User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 11

Princess Maria Francesca of Savoy
Hello again Surtsicna, could you look at this? I gather that you have been in an earlier conflict with this IP hopper, who as you said might be a sock of a blocked user. I met him here, about this matter and this matter and this one and also this one and some others. Could you explain the history of these issues? Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at User_talk:Guilherme_Styles. That is who I suspect to be behind the IP addresses. Surtsicna (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Women's Antifascist Front of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ibrahim Fejić
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

British Prince
Before we start an edit war, I thought we could discuss what it is we are disagreeing about. The Letters Patent 1917 make very clear who is and is not a Prince/Princess. You assertion that "So, Princess William is not a princess? That's absurd. What letters patent made Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon a queen?" with respect, shows a total misunderstanding of how British Titles work. "Princess William" is absolutely *NOT* a Princess; it is akin to a woman become "Mrs. John Smith" upon marriage. It is a courtesy afforded, it DOES NOT mean that someone becomes a Princess in her own right. As to your point about Queen Elizabeth, there are no letters Patent, but (as with MANY things in the UK) it is a long standing convention that the wife of a King gains the title of Queen; notice how there are no Kings who are the spouses of Queens in their own right? (With the exception of course of William III and Mary II, but there was SPECIFIC Acts of Parliament passed to deal with them). Danny Philp (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is also a long standing convention that the wife of a prince gains the title of princess. Centuries old, in fact. Arguing whether or not someone universally known as "HRH Princess Michael of Kent" is a princess or not is ridiculous. I should point out, however, that your assertion that there are no kings who are spouses of reigning queens shows a lack of knowledge of British history. Three more men in British history became kings by marrying female monarchs: Philip II of Spain, Francis II of France and Henry Stuart. The latter two became kings without any specific act of parliament. In any case, the article cites a public document in which a British prince described his wife as a princess. That is also quite clear. Surtsicna (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To start with, and I honestly mean this respectfully, I used the most obvious example, not ALL examples. Secondly, each example you gave are a result of political realities of the time. Be that as it may, you are simply incorrect as a result of Letters Patent 1917.  The source you cite further makes your argument weaker given that a Prince of the United Kingdom has no "power" to declare anyone a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom; this can ONLY be done by the Monarch, such as she did with Prince Phillip, who was nothing more than a "commoner" in terms of British Law for ten years after renouncing his own titles. Danny Philp (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope this catches you before you are able to respond to my last comment, but I wanted to point out but ONE other source to show you otherwise; http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/why-well-never-see-a-princess-catherine-13573 Danny Philp (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Philip was only commoner until his future father-in-law made him Duke of Edinburgh. Becoming a prince 10 years later changed nothing in that regard. Each prince and princess, unless also a peer, is legally a commoner. Prince Andrew (as a peer) cannot sit in the House of Commons, while Princess Beatrice (as a commoner) cannot sit in the House of Lords. Anyway, the source you gave says quite clearly: "After consulting with Kensington Palace, we were told the reason why she was referred to as a Princess of the United Kingdom on the birth document is because she is one… but not quite as you think." Very straightforward. Princess Michael is a princess, Empress Frederick was an empress, Queen Alexandra was a queen, etc. No letters patent were ever needed for a lawfully wedded wife to share her husband's title and status. Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologizes for not getting back to you sooner. You have missed my point about what it takes to become a Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom.  This can ONLY BE DONE via Letters Patent if one is not born under the conditions of the Letters Patent 1917.  Perhaps a better example to give you is Charlotte.  Until Letters Patent 2012 were released, Charlotte, as the daughter of a male line decedent of the Monarch, would only have been give the title "Lady".  If the daughter of a Prince doesn't automatically become a Princess, I'm uncertain why you think the wife of a Prince would become one, especially in light of the Letters Patent 1917.  Regardless, I have added those references to the page, including Letters Patent 2012. 99.247.167.146 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the wife of a prince is styled as a princess. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are incorrect. I defy you to find any source that shows a Letter Patent making Kate a Princess, or any source that shows a woman marrying a Prince becomes a Princess. While I would agree that Kate may correctly be referred to as "Princess William", this no more makes Kate a Princess than Diana, Fergie or Sophie is/was.  Again, the Letters Patent 1917 CLEARLY show who is a Prince/Princess in their own right; which is NOT the same as being "Princess Husband's name".  The ONLY way to become a Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom is to be born of the Monarch, be born of the Monarch's MALE line or by additional Letters Patent such as Letters Patent 2012 giving Prince Williams children the style of Prince/Princess; had it not been for those Letters Patent 2012, George and Charlotte would have fallen under Letters Patent 1917 and been "mere" Lord and Lady. Danny Philp (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I challenge you to cite a letter patent naming Catherine Middleton Duchess of Cambridge or a letter patent naming Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Queen of the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no Patents in regards to a wife taking on the female equivalent of her husband's titles; this is done by convention. The same is with Queen Consorts.  Again, there is a difference between taking on the titles of one's husband, and becoming a Princess in your own right.  I am starting to strongly feel that you have not read the Letters Patent 1917 and are holding on to your dogmatic belief.  I've given you SEVERAL sources showing who is and is not a Princess/Prince of the United Kingdom.  I've used the fact that Phillip was a not a Prince of the United Kingdom until elevated via Letters Patent 1957, I've used the fact that Charlotte, the DAUGHTER of a Prince in his own right wouldn't have been a Princess without the Letters Patent 2012 and that the Letters Patent 1917 CLEARLY show who IS or IS NOT a Princess of the United Kingdom.  Please help me understand why this isn't making sense to you.  Is it that you do not understand the difference between the courtesy title of "Princess William" and her having her own right to be "Princess Catherine"?   Again, there are three ways to become a Princess of the United Kingdom as per the Letters Patent 1917; Be born of the Monarch, be born of the Monarch's issue or Letters Patent being issued bestowing the right, such as the Letters Patent 2012. Danny Philp (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous, you just undid my edit over Charlotte, saying she wasn't named when she CLEARLY was in my source. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60384-1738680 Danny Philp (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed getting ridiculous. You claim that women take their husbands' titles by convention, yet deny that wives of princes take their husbands' - even though they clearly do. And no, Charlotte is not named at all there. Being named means having your name explicitly mentioned. Charlotte's name is not explicitly mentioned there, which is hardly surprising given that Charlotte did not exist at the time. In any case, Charlotte's example could not possibly be less relevant when discussing princesses by marriage. Yes, I do very much understand the difference between a princess by birth and a princess by marriage. I also understand that both are princesses but also that the princely title is a courtesy title no matter who holds it (according to the one time assistant under-secretary of state Henry Austin Strutt). I understand the huge difference between a queen regnant and a queen consort, but Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was undisputably a queen. I understand the difference between a suo jure countess and a courtesy countess, but Princess Margaret held and used the comital title as much as Lady Mountbatten of Parma. Princess Michael of Kent is called a princess, a "Royal Highness", and even takes precedence over a princess by birth (Alexandra), yet you are telling me that she is not a princess?

