she is not worthy of a separate article since little is known about her. The source I quoted in her article (copy pasted from the parents' articles) says nothing about her being "lady of Guadalajara". Perhaps she was the lady of a convent in Guadalajara which is not specified in the source, but I don't see how she would have been the Lady of the city or province. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! I have only read about Sancho in passing, so I cannot be of much help. As for Blanche, I do agree with you - she seems rather marginal. Having existed and having been a king's daughter does not make someone notable. I would support merging the article with that of her father. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I'm on holiday and only have by gen database with me, I'll wait til I get home and can check some books to see if I can reference that. Re Branca, that would be a good idea. Thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Mary I of England
Hello Surtsicna. I was disappointed that you reverted my attempt to improve the syntax in this article’s lede – your diff. Your edit summary says ''No, not really. That would be: "Catherine of Aragon, who survived to adulthood." The comma makes all the difference''.

After my edit, the sentence said "She was the only child of Henry VIII and his first wife Catherine of Aragon to survive to adulthood." I infer from your edit summary that you have no objection to my version of this sentence; but that you have an objection to the explanation I gave in my edit summary - ''Syntax. This sentence is intended to say Mary, the child, survived to adulthood. In fact it was saying Catherine, the mother, survived to adulthood!''

At Wikipedia, all edits should be aimed at improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. We don’t revert other Users’ edits as a means of challenging the content of edit summaries, but that appears to be what you have done. If we disagree with an opinion or the content of an edit summary the appropriate course of action is to raise the matter for discussion – either on a User’s Talk page or on the article’s Talk page.

Let’s assume that you are correct and the absence of a comma represents complete mitigation of any difficulty in the syntax. That doesn’t alter the fact that to me, and presumably hundreds of others like me, the syntax appears amateurish and in need of improvement. You can’t be there, looking over the shoulder of everyone who reads this article, in order to explain that you are technically correct, and to explain the significance of the missing comma.

I believe my version of the sentence is superior to the version I found when I first read the article. If you believe my version is inferior to the long-standing version please raise the matter for discussion on the Talk page. Many thanks. Dolphin ( t ) 11:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I do not object to your version. I see nothing wrong with the original one either. The editor who worked on the article and brought it to GA status, however, does not deserve to be told that he mislead the readers because he did no such thing. Surtsicna (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt and considered reply. Dolphin  ( t ) 03:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Matilda of Tuscany
The paragraph is a bit awkward. Her mother is identified up to that point as Beatrice of Lorraine. Her sister is the last Beatrice mentioned before the discussion of a marriage. One looks first for the word "had", then back to find the date of her sister's death (which is "the next year"), then wonders in passing if Godfrey was a necrophiliac. But if you like it, leave it. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was unclear to you, then it must be unclear to everyone who is not acquainted with the subject. If you find anything else confusing or misleading, please correct it. I have been working on the article on and off for about a year, and I have only done the first half. Surtsicna (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Gisela Januszewska
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Jajce v. Prusac
Hello,

this old image from cca 1897, scan from the book, uploaded at Flickr and commons.wikimedia.org, is actually erroneously designated as "Ruins of Jajce" !

Here's painting of Jajce with citadel and surroundings, from around same place and time (artist: Tivadar Kosztka Csontvary, completion date: 1903 - just six years later): http://www.wikiart.org/en/tivadar-kosztka-csontvary/waterfall-at-jajce-1903

Or old photo, only retouched in fake colors, from around same period (end of the 19.century) as disputed image: http://www.sarajevofunkytours.com/uploadSlike/velike/jajce_2.jpg Factual location on this historic image (photo) of the ruined fortress is village of Prusac near Donji Vakuf in Bosnia (ruined fortress is also called Prusac), some 50 miles upstream of the Vrbas river from town and (real) fortress of Jajce.

