User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 12

Stephen I Gutkeled
I understand your argument, but succession boxes also serve to illustrate bearing of a position. In world history, there aree several examples to sole office-holders. Just some example in wiki: Christian X of Denmark, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Jefferson Davis, Jérôme Bonaparte, Hastings Banda as Prime Minister of Malawi, etc. S-boxes also show years/dates beside succession. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only natural that some offices never had more than one holder. I just don't see why there has to be a succession box for every office (and every other thing). The office, along with the years and the dates, can/should be mentioned in the lead and possibly in an infobox. The succession box consists of three main parts (the predecessor, the title and the successor), and for a one-off title we use only a third of the entire template, missing its point entirely. Of course I don't feel so strongly about this. I just gnome about, trying to keep everything tidy. Surtsicna (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry of Princess Leonore and Prince Nicolas of Sweden
look here: Birth record of Maria (Josefa) Michl Daughter of Karl Michl and Marie geb. Kiffl Karlsbad Nr. 177/1910: http://www.portafontium.eu/iipimage/30072092/karlovy-vary-105_0450-n?x=10&y=257&w=887&h=370 and marriage record of Maria (Josefa) Michl and Dr. med. Otto Walter son of Adolf Walter and Maria geb. Hillebrand Karlsbad Nr. 13/1932 http://www.portafontium.eu/iipimage/30071106/karlovy-vary-95_2160-o?x=-158&y=41&w=1039&h=438 Manha83 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bedding ceremony
IronGargoyle (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much, MX! Surtsicna (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tvrtko I of Bosnia
The article Tvrtko I of Bosnia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tvrtko I 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tvrtko I of Bosnia
Hello! Your submission of Tvrtko I 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! Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Lines of succession page moves
A week ago you moved a number of pages regarding lines of succession (for example Line of succession to the Swedish throne was moved to Succession to the Swedish throne), your argument being that that is the way the Succession to the British throne is named. To me it seems that most lines of succession pages for monarchies were named like the Swedish one. I don't see the reason for your move, almost all listpages has some explaining lead paragraph on the subject of the list. I urge you to undo your moves. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the subject of an article called Line of succession to the Swedish throne would be the line of succession of the Swedish throne. An explanation of that would be saying that it's a list of people. But the article does not (and should not) contain just a list of people. It gives us history from 1810. It gives us modern history and information about recent, breaking changes. Finally, it tells us all about the present succession law. Do you think the article Succession to the British throne should be moved to Line of succession to the British throne? Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms.
Per your edits in June, at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, I've made similar changes to the intros of the other people in the line of succession to the British throne. You're correct in that we should be pointing to 'one' country, for the general readership. That country would (of course) be the United Kingdom. I suspect though, all these changes will be reverted, as some (particularly in Canada) are sensitive to giving the UK special status. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say it had to be the United Kingdom. It can be Commonwealth Realms too. Having none is what is unacceptable. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Commonwealth realms? would come across as original reading. Anyways, I suspect all the changes will be reverted back. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we'll discuss it until we come up with something. Mentioning no country is against both common sense and Wikipedia guidelines. If Neymar should be introduced as a Brazilian footballer, not introducing William (whose ties to the state are enshrined in constitution) as a British prince or future king is a major failure. Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to using British throne as that's the one these royals are most associated with. We rarely hear about the Australian throne, Belizian throne or Antiguan and Barbadan throne :) GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
I reverted you at Talk:Mary in Islam‎ because you fail to obey WP:NPOV. Regardless of your irreligion, we're trying to distinguish two different characters. Making a comment that it doesn't matter because you think both are fake isn't helping. No one asked you for your opinion. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am grossed out by your incivility and audacity, . You are not trying to do anything. You did not contribute to that discussion at all. I did. You have no insight into my religiosity or a lack of it, nor is it any of your fucking business. Next time I see you remove anyone's response from an article talk page, you can expect me to report you. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

South Slavs and Orthodoxy
Hello Surtsicna. I noticed this edit which I have no intention of making changes to. I'd say "most" sounds over the top as it gives the impression of "almost all" but if we look at today's South Slavic demographic, Orthodoxy is the largest religion among Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians and Montenegrins. You will find that collectively, this contingent is noticeably more than half. Additionally with Bosniaks and other Slavic Muslims, it is a fact that these populations were Christians before conversion to Islam (though it could just as likely be Catholicism). Clearly some had to be Catholic and some had to be Orthodox so one way or another, there was probably a majority conversion for Orthodoxy. But then farther afield, saying "East Slavs" became Orthodox is another red herring because the East Slav and West Slav are largely invented classifications and seem to work solely on the Catholics in west and Orthodox in east principle. South Slavs obviously descend from populations who travelled to arrive to where they are, I personally see the rest as North Slavs as Slovaks are no closer in any way to Pomeranian Poles than to Ukrainians across the border. That's just my opinion if you wish to revise your contribution. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that you speak of "today's South Slavic demographic", while the article (apparently) speaks of a cultural split that took place following the Great Schism of 1054. Until the Ottoman conquests in the 15th century virtually all Bosnians were Catholics, and for a long time after the Schism Catholicism was also widespread in what is now Montenegro. It makes it really hard to speak of a demographic majority. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I do see your point. I'm looking today and using it as a reference for 1,000 years ago. It's as well I didn't interfere with the article. --OJ (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tvrtko I of Bosnia