Read here and here what the Home Ofice had to say about Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's title and style upon marriage to Prince Albert, Duke of York. "... by virtue of the custom that a wife takes the rank of her husband, she would indeed become a Royal Highness, and a Princess as well (although she would not use the title any more than her husband the duke of York), without any need for a formal document." "The only difficulty we have found in coming to the above conclusion lies in the Letters Patent of 1917, relating to the style and title of members of the Royal Family, but the limitation there only applies to the use of the style 'Royal Highness' or 'Princess' by lineal descendants of the Sovereign, and there appears to be nothing in the Patent which would supersede the settled rule of law that a wife enjoys her husband's rank." Surtsicna (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Women's Antifascist Front of Croatia
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 October
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) 00:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the William of Ypres page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=742653308 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%2F742653308%7CWilliam of Ypres%5D%5D Ask for help])

Reference errors on 5 October
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) 00:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the William of Ypres page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=742726879 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (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%2F742726879%7CWilliam of Ypres%5D%5D Ask for help])

Swedish royalty
I have a problem with how you interpret the guideline WP:REDUNDANCY. Example: Princess Estelle of Sweden, Duchess of Östergötland is her title, she is primarily princess of Sweden, secondarily Duchess of Östergötland. If it is shortened it is either to "Princess Estelle of Sweden" or just "Princess Estelle". Hence there is a stronger argument to remove "Duchess of Östergötland" in the bolding (which I don't think is a good idea). This of course applies to the rest of the Swedish royal family. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But then we should not describe them as Swedish princes(ses). "Prince Nicolas of Sweden is a Swedish prince" is absurd, isn't it? And if shortening to "Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland" is not appropriate, should we not suggest moving the article? In my opnion, mentioning Sweden once is quite enough. For what it's worth, we do not introduce Prince Andrew, Duke of York, as "Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom, Duke of York" although he certainly is primarily a British prince. Surtsicna (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, not all royals are styled and addressed the same. The British royals use their ducal titles way more than it is done in Sweden. While I can agree that it is an argument for moving the article, I think the previous consensus was to have it this way to avoid too long article names, and I can live with that as long as prince(ss) of Sweden is mentioned sufficiently in the beginning of the article (i.e. in bold). Keeping the bolding the same as the article name is only prefereable, not essential, as per the Paul McCartney example in WP:REDUNDANCY. Personally, I don't have a problem with "Prince Nicolas of Sweden is a Swedish prince" etc., although you can change it to "Prince Nicolas of Sweden is an heir to the Swedish throne, currently 8th in line..." or something to that effect. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion I was referring to when I undid your changes. I'd like to point out that when those corresponding changes by you were undone the last time, they were undone by somebody else, not by me. Also, it seems that the other guy who reverted you today did it in a rude manner, that's too bad. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Henry VIII & Edward VI
Howdy. Why are you reverting my attempts to bring consistency to those infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am doing so because there is no reason to "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's allowable & also more consistent, when there's already pipe-links. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Who sees that? It reads just the same. All you gain is extra characters in the source form. Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