Jajce was developed medieval town with extensive walls and large citadel, both of which can be seen well preserved today, centuries before any kind of photography existed, but even upon closer examination you should be able to see quite a few differences in surroundings, size of the fortress itself, proportions of the hill, and on (Googled) pictures of Jajce you should also notice two rivers and large waterfall right under the hill, in the middle of medieval walls, and no wide plane in sight because town is located in the hart of steep gorge.--Santasa99 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks a lot for clarifying. In that case, let's not use any image of Jajce. The photograph which focuses mostly on modern buildings does not add much to the article. I will try to replace it with something more relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind, however you need to understand that photo of "modern" Jajce, which I found on commons.wikimedia.org and placed in article, is actually photo of old town core, mostly, and only modern thing in that pic are new rooftops and facades with few new family houses.

In other words, photo contains at least 3/4 of medieval buildings (one "new" building visible in the photo is largest building in the center, which is museum form Austro-Hungarian period). Jajce, even prior to Ottoman conquest (prolonged period between 1463 and 1528), was already large and developed town (speaking in context of that region during medieval period), with huge town walls, where citadel was only that, part of the larger urban structure - citadel within walled city. Only significant buildings which didn't exist prior to Ottomans arrival are mosques.



You won't deny viewer of complete impression if you leave photo of "modern" town, but you can use something like those images for which I provided a links in my previous post.

As you can see in these old pictures, core of Jajce, more precisely walled old town, was pretty the same since the times of the last king and Ottoman conquest, as it was in 19. century, as it is today. Cheers!--Santasa99 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:Kate of Bosnia
Hallo Surtsicna, You wrote me right when I was downloading the pictures... Actually, the picture quality is not perfect, but unfortunately the camera that I should have used that day did not show up together with his owner because of a flu... :-( Anyway, I will ask to my Roman friend to take this shot again with her professional camera! :-) Of course, feel free to move, change the caption and resize the picture! Cheers from Helvetia, Alex2006 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. I might be prophetic! What I am not is an expert in photography, however, and I see nothing imperfect about the image. The angle is just what I had in mind. I am not sure if a mere "thanks" can properly express gratitude, but thank you anyway! Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A wider angle would have been maybe better...but perfection does not belong to our world! ;-) Anyway, glad that you liked it, and my compliments for the article! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Seigneurs of Sark
This was including all these deeply obscure folk in the "royal consorts of England" category. I have fixed that but it now seems to add a navbox category to the articles, which you may want to fix. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably created the template by copying Template:English consort and did not see that part. Thanks for fixing it. I'll see what I can do about the rest. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm useless at templates. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

our Queen Sofia edit summaries
Hello Surtsicna- I'm sorry if my edit summary at scandalized you. In answer to your subsequent revert summary:
 * And why is that so? Why clutter the infobox and article source with parameters that are not used or will never be used? There is a number of parameters not included here (because they will never be used), such as Temple name, Era name, Posthumous name...)

I did not mean to cause alarm or distress on the part of other editors. As I did not have the time to research the accuracy of the previous editor's assertion ("Predecessor" and "successor" to a queen or king consort is never used, in any article.), and knowing that editor as having a history of making edits that call for review/repair/supervision, I erred on the side of partially reverting his unilateral move, while maintaining the content of the infobox as he wished it. If you know his assertion to be correct, I thank you for correcting my error. Eric talk 17:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Eric! There is no need to apologize. I am sorry for sounding annoyed. I was honestly not sure whether unused parameters should be in infoboxes. So far I have always removed them en masse, so I wondered if that was wrong. In this case, I believe the edit was in line with Template:Infobox royalty/doc. Thank you for your patience! Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Descent of Vladislaus I from Bela IV
Hello! I was advised to contact you on this subject -- forgive me if this advice was incorrect. The table over at List of Hungarian monarchs notes that Vladislaus I (aka Władysław III of Poland) is a "Fourth great-grandson of Béla IV". I've been poking around his genealogy a bit and don't see any obvious lines of descent from Bela to him -- it all seems to be Jagellions and Rurikids and even though I know the Arpads and Rurikids intermarried I can't find a direct link. Does you know what this refers to? --Jfruh (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A concern/question
After adding some references to Ralph I, Count of Vermandois, I noticed that his first wife Eleanor is mentioned as daughter of Stephen II, Count of Blois. As of last night's searching, all sources I found pertaining to Eleanor depict her as a niece of Theobald II, Count of Champagne, a son of Stephen II, Count of Blois. One source states that Eleanor probably was the daughter of William, Count of Sully, Theobald's older brother. Would you happen to be able to shed some light on this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=714105470 your edit] to Henry II, Duke of Bavaria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catherine of Bosnia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Catherine of Bosnia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catherine of Bosnia
The article Catherine of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Catherine of Bosnia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Catherine of Bosnia
The article Catherine of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Catherine of Bosnia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK review
This Template:Did you know nominations/Sajida Zaidi, Zahida Zaidi is pending your final review. Thanks.-- Nvvchar . 14:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ponsa
<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Peregrin Saxon
<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is scary to think that it has been three years already. Thanks for reminding me of the prize :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

