User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 16

Please, listen
Hello. You seem to be a very experienced contributor, but I have a request for you. Can you stop deleting the images from famous people of the past just because they are "not real likenesses" of that person? Wikipedia allows to have popular portraits or things with which people can be identified. And to tell you the truth, it is very attractive to new Wikipedians. I would greatly appreciate if you would stop putting away the leading portraits from people of ancient history, since Wikipedia guidelines allow for it to be used. This is my kind request. Hope you listen. Thank you and have a great day! --76.64.129.247 (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! I did not remove a "popular portrait". The image shows an obscure modern statue from a significant distance. It does no service to the reader. Surtsicna (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My friend, you have been doing the same thing to the portraits of other famous people, popes, possibly kings and so on. I ask you to, please, leave the portraits alone. As I said, such representations are allowed. For example, on the page of Muhammad even calligraphy is allowed to represent him. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says that portraits of ancient people need to be accurate. And I repeat, this is not the first time. You have been doing this sort of thing systematically, going through portraits of famous people and removing them by saying it is a "fantasy" portrait. A lot of portraits of ancient people are "fantasy" portraits, and some are not even portraits. Please, stop doing this. --76.64.129.247 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See MOS:LEADIMAGE, which explicitly says that the lead image should be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". That statue is never seen in any biography of Suleiman ibn Qutulmish. Surtsicna (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine, forget about the statue. As I said, you have done this same thing on other articles. Specifically, I am concerned about you going through several popes, and possibly several nobility, and one by one, removing their lead images. I absolutely object to having no lead images for the first several hundred popes. I object to this and so would several people. And as I said, I suspect you have done the same to several kings, where you relocate the image, so there is no lead image. I will trust you on that statue, but can you, please, stop removing the lead images of popes? Kings? Monarchs? They are there for a reason. Please, heed this request. Thank you very much! --76.64.129.247 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir, I have tried to be friendly, but I repeat, I SERIOUSLY object to you removing images from several popes. There are other popes where similar images are allowed to stay. Please, try to discuss this issue before reverting or engaging in an edit war. As I said, I SERIOUSLY object to what you are doing. This is not trivial to me. It is best to discuss before engaging in an edit war. --76.64.129.247 (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADIMAGE says: "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." The images I have removed do not meet the MOS:LEADIMAGE criteria cited in my previous comment, so this provision applies. These are not contemporary or notable depictions. In many cases we do not even know the author, origin, date, or indeed anything about the picture other than that someone decided that its subject is a certain person. It may well even be a hoax. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging in a conversation. There are several things you should know. First, we know for a FACT that these images are NOT hoaxes, they come from a famous Roman Catholic Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, you can see some portraits here Next, the portraits are depictions that are associated with those popes. For example here is a good book about the Popes that uses same images for these popes. Next, on Wikipedia, we use these same sorts of images, to depict other popes, here, here, here, here. here and so many others could be used as examples. I am ABSOLUTELY not ok with purging all these images. And finally, This page uses same depictions of these popes. I am NOT ok, and I am sure others would also not be ok, with you purging these images. They are not contemporary, because we do not have contemporary images, but these depictions are definitely associated with these popes and were used to depict them, in MULTIPLE books and in multiple pages on this very encyclopedia. I hope I made my points well. If there is anything you object to or think I got wrong, please, get back to me. Please, do not engage in an edit war. Let us reach a consensus first. Thanks. 76.64.129.247 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say The Oxford Dictionary of Popes is a much more reputable source, and it does not feature any fantasy depictions. Ditto regarding Enciclopedia dei Papi. On Wikipedia we do a lot of things that we should not do; two wrongs do not make a right. I am absolutely not okay with putting fantasy depictions in infoboxes without any disclaimer explicitly telling the reader that it's a fantasy depiction. The content is otherwise not merely uninformative but outright deceptive. Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by a "fantasy portrait" and how far do we go? All Popes before early Middle Ages have "fantasy portraits" do we remove ALL of them? Please, be sensible. I am absolutely not ok with what you are suggesting. These portraits have been here for more than a decade and I categorically object to any such serious changes without consultation and a huge consensus. 76.64.129.247 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By "fantasy portrait" I mean a depiction produced centuries or a millennium after the subject's death and based on nothing but imagination. This is often coupled with anachronistic clothes and other nonsense. For example, why is Pope Silverius wearing a cross pattée? Why is Pope Gregory IV wearing a beard? I categorically object to deceiving the readers into thinking that that the popes of his age wore beards. There is nothing insensible about that. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat, since these depictions have been there for MORE THAN a decade, you would need a STRONG consensus to change this. And again, what you are proposing has very far-reaching consequences. You cannot wake up one day and change what we have been doing for more than a decade on a whim. I see that you keep reverting images, you keep saying that there was no Catholic Church in the 6th century, which is a lie and so on. I see that you are not interested in a friendly conversation and you totally ignore my requests, insisting on getting your way. For this reason, I ask you now, to forward this case to an administrator and arbiters and for them to hear both cases, since I am again CATEGORICALLY and totally opposed to your innovations which stand in complete contrast for what we have been doing for more than a decade. Please, let us put an arbiter among ourselves. --76.64.129.247 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_a_resolution_of_this_ASAP here.... I made one already. 76.64.129.247 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can wake up one day and decide to fix things. Yes, it is anachronistic if not biased to speak of a Catholic Church in the 6th century. Do you think that readers should be made to believe that 9th-century popes wore beards? Surtsicna (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir, I see that you have had these disputes with several users before me and have even been blocked before. Yet you persist in being arrogant. We quote what the Popes said in English, without a disclaimer that most popes did not utter those sentences in English. If we expect our readers to figure this out, I am sure they will be smart enough to figure out that these depictions are simply associated with the Popes. That is how we depict the Saints, Emperors and religious figures. You keep persisting in being arrogant and simply pushing your way, so I think we need to wait and see what the administrators decide. 76.64.129.247 (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't had these disputes before. What I see is that you know your way around Wikipedia very well, which makes me believe that you are an indefinitely blocked user who is doing quite a bit of block evasion. This will need looking into. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, was my hunch right? Surtsicna (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to also caution against mass-deleting such portraits. Certainly more than one of these depiction can be considered little more than trivia, but if trivia is what's at hand, why not providid as a service in lieu of something better to the readers, as proposed above? PPEMES (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I saw the thread at ANI and got curious so lucky you, you get my comment. On Suleiman ibn Qutulmish, I don't think that lead-image is awful, but could improve with some cropping and an addition of when it was built. I don't see using a honking big statue as misleading when said to be a big honking statue, WP:OSE comparisons at Arminius and Ramesses II.