García 1994
There is a footnote to this work at Philip III of Navarre. What is it? Srnec (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll get to that immediately. Thanks for letting me know! Surtsicna (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you add Joan I's parents (or at least father) to the family tree? I think it would be helpful to link the pre-Capetian kings to Philip, but I don't know how to edit those thing. Srnec (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a Wiki jaguar has beaten me to it :) Surtsicna (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Charles and Anne
Oops! Read in haste, get reverted at leisure. Cheers, Awien (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that happened to me in the same article :D Surtsicna (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Queen Letizia
I'm referring to all other articles: Queen Maxima, Prince Philip, Grand-Duchess Maria Teresa, Princess Charlene, and so on. Aude9331 (talk) Aude9331 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But what about Victoria Eugenia of Battenberg, Mercedes of Orléans, Julie Clary, Elisabeth Farnese and other Spanish queens? Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A lot of other past consorts also have that style, but no no actual consort in Wikipedia.. See Prince Bernhard of Lippe. I think it would be more accurate to have the same format for all actual consorts. Aude9331 (talk) Aude9331 (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would it be more accurate, Aude9331? It is inaccurate to suggest that the Queen of Spain no longer has a last name. She is still Letizia Ortiz. Why should the article about the Queen of Spain be in line with the article about a Dutch prince and not in line with articles about other Spanish queens? Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more accurate because all other consorts are called this way. Of course Charlene of Monaco is still Charlene Wittstock. But Letizia, like Charlene, are no longer using their last names, and it is quite unlikely to change, unless they divorce. Before her husband's accession, Letizia could by styled as Her Royal Highness The Princess of Asturias, Doña Letizia Ortiz, like her husband (HRH Felipe de Borbón) although officially she was always styled HRH The Princess of Asturias or HRH Doña Letizia, simply, without using any last name. But now, she is never styled Her Majesty Queen Letizia Ortiz, like it is not correct to say Queen Máxima Zorreguieta, Queen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon or Queen Silvia Sommerlath. On her predecessors having their surnames in their infoboxes on Wikipedia, it can be explained by the fact that they were ALSO or mainly known with that name, and they eventually became consorts. Nobody refers now to Letizia as Letizia Ortiz in the media nor in society. But the main argument is that of analogy with other wikipedia articles on actual consorts. Aude9331 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we have no evidence that the Princess of Monaco retained her last name. We do, however, know that the Queen of Spain is still Letizia Ortiz as much as she was all her life. And yes, she does use her last name and she is still referred to as Letizia Ortiz. And yes, she is styled Her Majesty Queen Letizia Ortiz, by the very webpage of the Spanish monarchy. I think your position here is based on wrong premises. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.
 * ,, you have been blocked before, warned previously, and decided to edit-war rather than discuss the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, Ymblanter, but why should the editor who actually made the first revert a month after the dispute died down (with me backing down) get nothing? Could it be because one user (who long harbors extremely ill feelings for me for reasons unknown to me) described my edits as vandalism? In fact, she or he edited the report specifically to include the accusation of vandalism. I have been contributing to this project for eight years. With over a hundred DYKs and six GAs, as well as countless dealings with actual vandals and hoax-creators, I really do not appreciate being called a vandal. Calling a well-meaning editor is not only incivil, but in this case a deliberate and malicious attempt to malign me. Quite sickening. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think your actions were in any way vandalism, certainly not. However, they were very clearly edit-warring (six reverts?), and I was not able to see any discussion at the top page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears you misunderstood something, Ymblanter. I only made two reverts on that page this month, and . Surely we cannot count all reverts I ever made there, right? Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is correct, you just continued edit-warring (against multiple users) from the point it stopped on Oct 31.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I suggested a compromise on 31 October. It was in place until yesterday, when the other user decided to revert that too, with an explanation that boils down to simply not accepting any compromise. Suggesting that it is inaccurate to refer to Crown Princess Victoria as Crown Princess Victoria is absolute nonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not really convincing for me but of course you are welcome to post an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, it still stands that I did not initiate a discussion. What bothers me is that the same does not apply to the other party, who was the first to start reverting (now as well as then). Thanks for listening to my laments, Ymblanter. Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Philip III of Navarre