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term "House of" with noble families
Thank you for all of your thoughtful edits on various articles, and I would like to get your opinion about a matter. From time to time, there have been some editors who have changed Wikipedia article titles about noble families from "House of [name]", such as changing the article about the House of Merode to Merode family. Such editors might believe that the term "House of" only applies to royal dynasties, not to noble families. However, my impression has always been that various high-ranking European noble families of ancient lineage, such as the House of Arenberg or the House of Ligne, may properly be referred to as such, and not simply as the Ligne family. You have in-depth knowledge about all things noble and royal, and I have great respect for your opinion, so I would be grateful if you could please let me know your very brief thoughts on this issue. Many thanks for your kind help! -- Blairall (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for your kind words. I think the simplest solution to a dispute would be to check the usage. It appears that Ligne family is 10 times more common than House of Ligne. The "House of [name]" might be more common in other cases. Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate your comments on this subject. -- Blairall (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox noble house
Thank you for your comments above, and also for your edits of Template:Infobox royal house. An editor is proposing to merge Template:Infobox noble house into Template:Infobox family. After looking at those two templates, I noticed that Template:Infobox noble house has many fields (parameters) that do not appear in Template:Infobox family, and vice versa. Some examples are: Parent house, Titles, Styles, Founded, Founder, Current head, Motto, Dissolution, and Cadet branches. Most of those fields can be very important for articles about noble families, but they are usually not applicable at all to non-noble families. If the two templates were fully merged, I feel that some editors could get confused when confronted with a large number of fields to choose from. As a result, a future editor of the template might well decide to delete those "noble" fields from Template:Infobox family at some point, because those fields don't generally apply to non-noble families. Because of these concerns, my feeling is that it would be better to keep Template:Infobox noble house and Template:Infobox family as separate templates, one for use with noble families and the other for non-noble families. That way, each template can serve its specific purpose with the fields that are the most appropriate ones. I would be very grateful if you could please let me know your (brief) thoughts on this matter. Many thanks for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Bileća
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Please check where the link goes. The article is Prince Andrew, Duke of York, not Andrew, Duke of York (a wp:redirect) Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim1138! There is nothing wrong with redirects, so I do not understand your concern. Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * My apology, it seems to get changed to and fro all too frequently. It did seem NOTBROKEN in the first place. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations
Hello! Your submission of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations 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! M h hossein  talk 13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Capetian House of Anjou
Please note that the right of modification is only an authorization to delete or correct erroneous information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capetian_House_of_Anjou#/media/File:Louis%27s_kingdoms_and_his_vassal_territories.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duconte (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-direct are best avoided
Please state why you would want to deliberately link to the incorrect article, thereby invoking a re-direct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirects are not "best avoided"; there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Queen's visit, please explain what was broken that necessitated your intervention in the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The links were complicated and longer than necessary. Some were piped just to avoid redirects. That is both contrary to WP:NOPIPE. There are three more reasons for my intervention listed at WP:NOTBROKEN; I kindly suggest you finally take a look at it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

First six includes Charlotte