The old popes, oh boy, something of a mess. I looked a a few. IMO, IF (big if) we use leadimages like the one at Pope Benedict VIII they have to have a caption stating drawn in 19th century and whatever, the current use is just awful.

The same goes for those like Pope_Stephen_III. If written like that, I wouldn't hit the roof when I saw it in a lead image, but about a thousand years too young makes one really wonder if it is a good idea. I found beautiful 360 images at, check the papal "portraits" at "central nave", WP apparently loves these.

There's another problem with the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls ones. These filepages says 19th century, but others like this  say 8th century, which would make it about contemporary. Looks implausible to me, way too pretty, but I'm no art-expert. Is this based on something, are they claimed to be restorations of/actual ancient work, or were they all made in the 19th century, or some mix thereof? I have no idea, I may ask at the reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! My luck is not failing me; thanks for stopping by :) I think that most people would assume infobox portraits of historical persons to be accurate, even if it is a big honking statue. And if the big honking statue is not commonly associated with the subject (unlike in Arminius) or contemporary (unlike in Ramesses II), I do not see the point in including the photo. The statue is, in my humble opinion, an eyesore that Wikipedia should not have to suffer. The inclusion of such images makes Wikipedia articles look more like blog entries than encyclopedic pages, and we should always strive to avoid that. The papal biographies are overdue for some maintenance. Things to be fixed include poor wording and even worse orthography (lead sentences such as "Pope Vitalian was Pope" being the norm), extraneous See also sections, anachronistic forms of address (His Holines in the 6th century?), flowery and biased language (brave defenders of the faith battling accursed heretics and heathens), and of course the images. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hm, I may not be "most people" in this context, I've spent some time populating articles like Women in the Bible with images and the accuracy and even existence of the subjects is not much of an issue (I picked that leadimage btw). In this context, I more or less expect something anachronistic (Charlemagne is a nice exception). I have no idea how contemporary RII is, for all I know there may be centuries between. And I actually think that for the general reader, there's no difference between the Arminius and Suleiman ibn Qutulmish cases. I like to think that this GR stops at "so they made a statue to him", but who can say. I do see your point, but you may not get consensus in for example the pope-area, these images may be popular. As an anecdote, the lead at Birger Jarl may actually be "from life" according to some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree; when the subject is a fictional character, an accurate or contemporary depiction obviously cannot be expected. But having an obscure 19th century romanticised drawing in the infobox of Pope Eugene I is a lot like having a promotional photograph of Elizabeth Taylor in the infobox of Cleopatra: pretty, colorful, but thoroughly inappropriate. As for the Arminius and Suleiman cases, we can hope the general reader at least has some taste in art! :) Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Theodelinda regarding Catholicism
Recent changes you made to the text of Theodelinda were undone. Your changes to Nicene Christianity in place of Catholic faith were nothing more than your opinion. The cited scholars use the expression Catholicism/Catholic throughout their text and are certainly qualified to do so. Making such edits does not accurately reflect the content of the works used and is prohibited since it is a misrepresentation. In a couple of places you changed meaning entirely. Please refrain from espousing your opinion on this matter through such editing practices. If another scholar has a comment about the use of the word Catholic thereby, you should add an explanatory note and cite THAT scholar. --Obenritter (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Obenritter, your tone is unnecessarily antagonizing. I understand that you may have taken that edit of mine personally because you contributed significantly to the article, but allow me to remind you that you are not writing your own blog. You are participating, I assume willingly, in an open collaboration project. You could have expressed your disagreement with my edit in a much more constructive manner. Now, you reverted much more than the change from "Catholic" to "Nicene Christian". You restored some very odd wording, such as Theodelinda being "born a Frank and Catholic in faith". This implies that Theodelinda morphed into a non-Frank at some point in her life, perhaps into a Lombard upon her marriage, which is not true. She was also not born a Catholic since, and I do hope we can agree on that, religion is a matter of upbringing rather than genetics. The simpler "was a Frank and Catholic" is clearer. A more serious issue is that by undoing my rewording of the lead paragraph, you restored a run-on