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Joan of Navarre (nun)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Maria of Navarre
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOPIPE
Hi Surtsicna. I know you use WP:NOPIPE to justify edits like, but in that case it just seems like wasted effort to me? In terms of motivation for actively changing away from piped links to redirects, WP:NOPIPE suggests only that "The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page." (which is right), but that doesn't hold here, and actually isn't there a risk that in the future "Edward VI" becomes a disambiguation page whereas "Edward VI of England" will never be? What am I missing? Best, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 20:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! I might be better off linking to WP:NOTBROKEN, as that page explains the matter in more detail. How likely is it that Edward VI might become a disambiguation page, though? The only way I can think of would be if another nation suddenly gained six kings named Edward; I am not sure if books, films, etc, named after a person are ever considered more notable than their subject. Either way, it is a major what if. Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
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!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Edward VI
Vtdfjngft ForeverMe (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Leopold II of Belgium
Hi. I see that on 6 January you reverted my change to your edit on on the titles used by King Leopold. The editor who originally added the info on titles concerning the Congo Free State and Belgian Congo had not referenced them and you were correct to remove what does indeed sound like 'nonsense'. However, in partially reinstating and correcting the information I did reference the title 'King-Sovereign' for the Congo Free State period and left out the title for the Belgian Congo period as I could not find a reference. The use of this title is correct, even if it reflects a typical colonial folly (Queen Victoria was after all styled 'Queen-Empress of India') and I have the book used for the reference in my private library, so am certain that the reference is correct. I see that you cite as you reason for reverting my input that 'No mention of the phrase "His Majesty The King-Sovereign of the Congo Free State" there'. This is incorrect. He is most certainly referred to as 'King-Sovereign'on the page I quoted, I have rechecked, and that part of the book deals in some detail with the issue of what Leopold as 'owner' of the Congo was/wished to be called. Are you sure that you consulted the same edition of 'King Leopold's Ghost' as the one I cited? I must also point out that in making my edit I went further than other contributors to the same section as his other styles and titles are not referenced. I am going to reinstate my edit on the basis of what I have said above. Please contact me on my talk page if you feel the matter needs further discussion and before you make any further changes. Would be happy to hear why you may still have a different view of this matter. Cheers Waitabout (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your response. Guess the issue is that I didn't put line in quotation marks, so it is not a verbatim quote. The source certainly does say that he called himself 'King-Sovereign' and I guess all kings and sovereigns are known by the title 'Majesty'. I would like to let it stand as is as it does show the folly to which Leopold in particular amongst colonial royalty was prone and as I said the titles used for his Belgium ranks are not footnoted so if this one gets the toss so should the whole section. Cheers Waitabout (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't that precisely the point! It is how he would have been referred to when he met with his officials from the Congo Free State or probably more often when they corresponded with him. How else do you think it would have been? Just because it was an African colony doesn't mean that his European officials who ran the place would have behaved differently. Victoria was addressed as 'Your majesty the Queen Empress' when dealing with the India Office, so why should Leopold have been different? He wouldn't have been so concerned about the title if it had not mattered in the society in which he lived. As you said at the beginning, it is a lot of nonsense and as I said to you when I reinstated your edit, whilst it is nonsense, it is nevertheless the truth. In Wiki Project Africa it is important to us that these affectations about colonial times are reflected in Wikipedia articles that touch on our continent as it reflects important aspects of the colonial system. Waitabout (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Decided to rise to the challenge and found the reference. He was actually 'His Serene Majesty'. Have included a reference. Thanks for pushing me to get it right! Waitabout (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Tvrtko I of Bosnia
You state that there is no dispute about the fact that Stephen Tvrtko I of Bosnia was Catholic, because Sima Ćirković mentions that. It is possible that in certain points his life he had been a Catholic. But it is also certain that he was also Orthodox;