Your removal of an image for Charlotte's place as 4th in line is surprisingly unhelpful, perhaps overhasty. If an image of her is available, free from copyvio, then, of course, that would be preferred. You will kow that the first six in line have a certain status under the Act, and we are not here to pick and choose. Qexigator (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Six is the magic number, of course, but if we do not have images of all six, a gallery of images of the six is not the appropriate way of listing the six. How do you feel about replacing the gallery with a table? Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would that be as (1)-(6) in tree list Succession to the British throne? But that is annotated, would duplicate, and there is some reader/editor preference for pictures. I see no real objection to using the Windsor badge as a filler, if no portrait image is available. We could have a plain list (updated) of the one previously removed in favour of the Tree list, but to my mind that would be less than second best. Qexigator (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It just strikes me as lying to our readers. We tell them there's a "Gallery: first six in line", yet they get five and a badge that applies to all of them equally. I wouldn't want to duplicate either. It should be simpler, with smaller image thumbnails. Something like Template:Wives of Henry VIII. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Gallery thumbnail standard is overlarge. As I underatnd it H's wives rate 40px. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 40px seems sufficient to me. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * + Would you propose adapting the template as a right-side panel beside the section "Sovereign's consent to royal marriages"? If so, would you be able to do the adaptation? Meantime, I will put back the Charlotte filler. Qexigator (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The panel you have now skilfully constructed looks acceptable to me, and actually an improvement, and such as could be used as a precedent elsewhere maybe. The lack of an image for Charlotte becomes more or less self-explanatory, namely, open to insertion when one becomes available, free from copyvio. Let me say this adds another job well done to a long list attributable to your contributions. Qexigator (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You flatter me, Qexigator. Be careful not to spoil me! Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a casual reader may draw a false conclusion when seeing that the only one without an image is the princess. Here is one, but I fear it may not pass copyvio. What about that? Qexigator (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is definitely a copyvio. An image will pop up sooner or later. You should try combing through FlickR if you would like to expedite that :) Surtsicna (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you cite specific WP supporting your undo of the link to pic for Charlotte? Qexigator (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not out of hand at least, but surely there must be a reason why we have not linked to one in the article about her. We never do such things, actually. I will look around if you are interesed. Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel there is sufficient reason for the link, pro tem, but will put the question to DrKay. Qexigator (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you vandalizing articles on Serbian Patriarchs?
Today, in short time interval of just 18 minutes (from 10:18 to 10:36) you vandalized more than thirty articles on Serbian Patriarchs, by removing segments of their official titles in English language, and also by removing all data on their titles in Serbian (Cyrillic) and Greek (Alphabet). You did that unilaterally, without any proposal, discussion or explanation. These are titles of vandalized articles: Kalinik II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Kirilo II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Irinej, Serbian Patriarch‎, Pavle, Serbian Patriarch‎, German, Serbian Patriarch‎, Vikentije II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Varnava, Serbian Patriarch‎, Dimitrije, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo IV, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo V, Serbian Patriarch‎, Pajsije II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Vikentije I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo III, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Atanasije II Gavrilović‎, Arsenije IV Jovanović Šakabenta‎, Mojsije I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Atanasije I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Kalinik I, Arsenije III Čarnojević‎, Maksim I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Pajsije‎, Jovan Kantul‎, Savatije Sokolović‎, Gerasim I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Antonije I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Makarije Sokolović‎, Pavle I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Serbian Patriarch Arsenije II‎, Nikodim II, Serbian Patriarch‎. I reported your vandalism to administrators. Sorabino (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Sorabino, you are lying. I cannot tell whether you are doing that on purpose or you are blinded by something. Secondly, accusing long-standing users of vandalism is, at least, very bad manners. Therefore I suggest you acquaint yourself with the Assume good faith behavioral guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Deprod
Hello, I have removed the BLP PROD tags you placed on Princess Marilène of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven and Princess Annette of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven-Sekrève on the grounds that both had an (unreliable) source in the form of an external link at the time you added the BLP PROD tag, which makes the articles ineligible for nomination. As you know the BLP PROD tag is a rather low bar, and I would not object to a regular PROD or AFD on these articles. Cheers, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, KuyaBriBri! Does that count even if the link led to nothing about either of them? Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm getting dead links but we should probably assume that they were good when they were added. So BLP PROD is questionable in this circumstance. But you can certainly make the argument in a regular PROD or AFD that this article has always relied on one source that's now a dead link. Hope that helps, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of template
I already asked and have the instructions yet I don't seem to get it right in the first step shown in this page. Could you try it, please? Thanks, Maragm (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I did it ok...see Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 1. Maragm (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Format of Royal Family succession boxes
You may wish to comment on Talk:Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom. Alekksandr (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned
Your name is mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion
You may want to comment at Talk:UCLA shooting. FallingGravity 23:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Papal pipelinks. If not all of them remove, then at least consecutively.