sentence. You also restored unnecessary pipes which I had removed. That said, I do not think that your undoing my edit, in its entirety, as you did it, helped the article. On the contrary. Surtsicna (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Text unfortunately has no tone. What I was stressing was how such edits change meaning or do not reflect the content of the authors. Sorry if you felt that it was antagonistic, as it was not intended to be belligerent. Sadly, many editors seem to think their opinion on scholarly matters somehow trumps world-class scholars and make edits similar to yours. By the way, your comments about Catholicism not existing, is fraught with complexity and accompanied by a host of academic debate. Your observations regarding edits for clarity were noted and the text was adjusted. If you find a better way of making additional improvements, then by all means...please do so. You appear to have very solid writing abilities. Not one of us writes perfect sentences one after another. By the way, collaboration within Wikipedia is also about the introduction of academically supported content from the sources and not unsubstantiated (opinion-based) wholesale changes throughout an article. Would you agree? --Obenritter (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way—here's some collaboration—I also recently edited Suintila, your sound editorial eye would probably help that article if you have a few moments.--Obenritter (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree. I am not sure, though, how my change can be both "unsubstantiated (opinion-based)" and "accompanied by a host of academic debate". It seems to me that one negates the other :) Either way, thank you for your kind words. Your expansion of Theodelinda from this to this is impressive, and I regret not seeing it nominated for WP:DYK. Perhaps Suintila can qualify! The matter of whether it is accurate to speak of a Catholic Church in the early Middle Ages should probably be resolved in a much broader discussion because there is significant inconsistency across Wikipedia. I urge you to take a look just at East–West Schism. It is a can of worms but it is high time it is opened. Surtsicna (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, my point was that your change was not substantiated with any academic content...you just made a terse comment and changed the text wholesale. Unsubstantiated in the bigger picture is another matter, which is why I suggested the use of an explanatory note from a scholar wherever the word Catholic appeared—probably best suited for its first mention. I still am encouraging you to do just that. Unfortunately, I have already ran into this particular debate with other Wiki-editors on several late-antiquity and early-medieval pages. The fact remains that we have to let the sources/scholar's opinion be known in the text of the Wikipedia pages. There will likely not be a definitive Wikipedia solution to this; namely, since scholars have heartburn with the topic on both sides. By the way, if Suintila ends up as a DYK, it would surely benefit from your editorial touch. My grammar (yes even with advanced degrees) is far from perfect. Sometimes I blame my lack of total mastery with English on having grown up using German too and vice-versa. Be well. --Obenritter (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Obenritter, I have been meaning to ask you (but kept forgetting) about the date in the succession box of Suintila. The box gives 26 March 631 as the date of the end of his reign, but no such date is mentioned elsewhere in the article! It predates your expansion of the article, but I thought you might know something about it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, Sir (assuming you are a man, but if not accept my apologies), I have to confess, I never even noticed that before. In fact, I rarely look at those. It appears in The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 2 Part Set: Volume 3, AD 527–641 (p. 1370), but I am not sure how reliable that source actually is in the aggregate.--Obenritter (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain an edsum?
Hi I am looking at many cases, of course. Can you helps me understand this? Your edsum says the table was nonsense in this case, so it would save time if you tell me which parts seem to be nonsense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Half the table is wrong. Margaret's mother was not the daughter of Louis VII of France or Eleanor of Aquitaine. But in this case, the grandparents provide all the necessary context; the chart would be much more useful if it included Margaret's sister, uncle, husbands, and sons. This is what is essential to Margaret's story. Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have responded on the article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Tagging and deletion of ancestry boxes
Hi, Concerning William I, Count of Hainaut, I will post a note on the talk page. But possibly this topic of ancestry boxes needs a bigger discussion not just particular to one article? I did mention a concern with your approach to you I see in a previous discussion on this your talk page. I want to point out that I have never made one of these ancestry boxes, and I would prefer to treat them case by case. It is also easy to delete specific individuals out of these boxes. I am certainly not demanding that sourcing requirements are not important, but...