hi
you're the subject of a WP:3RR report here - thanks LavaBaron (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vladislav of Bosnia
Hello! Your submission of Vladislav of Bosnia 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Vladislav of Bosnia
— Maile (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jelena Šubić
— Maile (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Anđeo Zvizdović
The DYK project (nominate) 12:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ahdname of Milodraž
The DYK project (nominate) 12:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

SERBIA vs SERBS
Why did you undo my changes concerning Tvrtko I, even though my sources were varied, international and unbiased, but you still removed them without a question. I wrote that he was the King of Serbs and Bosnia, and you changed it back to King of Bosnia and Serbia, claiming that it was cleared in the main body of the text. But the problem is that the title King of Serbia is entirely incorrect, and therefore, shouldn't even be on the page. I mean, the LAND/STATE and NATION are different things. Tvrtko was not the ruler of Serbia, because there was NO SERBIA in that particular time period, ever since the death of Tsar Urosh in 1371! There were several petty states ruled by Serbs (for example, Knez Lazar's Moravian state, Đurađ's Zeta, Marko Kraljević's land, Vuk Branković's state, Konstantin Dragaš's land, etc.). That's why, when Tvrtko proclaimed himself King, he added of the Serbs in his title, because it encompasses the people, whether they live in Bosnia, Zeta, Macedonia, Moravska, or any other petty state. Here's an example... when Tsar Dušan proclaimed himself the Emperor/Tsar, his full title was Emperor of Serbs and Greeks. Why Greeks and not Rhomeia or Roman Empire, as was the name of the Greek country? Simple - because he didn't conquer the WHOLE Greek state. But since Dušan's empire had a lot of Greeks in it (from conquered territories), it was logical for him to add of the Greeks to his title. Same thing with Tvrtko - he could claim the title of the Serbs but not of Serbia, since he didn't rule over all the Serbian states. Furthermore, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drevnibor (talk • contribs) 09:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A question
Hi Surtsicna,

do you have any interest in Bosnian or ex-Yugoslav history other than medieval? I might need your help with an imminent issue. <font face="Chiller"><font color="grey" size="4px">Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 11:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, I do occasionally edit modern history articles. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you, Antidiskriminator! Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Aiko
Sole reason I reverted you is because I saw "Crown Prince Naruto" and immediately assumed you were a troll rofl. Didn't know you were just trying to shorten his title. --Booyahhayoob (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I have no idea how I managed to shorten the name too. I have never read the manga :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