If you were to remove pipe-links from 'say' the last 10 popes' (Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI & Francis) infoboxes, then I would probably not revert. It's that you're making these changes sporadically/inconsistently, that I'm opposing. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, GoodDay! I improve what I can when I can and where I can. We can never improve everything at once, and there is always room for more improvement. Feel free to remove unnecessary pipes where I fail to do so, but do not reintroduce incorrect usage of links where I corrected it. It's obviously and purely disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Treat these articles as a set, not individually. Otherwise, you create inconsistencies. But, if it'll stop you from continuing to make inconsistent changes (and avoid edit warring) like this, then I'll have to remove pipe-links from the surrounding papal articles, that you continue to change. Would appreciate it though, if you do these change in sets of every 10 (chronological) popes. GoodDay (talk)


 * PS: Having gone through a 1-year ban, I learned to be more tolerant of other editors' differing approach to articles. However, because of such an experience, I must caution you that other editors may not be as willing to back down from you. Be careful that your approach doesn't get you into edit-warring problems. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Each article stands on its own. There is nothing wrong with improving articles individually. An article should be inconsistent with articles which are "wrong". I am afraid that you value consistency above everything else, including proper format, style and possibly even accuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Forget about the articles for a moment & heed my advice. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Thomas
Hello! I recommend to your attention a 2017 paper about Thomas of Bosnia's Ottoman policy and campaigns. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It might be a good read :) Surtsicna (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Prince Arthur of Connaught
Duchess of Fife is a disambiguation. Jim1138 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've realized that. Thank you for noting! I am not sure that it should be, though. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla
Hi. They have protected all pages on Nikola Tesla so I can't respond you there as an Ip. Ethnicity is not usually written in to leads, but they can. Your reasoning that Serbia gave nothing to Tesla wouldn't change the fact about his ethnicity, although you are right that ethnicity didn't play much of a role in his life. Unfortunately, you won't have many people trying to discuss with you since all the people who can discuss are satisfied with the current state of the article and others are banned from discussing. I tend to agree with you. Tesla's ethnicity is not much important, especially when he had no ties to Serbia, as he was born and lived in Croatia. However many sources are putting his Serbian ethnicity up front so it seems that it will stay in the lead. Ok. I know that you didn't start the discussion about his ethnicity, but let me point you to this discussion:. I tried to gather all sources that are speaking about Tesla's ethnicity, but other editors banned that discussion. It is somewhat related to your discussion as someone could ask, how much is it important to put Tesla's ethnicity in the lead, when the sources are not that much in sync. I couldn't find a single source which would have any footnote on the claim that Tesla is by ethnicity a Serb/Croat/Yugoslav....In this situation where Tesla had no ties to Serbia, when there isn't a single primary source on this topic nor any secondary source has any stronger claim from another secondary source with opposite claim, is it important to have this in the lead? I don't think so, but as far as I'm concerned it can stay if some editors feel good about it. Wikipedia only relates the sum of secondary sources and if you look at the sources you'll find that there's no consensus among them so Tesla's ethnicity is not really the problem that Wikipedia should solve, but some research done by someone who would publish a secondary source. 141.138.34.235 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources that may help you in the discussion. 141.136.223.161 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tesla's birthplace is a topic that was discussed over and over again. In my opinion it is solved with these sources. One source references Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia. Most importantly, the other source is stating that Croatia,Slavonia and Military frontier belong to a single entity. Unfortunately, some people don't want to accept that fact, even if it came directly from Tesla. Some even went so far that they denied Tesla's own statement, that's why I invested some time to find a source which would directly say that Military Frontier is a part of Croatia at that time.