“It is very pleasant to glorify You as befits the true faith, and this, so devout and joyful word address to You, O Christ’s First Martyr Stephen. You, in turn, prayed for those who stoned you, saying, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them, for they know not what they do.” For this cause, o the sufferer, as you prayed for those who stoned You – pray even more to the Lord, Christ my God for the one who always prays to You, evokes You and recognize You as the Christ’s victim and the one who does all the good deeds in his God, invoking Your help, because of Your prayers I received God’s blessing and I was granted the honor of the king’s scepter of my holy parents, Serbian ancestors, kings and tsars, so following their life and imperial rules I correct all defects and rule in lands of the kingdom given to me by God.”

This is how in the Charter from 1382. to people of Dubrovnik our then-ruler, as he calls himself, “King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Seacoast, Hum land, Lower lands, the Western sides, Usora, Sol, Podrinje and otherс” celebrates St. Stephen the First Martyr and Archdeacon. King Stephen Tvrtko I Kotromanić in the same Charter states that to this the saint he dedicated the newly built city and named it Saint Stephen. Nowadays it is close to the city Herceg Novi! Upon the creation of the Charter he is king for over five years, crowned over the holy relics of St. Sava by the Metropolitan of Mileševa, and with the blessing of Patriarch Ephraim. After the coronation, Stephen Tvrtko adds lilies to the Kotromanićs coat of arms, as a symbol of royal authority given by God. There is no doubt that the lilies are taken from Raska after the coronation of Tvrtko with the crown of Nemanjićs, because the royal crown of Nemanjićs was ornamented with lilies. Also, on their currency, frescoes, churches and monasteries are displays of lilies, which had in Christian Europe symbolized the purity of the Holy Mother of God. In his praise of St Archdeacon Stefan, pronounced in the spirit of the Judeo-Christian culture upon which European civilization is founded, the master of medieval Bosnia professes at the same time the values of civilization, but also the values that society and the state in which he rules heritage. This is not about the patron saint of the Kotromanićs royal family, St. Gregory the Theologian, but about the patron of the country he rules, dealer before the throne of “God of fathers of Tvrtko and us”, which he takes from Nemanjićs with the act of his coronation at the monastery Mileševa."

Note this; No other than Orthodox Christians can be crowned in this way.