 * I see there are a small number of editors who might have the idea for a general tag and delete program, which means not case by case, and also means no discussion of particular concerns. Such programs can of course be controversial for articles which are not watched by many people because of course, as we all know, it means that discussion of whether there was a real sourcing problem are actually avoided, not discussed at all. In that case of course there is no point saying this is all about sourcing concerns. It clearly isn't?
 * The edit summaries and discussions I have seen make it clear that there is a simple personal aesthetic preference against these information boxes. The remarks I see about the information not being relevant to the biographies makes no sense for the periods I am looking at. I would say that for our articles on this period the genealogy of the person is often almost all scholars know, and much of what typical WP articles contain is from often from older or lower quality books that we could be better be paring back. Careful historians can often only talk about dynastic connections, land grants, a few mentions in chronicles etc. For a WP editor to complain that these are not interesting to know about a person's real life is not really our designated role. It is what published scholars have to work with and what they write about, and thinks like land holdings and family connections were recorded because they were critically important in this period.
 * From a policy point of view, the tag and delete procedure being used is the wrong one. Infoboxes and graphic representations of information in articles clearly need to be questioned differently. This does NOT of course mean they have no sourcing requirements. But as mentioned above the reliability of the information is clearly not the reason these boxes are being deleted anyway.
 * In our previous discussion you made a remark about the specific format of the infobox, and whether published historians use the same format. Obviously this would not be a reason for deletion, because WP is an online encyclopedia, and it positively encourages the development of new formats to represent information and especially the LINKS between things. That is indeed core content policy. We could just as easily complain that books do not have hyperlinks and so we should not use hyperlinks. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! I did direct you to a bigger discussion, didn't I? Yes, the sourcing is the primary concern. Encyclopedic relevance is the next; if ahnentafeln are not found in scholarly biographies of the subject, they should not be included in Wikipedia's general biographies. Wikipedia does not encourage the use of charts not found in reliable sources and containing information not found in those sources; that would be expressly against WP:V and WP:OR. Infoboxes are also not exempt from WP:V policy, but they normally contain information that is sourced somewhere in the article. Ahnentafeln do not. Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For a related larger discussion, please see: Template_talk:Ahnentafel. PPEMES (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. More was covered there, making it clear that the relevance policy part of the explanation is a bit less clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not possible for a person's ancestry not to be relevant to that person.(Referring to your edit summary on your re-deletion of the ALWAYS welcome ahnentafel for the Duke of Roxburghe).12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is possible for a person's ancestry not to belong in a Wikipedia article about that person. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines stating precisely that. The ahnentafel of the Duke of Roxenburgh is decidedly unwelcome because it is entirely unsourced. Surtsicna (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is both cumbersome and aesthetically unpleasing to tag an ahenentafel with source citations.Aristocratic ancestries are typically found in standard reference works.Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are often quite foolish.12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, you can work to have them changed or leave the project. What you cannot do is disregard them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to "Wikiproject:Peerage" then its interests do occasionally conflict with those of Wikipedia as a whole (e.g. the desire to see every holder of every peerage have a biographical article).Asking those who side with the project's interests when they conflict with global policies to leave it is basically calling for it to be shut down.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am referring to WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:PROPORTION, and, most importantly, WP:BLP. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ...as "the project"? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert BLP
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DS alert climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