 * Yeah, it's hard to see when someone is not discussing in good faith until you try to have a normal discussion with them. You are maybe not aware of the sources I gave you, but they are and they are disregarding them.

"Mentioning a "military frontier" is off-topic and will cause endless arguments." - not when we have a source which clearly defines what Military Frontier was. People have discussed for ages on this "can of worms" because they all had their own opinions while they didn't have any sources. Now when there are sources, some have still kept their opinion. Event Tesla's statement that he was born in Croatia isn't enough. If you push this further, some of them will even claim that Tesla had lied that he was born in Croatia (which is outrages to claim, you can claim that for every source, that it tells lies....) 141.136.223.161 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Kalamazoo shootings
I really am curious about the thought process behind that one. Admittedly, 2016 Kalamazoo shootings is also not a good title, but it does at least narrow the subject down to only the shootings that occurred in 2016. A better title by far would be Kalamazoo County spree shootings, which at least barring negative future events, would be unique and correctly describe the location. Over the past 50 years, there have been roughly one shooting every week in the city of Kalamazoo. Since your page move, that is now the apparent subject of the article. I doubt that was your intention. I've requested a technical move to return it to its original title for a proper move discussion. I noticed on my watchlist that this is not the only crime article you boldly moved (and were reverted on). Please remember that the WP pages you cited are only guidelines and can be overruled by local consensus. The Congessianal baseball shooting had been moved previously via a move discussion. It's never proper to move an article boldly that had been previously moved via discussion. That's editing against consensus and as I'm sure you are aware, that's never a good idea. John from Idegon (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, John from Idegon. The title 2017 Congressional baseball shooting was indeed the result of a consensus, and moving that without checking for earlier discussions was a mistake. There was no consensus to overrule the guidelines in the other cases, though. I had earlier requested a move at Talk:Manchester Arena bombing, which received a wide and unanimous support (leading me to believe that other such cases would not be contested). You can see my thought process at that talk page. Anyway, I agree that Kalamazoo County spree shootings would be a better choice. In my opinion, we should aim at precision by describing the nature of the incident rather than the date, i.e. murder-suicide or spree shootings or vehicle ramming instead of just "attack". People are not going to remember an event by a number but by what it was. Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Holy See relations
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Grammar checking
Hi Surtsicna. I just wanted to ask you to take a look at two different sections on "Diana, Princess of Wales", to see if everything is grammatically correct: "Public image" and "Style icon". Ever since I expanded those two sections, I was thinking about asking an experienced user's opinion about them, so if you think any part of those sections is either incorrect or unnecessary, feel free to correct or remove it. Of course, you can choose to do it whenever you like. Thanks. Keivan.f Talk 09:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Keivan.f! Everything looks good to me, but you might want to check with a native speaker. I suggest requesting help here. I think you should cut down on the number of citations; one or two per sentence should be enough, while three is excessive if they repeat themselves. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Isabella of Aragon, Duchess of Milan
Hello Surtsicna, I hope you are well. I have been expanding the article on Isabella of Aragon and would be grateful of any feedback that you may have. I am hoping that the article will now be promoted from Stub to C/B grade --David (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course! I'll try to be of assistance. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Flickr
Hi. I found this picture of the Countess of Wessex on Flickr. I just wanted to make sure that it's free. It's been published under the right license but it is said that it's a Press Association photo. Does that the mean the account that has published it on Flickr doesn't own the copyright? Keivan.f Talk 20:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks okay to me but you might want to check here for confirmation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Tags
Is correct & allowed to collapse both your & my posts, at the Template page? GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing dates from terror event aritlces
eg 2015 Thalys train attack. It's unclear removing the year is an improvement or even has consensus (guidelines are not hard rules). See Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in the 2010s, most events mark the year it occurred. Given how widespread the year system is already used blindly removing years is definitely going against (a form of) consensus. There is also a trend of naming terror attacks on the date they occur (9/11) as a sort of shorthand, dates are apparently considered important in naming traumatic events because they fix a place and time. There are other arguments, but the point being there are reasons to do it this way, and guidelines are not rules. -- Green  C  01:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Green . Removing the year is defnitely an improvement, since it adds nothing but length to the article title. And if length were desirable, we would name the article 21 August 2015 Thalys high-speed train stabbing attack or something even longer. Bad practices such as this one can be widespread too, and I see no indication that it is the result of any consensus; more likely it is the result of blindly following another bad example. For example, Grenfell Tower fire was once moved to 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, which is ridiculous. In fact, the existence of the guidelines suggests that the consensus is against such practices. I'm sure you agree that the Attack on Pearl Harbor was also quite traumatic, yet we don't call it 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. WP:COMMONNAME is also in favor of dropping the unnecessary years, as the most common name is always without it. I have linked you to the discussions about similar cases (e.g. Talk:Manchester Arena bombing) in which the community was clearly in favor of following the long-standing guidelines. I don't think I should have to request a move for every single article a) there is a guideline covering this and pure reasons suggests it should not be controversial, b) the arguments are the same and tend to be accepted by the community. If you disagree, however, we can have a move request there too. Surtsicna (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comparing a widely recognised historical event like P Harbour attack, to a relatively obscure incident is borderline perverse. At many of these articles, there has been agreement that the year is helpful (how is one to know that an attack at a Normandy church refers to an event in 2016, not 1944, or for that matter 960 AD). Titling an article is about creating enough recognisable info to inform the reader what it is probably about, it isn't simply distinguishing from other events. As a reader I am frequently annoyed that insufficient info is included in the title.