Calicccc (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Saint Stephen is venerated by virtually all Christians. Tvrtko's veneration of Saint Stephen proves that he was Orthodox as much as it proves that he was Coptic, Lutheran, Armenian Apostolic or Roman Catholic.
 * The place of Tvrtko I's coronation is debated. The first to mention it as Mileševa was Mavro Orbini, 225 years later. Contemporary sources show that Tvrtko I's successors were crowned in the Franciscan church in Mile near Visoko (with the exception of Stephen Tomašević, who was crowned in Saint Mary's Church, Jajce). But even so, being crowned in an Orthodox monastery does not prove Orthodoxy; two Lutherans and a Calvinist were crowned kings of England in an Anglican cathedral, a Catholic and an Anglican were crowned king and queen of Romania in a ceremony conducted by the country's Orthodox metropolitan, etc.
 * The fleurs-de-lis was an emblem of Tvrtko's overlords, the Capetian Angevins, and a common heraldic element in Catholic kingdoms.
 * Tvrtko I's marriage, to an Orthodox princess, was conducted by the Catholic Bishop of Bosnia. I do not see why a Catholic prelate would conduct the marriage of two Orthodox people.
 * Finally, the article cites respectable historians such as Sima Ćirković and John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. Surtsicna (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Edward VI of England
Hello I notice you reverted the change I made here; I've opened a discussion on the talk page there if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

US First Lady & Second Lady
Howdy, why are you deleting Michelle Obama's successor-to-be from the infobox & yet not deleting Jill Biden's successor-to-be from the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Why are you not deleting Jill Biden's successor-to-be from the infobox? Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I already did, since you wouldn't. Consistency isn't a bad thing. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not. Thank you for helping out :) Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thirty-nine Articles article: Finding the text of the Articles
Hello Surtsicna

Mirrorthesoul recently deleted this message from me to you, presumably accidentally:

In the lead paragraph of the article on the Thirty-nine Articles, I've restored the internal link to the External links section of that article. I'm sure many come to the article hoping to find the text of the Articles. (I did once; also see various comments on the article's Talk page.) By no means everyone would think to scroll all the way down to the External links. (I didn't, and I'm not hopelessly stupid, I hope.) To restore the link, I had effectively to undo part of an edit you made. If there is a technically better way to achieve the purpose of helping readers find the text of the Articles quickly, please help. Thanks and best wishes, --Frans Fowler (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for reinstating the message! Wikipedians usually avoid telling readers what to do in the articles, though I see your point. I will try to rephrase the sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for removing your post! I thought it was a message I left after I posted mine. Terribly sorry about that! Mirrorthesoul

House of
With reference to this and this, please see WT:RM -- PBS (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

British royal family
I see you have reverted my edit to the subject article.

How can you explain then, that further in the article lists the current members and includes both male and female grandchildren? Why did you not remove HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, HRH Princess Beatrice of York, and HRH Princess Eugenie of York from that list? You cannot leave the article with the lead saying one thing and the article later saying another.

There is also the fact that the preceding sentence says clearly that all persons who carry the style "HRH" are members of the royal family. As noted above, that includes the grandchildren and great grandchildren that I included and you reverted out.

As for Philip, can you possibly image that if the Queen predeceases him, that he will not remain a member of the royal family? I mentioned this on the talk page and there was no objection there. .     Jim. . . .  (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)   11:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jameslwoodward! Charlotte, Beatrice and Eugenie are male-line [great-]granddaughters of the monarch, being daughters of the monarch's sons. Zara is a female-line granddaughter. Philip did not gain any title or style by marrying Elizabeth. He was specifically granted these. Anyway, I do not see anything on the talk page. In fact, nobody seems to have written anything there since 3 December. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Talk:British_royal_family .     Jim  . . . .   (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)   21:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Swedish Princes(ses) - Rewordings
We had this discussion here on your talk page if I remembered correctly, but it is not here anymore. However, fact is that you are the only one I have seen that maintains the standpoints that the previous wordings were silly. The redundancy issue is beside the point in such an argument. Anyway, the rewordings you made are fine with me since they fulfil both our standpoints. --Marbe166 (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop removing Styles and Titles
Hi Surtsicna, I wanted to leave a message a while ago, but I didn't know how to do that since I'm still new to editing on Wikipedia. Anyways, I wanted to say, can you leave the styles and titles on the pages of the wives? Sure you may think it's ridiculous and may think that they're not addressed that way but that IS how each person is addressed in real life before they're married. I dunno if you've every bought stuff online before, but have you ever select your title (if it's available on that site), they always ask you if you're a Miss, Mrs. It's the best way to know if you're married or not. Miss is obviously when you're single. Mrs is when you're married. So please stop removing that. Mirrorthesoul (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Helllo!
 * In the 21st century, hardly anyone cares about a woman's marital status. Ms. has existed for centuries and has been extensively used by women for decades. If there is no source, there are no "styles and titles". That is especially so when the woman is alive. Surtsicna (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