FOC
Greetings, at the article talk page, the other user is welcome to demonstrate neutrality problems. Casting aspersions about page ownership is improper. The way to do that is to exhaust dispute resolution options (which haven't really been attempted) and then, if there is evidence of ownership problems, complain to ANI or AE after marshalling evidence. RS-backed fierce debate leads to great articles. Table pounding and attacking motives of other eds, not so much NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Imperial feminism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Imperial feminism. Since you had some involvement with the Imperial feminism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A quick note
You ought to know that removing WP:BLUESKY information from parameters only after I have reverted previous (and recent) changes to those parameters looks very bad, and is especially ironic since I was accused of "stalking" you for reverting your changes at Cardinal Mazarin on entirely reasonable grounds. And yes, being baptised in a denomination would taken by any reasonable person, or any person without an axe to grind, to confirm their membership of that Church (that is how baptism is understood in nearly every confessional group, unless it is explicitly renounced). Her being a member of the House of Bernadotte is sufficient to establish the relevance of her religious confession. Endymion.12 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had over 50 edits on Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland before today, going back to 2013, and I was active on the talk page as well, showing that I have had an interest in the article for years. You had 0 edits on Cardinal Mazarin before you reverted my edits. So no, I do not see how that looks bad on my part. No reasonable person would argue that undergoing a ritual as an infant determines one's religious convictions in adulthood. If Sofia's religious views are relevant and obvious, you will have no trouble finding a source that discusses them. Please also see Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126. Surtsicna (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet you chose not to intervene when another user made some equally "irrelevant" changes to the field in the last few days. The field isn't concerned with religious convictions but with membership of a church. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's when I chose to intervene, and my intervention was not a reversion of your edit. The field is for the "subject's religion(s)" which "may be listed ... if relevant, sourced and uncontroversial". Sofia is known for being a glamour-model-turned-princess, not for being particularly religious. Wikipedia should not label people as members of a religious organization just because they underwent a ritual as infants. That's a gross violation of WP:BLP. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Shuping Wang
 Spencer T• C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

