User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 22

DYK for Poecilia kykesis
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Poecilia petenensis
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Great job
While researching something else I found an interesting little news item about the excavation of the bones of the last king of Bosnia. I dialed up our article Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia and learned so much. The edit statistics credit you for its excellence. Thank you! jengod (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are so kind, Jengod. I am quite proud of how that article turned out and very happy that you too enjoyed it. I do wonder where you might have found that news item. Surtsicna (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here you go: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-baltimore-sun-the-bones-of-a-bosnian/133278293/ (It was in the same column as an obituary for my latest American slave trader, George Kephart.) Let me know if you need anything else and cheers! jengod (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How fascinating that this made news in Baltimore all those years ago! Thank you for sharing this with me. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin V of Jerusalem
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Baldwin V of Jerusalem 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Robertus Pius -- Robertus Pius (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin V of Jerusalem
The article Baldwin V of Jerusalem 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:Baldwin V of Jerusalem and Talk:Baldwin V of Jerusalem/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Robertus Pius -- Robertus Pius (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin V of Jerusalem
The article Baldwin V of Jerusalem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Baldwin V of Jerusalem for comments about the article, and Talk:Baldwin V of Jerusalem/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Robertus Pius -- Robertus Pius (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Humpbacked limia
&spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agnes of Courtenay
Hi Surtsicna. You added references to "Hamilton 1998", "Hamilton 2000", and "Hamilton 2005" to Agnes of Courtenay, but only the first two are defined in the article. Could you add the required cite, or lete know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, ActivelyDisinterested. I am in the middle of a major reconstruction of the article. I am glad you are taking an active interest here ;) Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is ever anything I can help with just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hamilton 2005 still missing. DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am so happy that someone cares enough to go through these articles. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested and DuncanHill. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Ioveta
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ioveta, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Surtsicna&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1183543463 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ioveta&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1183543463%7CIoveta%5D%5D Ask for help])

Replying to your H&V question.
Replying to your question on the Heraldry & Vexillology project.

I do not have a copy but there is a version on Internet Archive. Have a good day! A.FLOCK (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your message! Unfortunately the Internet Archive has another book by the same author under this title – a case of mix up. I did get the seal, however, thanks to a couple of editors at the reference desk. Have a look at Ioveta 😊 Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morphia of Melitene
The article Morphia of Melitene you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morphia of Melitene for comments about the article, and Talk:Morphia of Melitene/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That was quite an exercise, Borsoka. I am not even sure what kind of scrutiny you save for FA reviews. I hope you will review more of the crusade articles I intend to nominate. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Morphia of Melitene
Hello! Your submission of Morphia of Melitene 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Re past discussions
Between your NCROY RfC, Andrew's recent (now closed) RfC, the Edward I of England RM along with our past discussions on posthumous images in infoboxes, I've said some pretty spiteful and heated things to you. I apologise for them and hope we can get on better in the future. I don't bear grudges and if you'd ever like to work on something with me in the future then know that I won't hold anything against you. Best Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tim O&#39;Doherty. I have not always been the model of patience either, and I am sorry for that. We are both here to contribute and improve. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Formal apology
Dear Surtsicna,

I hope this message finds you well. First, I wanted to formally apologize for this comment I made in reply to one of your posts at the RfC I initiated on WT:ROYALTY earlier this week:

I crossed the line with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL there, and I should have thought twice before posting that.

Second, and more generally, I would like to apologize for starting that RfC in the first place. In all honesty, I had intended for that discussion to enhance the WP:CONSENSUS from the WP:NCROY RfC that you initiated. However, after careful reflection, I understand why the RfC I started could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING (and with the way I executed everything, it probably was).

Third, I will take your advice about WP:CONCISE to heart. Do know that I am someone who likes to say more in real life.

P.S. Although rather late, I did appreciate your insight you gave at the RM I initiated on Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha last August. Also, I would have argued (and still argue) that Queen Victoria’s consort is not the conclusive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Prince Albert because of the eponymous Sovereign Prince of Monaco.