And who is anyone? I mean, look at The Duchess of Cambridge. She was known as Miss Catherine Middleton because she was previously single. So it still exists today. That also went for Princess Sofia as well.
 * And who says that Princess Sofia preferred Miss and not Ms.? How do you know that? The official website sometimes used "Miss" and sometimes "Ms." when referring to her. Where can we see what she preferred? There appears to be no such source, and is it really such a big deal to simply mention how she is styled today? We do not mention that Ivanka Trump is called "Miss Ivanka Trump" or "Ms. Ivanka Trump", for exmaple. Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you check in the site's original language? I was only talking about Royals. I didn't say anything about Ivanka Trump. Plus, Ivanka isn't a royal. Also, if you've noticed that every royal house I've linked says Miss on their announcements. Unless you want to personally email them and ask them.
 * I have no idea about Swedish forms of address, what is appropriate or common and what is not. The official website uses both English forms. Can we assume that the people who translated the text for the Court from Swedish to English knew what they were doing? I do not want to email or ask anyone about this; you are the one insisting on introducing information into the article, so you should be the one to present sources. I would much rather only list the royal titles. As you say, we are talking about royals, and "Ms. Sofia Hellqvist"/"Miss Sofia Hellqvist" was not royal. Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes it's best to check the site in it's original language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorthesoul (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And if the article stated how she was called in Swedish, that would be okay. But the Court called her "Ms. Sofia Hellqvist" in its English language announcements. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, they said either in the announcements. But have you also checked that they officially said Miss on the Banns of Marriage and the wedding section on the English section of the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorthesoul (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, i would ask kindly that you would not remove title ans styles from Tessy Antony's wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie960 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to reinforce that the complete removal of all of Tessy Antony's previous styles and titles is malpractice. I would also like to reinforce that i have not included a current style or title for Tessy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie960 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please give us sources. The BLP policy makes it unacceptable to have unsourced, dubious material in a biography of a living person (such as Tessy). Without sources, the content cannot be in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am attaching a link to a website and a decree which confirm that Tessy Antony is no longer a Princess of Luxembourg http://www.luxarazzi.com/2017/02/its-official-no-title-for-tessy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie960 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Again, I would ask you to please change the name on Tessy Antony's page as i am unable to do so? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie960 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop. Katie960 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Beat that Katie960 (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Merkel
You changed "Her father was born a Catholic" to "Her father was raised a Catholic". The family apparently converted to Protestantism in 1930, when Merkel's father was four years old, so "raised a Catholic" doesn't seem like a correct description. The phrase "born a catholic" appears to be widely used to refer to someone whose family was Catholic at the time of their birth. --Tataral (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. But if we cannot say for a four-year-old to have been raised a Catholic, how can we say for a newborn to have been born a Catholic? Perhaps it would be best to say what you just said - that her father's family converted in 1930. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Her father's family was Catholic at the time of his birth, but converted to Protestantism when he was a child"? --Tataral (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I'll edit the article accordingly. Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tvrtko I of Bosnia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tvrtko I 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed that I've started reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not! Thanks for notifying me. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for responses to my comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK QPQ requirement
Surtsicna, whenever you nominate an article, whether it was written by you or someone else, you are responsible for supplying one QPQ for each article you nominate. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have marked the DYK nomination for closure, since the QPQs have not been provided. Should you return to editing before it is closed and address that issue (among others) on the nomination, the process will continue. I hope you see this in time. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Belgian monarchs
Should the Belgian monarchs be numbered? See Baudouin of Belgium, Albert II of Belgium & Philippe of Belgium article intros & infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in the info boxes, and absolutely not as some sort of title, but in the articles OK I think, especially since they number themselves in their own info. Whether that info should be in the lede or not? I have no opinion on that matter. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is what i am saying all the time. Thank you very much!--Carolus (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But not on your talk page just now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Like it is now; is fine. --Carolus (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Tvrtko I of Bosnia
If specified "Стефан Твртко" must be specified and "Stefan Tvrtko" because it is "Стефан Твртко" written Cyrillic script, "Stefan Tvrtko" Latin script, because the Serbs used both letters (Cyrillic and Latin), the Croats only Latin ... "Stjepan Tvrtko" (Cyrillic: "Стјепан Твртко" - Serbs) - Croats, "Стефан Твртко/Stefan Tvrtko" - Serbs --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But there's also Стјепан Твртко, as Bosniaks use Cyrillic too. And then there is Stipan! It's a mess. I believe we should keep it simple. The article about Tvrtko I should focus on Tvrtko I and not on minor differences within Serbo-Croatian language. Surtsicna (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Should stand both variants ("Стефан Твртко/Stefan Tvrtko" and "Стјепан Твртко/Stjepan Tvrtko") in brackets