barnstar

 * Many thanks, LavaBaron! Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinions?
Hey! Would like to know your opinion on Talk:Constantine II of Greece‎ regarding the abrupt mention of "He was born a Prince of Denmark" after the first sentence in the article and its overall relevancy to be mentioned in the lead at all. Many thanks! :) --Re5x (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jaquinta of Bari
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pavao Dragičević
Hello! Your submission of Pavao Dragičević at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pavao Dragičević
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * So close to Hungary, yet I don't think I have ever tasted it. Thanks! :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Queen Emma
Hello Surtsicna, the fact that Queen Emma was Regent for her husband for a few days and afterwards eight years for her daughter is not seriously in doubt. Neither is the fact that she was generally known as the Queen mother in the Netherlands after her Regency. Neither is the fact that she was known as HM the Queen of the Netherlands during her husbands life. Just for consistency, you have yourself added this edit where you don't see any reason to call Ioanna of Bulgaria a dowager. What is the dowager thing based on? She was generally known as the Queen Mother and of course officially as Queen Emma, when she stopped being HM the Queen. Your source is not the website of the Dutch Parliament, but the website for a University project that publishes the text of primary sources. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hebel! No, of course her status as regent is not in doubt, but not every regent had her or his status reflected in the official title. The dowager thing in this case is based on the source cited in the article. What is the "HM Queen Emma the Queen Regent" based on? We need sources, not original research. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, basically she was at the time (while her husband was clinging on to life for a few days) HM the Queen AND the Regent. For the period of her Regency for her daughter the phrase "Queen-Regent" is well attested, and when I get to delve in my books about the Dutch Monarchy that can easily be shown. So does the source I now added to the article (if you can read Dutch) It's generally used for women who were widowed Queens and were in her position. Queen Regent is as a combination of two functions not always a registered and official title perhaps, but that's the way historiography and literature (two little nasty things that we also have to reckon with) describe people like this. So do the sources about them. If you worry about her depiction as Queen Mother.... OK. Also not an official title, but she was generally known as such by at least my grandparents and lot's of publications of various nature call her so. I'll be back Sunday to look up more quotes about this if you like. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, she was a queen and a regent, but that does not mean that she was ever introduced as "HM The Queen Regent", that she was referred to at the court or in the parliament as "HM The Queen Regent", etc. The Titles and styles section does not list titles and styles used by historians to refer to a person during a certain period, but titles and styles officially used during the person's lifetime. The source you cited does not say that she was referred to as "HM The Queen-Regent" or "HM The Queen-Mother" or anything really about her title. If we cannot agree on how she was called (despite a source explicitly stating this), the section is best removed. We should not make stuff up. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows secondary sources and scholarly works, rather than primary sources. That goes for the titles and styles sections as well. If that's the standard we better do away with all of them. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And secondary sources, as far as I have seen, do not say that she was styled "HM The Queen Regent" or "HM The Queen Mother". All secondary sources are based on primary sources (which should go without saying), and the secondary source I had cited was very explicit. Surtsicna (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your source doesn't call her "HM the Dowager-Queen" It calls her "HM Queen-dowager Adelaide Emma Wilhelmina Theresia" etc... My source mention Queen-mother and Queen-Regent. We are basically talking about forms of address when it comes to these sections, not about formal and full titles. These are not always (I would say mostly not) regulated by some formal legal decision but are used per convention. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, forms of address. But your sources describe her as queen mother and regent, which is perfectly fine. They do not, however, state that she was addressed as "HM The Queen Regent" or "HM The Queen Mother". Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just a question of opening the newspapers and other documents of the time to see how she was addressed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose so - documents being probably more relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Surtsicna, I found a few. I will concede the "dowager" aspect because it was used literally in law forms she signed in her capacity as Regent. She is called "Queen-Dowager and Regent of the Kingdom" there (which begs the question what she might have been called in the three days she was Regent but not yet dowager...). These law forms (introductions to a law) do not of course constitute a formal establishment of a 'form of address'. I found a newspaper articles addressing her as "H.M the Queen-Regent", "H.M. Queen Emma" and "H.M. the Queen-Mother" for different periods during her widowhood. But I'm pretty sure that "Queen-Mother" never was a formal title or a formal 'form of address'. I'm not going to soil your talkpage with refs at this point, until I can find out how to put them in a single block. I still don't think matters concerning the form of address were very well regulated at the time. For our present Queen consort it has only been slightly better.... I'll be back on this. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)