 * If it is at all relevant, I think there is a tendency for European editors to approve of the year addition. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And how is one to know that an attack at a Normandy church refers to an event in Rouen and not in Alençon or Bayeux? By reading the article of course! Article titles are not supposed to contain vital information about its subject. It's Donald Trump, not President Donald Trump of the United States or Donald Trump (b. 1946). Besides, we cannot possibly expect readers to recognize an event by the year. Years and dates are infamously difficult to remember, actually, as many will recall from their history lessons. While describing the attack as a shooting and stabbing incident might aid recognizability, the year 2015 would not ring any bells to a majority of readers. 31.900 results for "Thalys train attack" and 7.850 results for "2015 Thalys train attack" seem to confirm that. I haven't noticed that tendency among European editors (myself included), but certainly all contributors should rely on common usage, i.e. secondary sources, more than on their personal preferences. Surtsicna (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC notice
More options have been added to the Rfc at Charles, Prince of Wales. You may want to add that article to your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RM's removing dates
You have initiated many many page renames to strip dates from the title. This is clearly controversial as seen by the contentious RMs that sprung up and are now ongoing. Please cease making page moves along these lines en masse. You've done the bold moves and seen there is controversy, there is every reason to expect controversy to continue, the RM process should be used. As the WP:RM says You have reason to expect a dispute. Also, when advertising previous RMs, you should include all of them not just the one's that succeeded. For example 2017 Chicago torture incident. -- Green  C  20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Requesting a move for each individual article is a hassle. I wish there was a way to discuss this on a broader level. I was not aware that the 2017 Chicago torture incident was moved back; I did not initiate the move request, nor did I have the page on my watchlist. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thomas of Bosnia
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Thomas of Bosnia has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your assistance, Twofingered Typist! Where would we be without the typists? :) Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Davey2010! In my early years here I was often not calm and concise enough, so being now appreciated for that means a lot :) Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Prince Peter of Greece and Denmark.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Prince Peter of Greece and Denmark.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pragmatic Sanction of 1712
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

blanking
Hello, I'm Dbsseven. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you believe the article should be deleted and redirected, please follow WP:PROD to work with other editors to find a consensus. Dbsseven (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dbsseven! I did not blank anything. What I did was "redirect it to an appropriate existing page", the exact thing your message suggests. Please do me a courtesy of posting sensible posts rather than misdirected templates; I have been here long enough to know how things work. Surtsicna (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to redirect you removed the entirety of the content of the article. The redirect in the warn is in reference to "duplicate articles". With such a major change it is usually helpful to find consensus rather than unilaterally removing the content, usually with a Merge request. Dbsseven (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is exactly that the article duplicates info already found in two other articles, while offering nothing new. It purports to be about a wedding, but aside from a single sentence about this future event, it is entirely about something (someone) else. Thank you anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

William, Duke of Cambridge
You're brave. There's a certain Canadian monarchist out there, who's going to have a fit, when he sees you've added British royal family. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm that never crossed my mind. I did not see it as bravery but as giving a natural definition. Not sure who you are referring to, but I hope nobody has a fit! Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But let's discuss describing William as "future king". I understand you value consistency a lot, but we often have to treat articles differently because the subjects are different. We define Charles as "heir apparent", which basically means future king, but we cannot define William as heir apparent. We could say that George is expected to ascend the throne eventually, but that is many decades away. William has also been prepared to be king, unlike George (obviously). Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I'm kinda squirmy about the inconsistency between using "British royal family" & "...succession to the British throne", compared to all the other related bios. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm squirmy about you italicizing only 3 out of 4 of your quotation marks! :) Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Meghan Markle
Please disucsss your revert on article talk page. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

3RR warning for Meghan Markle
Your recent editing history at Meghan Markle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Firebrace (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ferdinand I of Navarra
Hi! The king Ferndinand conquested all Kingdom of Navarre. Only, Charles IV of Navarre, Charles Quint left Lower Navarre in 1530.--Parair (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Cousinship?