 * Bosniaks – "Stjepan Tvrtko", guess and "Стјепан Твртко" (maybe and "Стефан Твртко/Stefan Tvrtko")


 * Serbs – "Стефан Твртко/Stefan Tvrtko", Serbs in BiH – "Стефан Твртко/Stefan Tvrtko" and "Стјепан Твртко/Stjepan Tvrtko"


 * Croats and Croats in BiH – "Stjepan Tvrtko" --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this look good to you? Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You had better "Stefan Tvrtko/Стефан Твртко", "Stjepan Tvrtko/Стјепан Твртко" or conversely "Stjepan Tvrtko/Стјепан Твртко", "Stefan Tvrtko/Стефан Твртко" --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Empress Matilda
I shouldn't have to come here to tell someone of nearly 10 years editing experience the benefits of WP:BRD. Is there a reason why you've reverted the reverter rather than discuss the issue?  Cassianto Talk   20:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not revert to the previous version. I inserted an alternative wording. Is there something wrong with the new wording or are you here just to patronize? Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you "did not revert to the previous version", you were discussing reverts in edit summaries. It's a pity you couldn't have asked that $64,000 question after I reverted you.  Cassianto Talk   20:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a pity you could not have contributed to resolving the issue (or explained your revert in more than two words). You did take the time, however, to nag about me doing so. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not for me to discuss my revert; it's for you to discuss why you've been reverted. Has 10 years on this website not taught you that by now?   Cassianto Talk   16:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not for you to discuss your revert? Have you somehow earned the right to a special treatment? Because nothing on this website has taught me that it is okay for me to revert without a proper explanation. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence
Surtsicna, I could appreciate your edit to Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence, but there were some problems with it. First, your edit introduced an arrow as the first displayed character in the article. I think that this was unintended. Second, you put a clause into parentheses that had previously used commas. Part of my BA was in English, I have worked as a university reference librarian & a university instructor familiar with both APA style & MLA style. I can tell you that using commas is grammatically preferably to using parentheses. If you want me to quote chapter & verse, I can go find it, but please remember this when you go to streamline the lead sentence for the article.

Thanks for all you edits!

Peaceray (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Could you please then reword the opening line? "The third son, but the second son to survive infancy, of Edward III" sounds rather clumsy. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with translation
Hi,

I need some help with translation from somebody who has better knowledge of English language than me. Based on the quality of the prose you add to this wikipedia it is easy to conclude that you certainly know English much better than me. Are you willing to help me?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Здраво! Хвала на лијепим ријечима, мада не бих рекао да ишта недостаје твом енглеском. Како ти могу помоћи? Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. Sorry for disturbing you. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was... odd, I must say. Јесам ли рекао нешто погрешно? Surtsicna (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Your nice reply made my day. Thank you for it! I did not want to spoil it with my question related to some not so pleasant topics. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Можеш ми послати и мејл ако се предомислиш. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)