New message from Bharatiya29
Bharatiya 29  11:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Shuping Wang
Hey- I would like to understand your perspective on this edit. Why remove the surname header? You say "This only works when the name is written in Chinese order.", but I was under the impression that this was a useful header no matter what order a name is in. Some Americans are probably dimly aware that Chinese surnames come first, and they may confuse themselves into thing Shuping could be a surname. Are you adding "Wang Shuping" as a pinyin form of the Chinese characters to clarify the way the name would be read aloud in Mandarin? Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, the header strikes me as superfluous when the name order is already Western, and I thought that the pinyin form would do a better job showing that in Chinese, the order is reversed. Do you think otherwise? Surtsicna (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
Hello! Your submission of Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on styles in articles of non-reigning royals
Hello, Surtsicna. I would like to hear your opinion on the creation and enforcement of a standard and definite guideline for the styles of biographical articles of non-reigning royals and pretenders going forward. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9 for further discussion. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Shuping Wang
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Alleged? I'm not familiar with the procedures/rules concerning the captions of pictures or images. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kansas Bear. We have MOS:CAPTION, if that helps. Surtsicna (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Bizzare
The only bizzare thing is having double standards (and something more, as well). Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

James II of Aragon
Almost all the ahnentafels have 4 generations back, except that of James II with 3. I expand one more; this is useful. I am wondering why a so important person in history should have a shorter ahnentafel? I suggest to add the 4th generation, which is useful for many reasons. With all my respect to your contribution in Wikipedia, Aris de Methymna (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aris de Methymna. Almost all have them because you and a few others go around adding this content but it is not useful. James is important but historians do not discuss the names of his great-great-grandparents. That is trivia. Please see WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the discussion at Template talk:Ahnentafel. Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
And pushing your POV without any arguments ("it is absurd" means nothing) without going to the TP first. I would suggest that you undo your last edit and open a new topic on the TP where other editors will also give their say.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  12:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course being absurd means something. You are free to check the dictionary. Defining Croats of Serbia as Croats in Serbia is a textbook example of absurdity. It is fascinating how you see "POV" and enemies in everything, including things as simple and clear as this. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And of course, you are being plain dishonest. There is clearly an argument in my edit summary here, which you have not even attempted to refute. Surtsicna (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: British House iof Commons
Hello Surtsicna. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of British House iof Commons, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. ~ mazca  talk 15:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:United Arab Emirates
Hello, there's an ongoing discussing about the type of Monarchy in the UAE, I wish if you can provide your opinion on the subject. Regards, UA3 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

 * Thank you, Ealdgyth. There's a lot to wrap up in 2020! Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはSurtsicnaたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 02:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