Any thoughts regarding this edit? To be honest, I haven't read the sources yet, but I'm really getting confused as Hussey's noble descent is unverified, yet User:Srbernadette says that "Her cousinship with Prince Harry is clearly stated in ref." So, if her ancestor's royal descent is unlikely then how could she be a distant cousin of Harry? Or are they related through another mutual ancestor? Keivan.f Talk 22:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Keivan.f. Yes, I've got thoughts. I think it's nonsense. Obviously the relation is not through Hussey, but perhaps even more importantly, it is silly to bring up a fiancé in the middle of the Early life section. If Markle being a 17th cousin to Harry is really relevant, it belongs to the section discussing their relationship. Something along the lines of: "Since June 2016, she has been in a relationship with Prince Harry, her 17th cousin, who is fifth in line to the British throne." Ridiculous, I know, but describing someone as a 17th cousin is inherently ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, her cousinship with her fiancé is not relevant to that section, and on the other hand, if it can't be proven as a fact, then it needs to be removed. Keivan.f  Talk 22:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think we should consider what he says here. If we are indeed sure that Hussey was not a noble descendant, then why should we even mention it? Keivan.f  Talk 23:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already said that I am against mentioning any ancestor just for the sake of mentioning; if the ancestor had no impact on the subject's life, and the subject derives nothing but a tiny piece of DNA from that ancestor, there is no sensible reason to name that ancestor. It's just trivia, like the subject's favorite color or childhood cartoon. For example, here we can see that Angelina Jolie is descended from Zacharie Cloutier. Do we mention Cloutier in the article about Jolie? No. And honestly, do you think that we should mention Markle's biological relationship to Harry? It's bizarre. We don't appear to be that crazy when it comes to William and Catherine, who are reportedly 12th cousins. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am trying to make a point with my most recent edits that we do not need to mention AT ALL the false genealogy reports that were widely published - i.e. the Bowes-Lyon family cousinship or the Lord Hussey Stuff. PLEASE let's adhere to the "New England Geneaology" (Gary Boyd Roberts) PROVEN research. Please!!! Srbernadette (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But why do we need to mention Markle's biological relationship to Harry? Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Biological ≠ genealogical. We do not 'know' the biological ancestry of anyone, given Non-paternity events. We also cannot equate them, given that the nature of meiosis dictates that genetic ancestors grow only linearly while genealogical ancestors (traditional kinship) grow exponentially. This growth gradually approaches the identical ancestors point, with the acceleration of the curve dictated by rates of exogamy and migration. What is under discussion here is genealogy alone. Genealogy existed long before the mechanisms of heredity were known. It relies on records, and records alone. It is frequently considered important only when a person becomes notable. It has been considered encyclopedic since encyclopedias were invented. Here's 1911 Britannica. Note that the first three results are a landed gentry non-aristocratic soldier, some nobles, and a poet. Satyadasa (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding William and Catherine, their cousin link is in Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Satyadasa (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting page move
Hello, I would appreciate your opinion at Talk:Isabella of Aragon, Duchess of Milan David (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)