US prez article intros
Howdy. I've gone ahead an opened up an Rfc concerning the intro at 2020 United States presidential election, for that article & the other US prez article intros. As you're the one who wishes to make changes to those articles? It's only fair that I allow you to make your arguments there & thus give you an opportunity to build a consensus to make such changes. GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical case
I reverted the edit before yours, which removed the map, with an incoherent comment about Welsh/Wales. So your edit also got reverted: restore it if you wish, but I am not sure about "Serbo-Croat". In the days of Yugoslavia, this term was used, because it was a "language" (remember that a language is a "dialect with an army"); now I suspect many editors will get worked up about how Serbian and Croatian have separate armies,... or did I mean languages. You may well know more about south slavic than I do. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Edward VII's funeral
Generally agree with your changes. I mostly agree that "second cousin" is super useful, but I do think that the fact that the kings of Bulgaria, Portugal, and Belgium were all members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is probably relevant - it's likely why those kings came, while, say, the less closely connected monarchs of Romania, Sweden, and the Netherlands did not. How do you think this might be indicated? john k (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, john k. We might define Edward VII as "the first British monarch from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" and then mark the rest of them as "kinsman from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" or something like that? Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems workable. john k (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources say
What don't you get about the sources saying, "we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Your phrasing suggested, to me at least, that the couple had a constitutional position, perhaps because (unlike in the couple's statement) it is not clear that the institution in question is the monarchy. I think the text is clear and informative enough without that bit, and I appreciate concision, but not so much to quarrel about it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The institution is the British Royal Family also called 'the firm', the perhaps 'overblown' commentary yesterday from former courtiers was the only 'precedent' was Edward and Simpson. At any rate, either they are going to carve a new way to be in 'the Firm' or they will fail and that's rather what matters to history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Styles of sovereigns has been nominated for discussion
Category:Styles of sovereigns, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Quotes on Kobe
I want to avoid having an edit war with you and because that would be a waste of time. To cut to the chase, I don't really understand your removals of the US president quotes, I agree that the Bill Clinton one is too long and can be abbreviated, however I don't see why they should be removed entirely. I don't think that quotes from US presidents are more notable than those of Tiger woods or the reactions of NFL players for instance, which you chose to keep, which seem inconsistent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hemiauchenia. The reason why I removed only the presidents' quotes is that they were in a section that contained nothing but quotes. It looked like something that belonged to Wikiquote rather than Wikipedia. But perhaps you are right; perhaps it should all be toned down. Hopefully the discussion at Talk:Death_of_Kobe_Bryant will yield a solution. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article will be in a major flux for several days, and with nearly 200,000 pageviews to the article yesterday, it is important we serve our readers as they read the article now, rather than what the article will be in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Denmark and Iceland
According to this link the Danish-Icelandic titles will help: Mr Hall of England (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Margaret, Maid of Norway
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Margaret, Maid of Norway 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Margaret, Maid of Norway
The article Margaret, Maid of Norway you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Margaret, Maid of Norway for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Margaret, Maid of Norway
The article Margaret, Maid of Norway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Margaret, Maid of Norway 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
FWIW, you may have just made the intro into an ocean of blue, with too many links. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've restored you pipe-link removals, though :) GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

On a separate topic, I've roughly implement changes to the leads of the Australian bushfire season articles. Noticed, that the last two were 'reverted' to bold intro, again:( GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I do not object to boldface as much as I object to poor, uninformative, and repetitive wording. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Aiko, Princess Toshi
Diff is showing a revision by commenting

''Speculative. It is also not true that no prince is available''

Rather than speculation, i have done the research on imperial japanese lineage for the availability of a prince (See Family Tree here), If you believe that its not true, can you please provide the details of Prince who is available on lineage (Except Prince Hisahito), So it can be established and i can add the necessary details to the article --Qowa (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should Hisahito be excepted? Please also see WP:Original research. We are not supposed to do our own research. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that the article is based on my own original research, Instead i have done a research about the article tittle on the available media, books, existing sources to establish a status. Further you must also take note that Prince Hisahito is of 13 years of age and minor, where imperial law does not have a provision for the marriage of a minor, So as per the current status its established on the lineage that several princess in japan do not have a Prince for marriage and continue imperial family status. So its always good to include the information's in the articles, which doesn't covey it as Negative POV- Qowa (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not replying is not ending the discussion, I will be reverting your edits with more sources and details of records on the lineage details, If you want to revert again, please discuss here --QOWA (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that cannot be included without a reliable source stating so. Also, it presumes that she has to or wants to marry, which is wrong per WP:CRYSTAL. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed!!, Article left on the same state QOWA (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Relevant image?
Many people are amazed, due to her history, to see Queen Christina on a wall of Stockholm Palace with 8 other monarchs. Can you fit in somewhere? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is interesting indeed, but I wouldn't know where to put it. If there were a proper legacy section, that might be the place. The section currently titled "Legacy" deals with popular culture only. Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret, Maid of Norway
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mother
Thank you for that reversion! I cannot understand what possessed me. Perhaps it is down to my annoyance, still this morning, that HS2 is to continue. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ladislaus III of Hungary
Hello! On Ladislaus III of Hungary what I meant by “Spain” was how Alfonso VIIwas the Emperor of All Hispania and since Hispania is Spain I changed it to that just letting you know why I edited that in (I didn’t revert your edit if you were wondering and after you have read this you can remove it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afryingpanwithoutahandle (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Please reword sentences
In order to make consistency to the lead, Can you rewording this lead in the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak from: to
 * An ongoing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, which started in December 2019. It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei province, China. It was originally a zoonosis, crossing over to humans via an unidentified animal from bats; however it has subsequently spread between people. (This is false lead sentence)
 * Since December 2019, there were an ongoing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei, China. It was originally a zoonosis, crossing over to humans via an unidentified animal from bats; however it has subsequently spread between people. (Correct lead sentence)

I think is more reasonable the reword the lead and remove "province" word, because having name "province" after Hubei makes it confusing because Hubei itself also well known as Province, not city. I previously change the lead you made to making it more reasonable to explained. Also SARS-COV-2 need to spelt in long-form name, not acronym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.214.207 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi. I agree with your reasoning at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles&curid=18110&diff=942133466&oldid=941426676, but Edit summaries should be used to summarize edits, not to argue your reason therefor. If there is a dispute, the place to hammer it out is on the Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Recent work on Los Angeles, California, gets you this little guy!

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 
 * He is adorable! Even the murder mittens. Thank you, BeenAroundAWhile. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Those royal surnames
I hope the note about surnames that I have added to the Succession article is correct. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What others were saying: I was interested to find these earlier contributions from editors attempting to make sense of the W / M-W question [sic, passim]. Qexigator (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Say-so information from June 2003 "...when I checked with Buckingham Palace they said it was wrong. For example, when then published the banns for the weddings of Princess Anne, they called her Anne Mountbatten-Windsor. The Prince of Wales's office also said they and he regarded his surname as M-W. They were adamant about that. So either Buckingham Palace and St. James's Palace have been wrong in their interpretation dating back to the wedding the Princess Anne in 1972, or a change occured  somewhere along the line."
 * Comment from August 2008: "Some people fail to realize that there are cases where the authority of the British civil government supersedes even that of the Monarch or the Royal Family - such as in marriage records and the birth certificates of children." (LOL)
 * Comment from April 2006: "I have heard that the Queens intention was to make all her children (and therefore descendents) bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor, and she indicated that to the PM of the time. However the Order in Council only did what is referred to above - it made non HRH's and Princes Mountbatten-Windsors. I understand that the Royal Family 'thinks' its name is Mountbatten-Windsor, which is why they are all officially married as that. However legally they are still Windsors."
 * See also on same page FactStraight August 2013

Susan Folkman
Hi Surtsicna, I hope all is well. I was wondering if you could continue your review on Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Folkman? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Princesses Märtha Louise, Ragnhild and Astrid of Norway
As far as I know, only monarch's children and the heir of crown prince/princess have style Royal Highness (e.g. Prince Sverre Magnus have style Highness instead of RH) and when a princess marries with a commoner, she loses style RH and start having H or she already has H then she no longer has title and style. Am I not right? Tomás de H y B-P (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tomás de H y B-P. I'm afraid that's all conjecture. See also WP:Original research. Wikipedia needs sources. Surtsicna (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In Scandinavia, the monarchs use the power of thier houses to make any an all decisions on a case-to-case basis. No case is like any other and some of the results & changes have been flabbergasting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)