Sincerely,

Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message, Andrew. I have no doubt that, at the end of the day, you and I are equally committed to improving this encyclopedia. I certainly appreciated the effort you put into examining sources at the Prince Albert article. At the end of the day, we should both strive to spend more of our time creating new content than bickering about mostly inconsequential things. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, Andrew. You most certainly should not have performed that closure. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Surtsicna You are right, I absolutely should not have closed that RM. That was a completely impulsive decision on my end to force a personal viewpoint and totally inappropriate. I sincerely apologize again for my WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior, which you should not have been subjected to at all. Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I assume, everything is alright? very well. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morphia of Melitene
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morphia of Melitene 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the term "ethnic" because it referred to paganism until the mid-19th century, and linked Armenian Apostolic Church directly in case "separated" could be interperted as referring to the Armenian Catholic Church. But aside from these minor changes, the recent work on the article is very impressive. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thans, KhndzorUtogh. I disagree with the removal of "ethnic" because the pre-19th-century meaning has been entirely replaced and Wikipedia is not written for a pre-19th-century audience. The word "separated" connected the Armenian Church with other "separated eastern churches" mentioned later on, but I think I can work something out. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It reads awkwardly in a 12th century article, before the existence of nation states. If the topic of the article is Armenian, why not just say that, as Runciman does (page 75)? Why add an easily removable word like "ethnically"? It gives the impression of only being Armenian by descent, without any source. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that Runciman quote is derived from William of Tyre describing Gabriel as "Armenian by birth, language, and habit, but Greek in faith", so just describing them as "ethnically Armenian" is diminishing. Nicholas Morton describes Gabriel as just an Armenian. Toby Bromige analyzes the identity of Gabriel and Morphia in depth, and makes a strong argument for them being culturally Armenian. I can quote the text if you cannot view this book. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I must say I am bewildered by your opposition to the word "ethnic". Is it really your concern that someone might interpret it as meaning pagan? Surtsicna (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see why this might look odd lol, please allow me to clarify. I don't think anyone will interpret the word as pagan, but generally when I see the phrase "ethnic Armenian" it implies the person is of Armenian descent only, not culturally. I usually see it used to describe a second-generation or later diasporan that doesn't speak the language, and I think this wording is often used in articles for other ethnicities as well (ex. Nicolas Jaar is ethnically French, Nicolas Sarkozy is just French). Since this wording is only used in the modern age of nation states, it looks odd in a 12th century article in my opinion. According to Bromige, Gabriel and Morphia were Armenians in language and custom and no primary source relates them to the Byzantine empire by the time of the First Crusade. So could we please drop "by ethnicity"? I do not think Tom Hanks became less American by converting to Greek Orthodoxy.
 * Once again I want to add, you did a great job improving the Morphia article to GA status. I wish you the best with the future Crusade article nominations you mentioned below, and hope this discussion didn't make you think twice about contributing to other Armenian biographies related to the Crusades. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is not determined solely by ancestry, and so it does not imply descent only. Morphia's daughters were not ethnically Armenian. Gabriel and Morphia were, as the article and cited sources say, ethnic Armenians who adhered to Byzantine Orthodoxy rather than to the separated Armenian Church. The word ethnic is there to distinguish ethnicity from religion: they belonged to the Armenian people but not to the Armenian Church. Surtsicna (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why not just drop the "ethnically" word? Not being a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church does not make someone less Armenian, nor does being a member necessarily make someone Armenian. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the word ethnic is there to distinguish ethnicity from religion. It is not about measuring anyone's Armenianness. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is already communicated without including "ethnically" and Armenian is not a religion. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Physicians from Austria-Hungary in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for splitting
Category:Physicians from Austria-Hungary in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been nominated for splitting. 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. Mason (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Edward I move request
Hello. I did not participate in the move discussion concerning that page and the pages on many other English monarchs (mainly because I was physically exhausted and emotionally incapable of engaging in a series of heated arguments at the moment), but as an outsider who did not take part I think you have to make it go through WP:MR. I would have liked to see a closing comment that actually cited relevant policies, because these RMs are not voting contests as much as some people would like to believe. Cheers. Keivan.f Talk 15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Keivan.f. I hope you are feeling better now. I experience such exhaustions from time to time too, and then I take months-long vacations from Wikipedia. This discussion has nearly sent me over that edge. I have already asked the closing editor, BD2412, for such an explanation, and he was not happy about it. You may have a look at User talk:BD2412. Bradv has likewise expressed a wish to see a WP:MR. I am not sure I can go through more hostility, so if either of you wishes to submit it, please go ahead. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be great if Bradv could go ahead with the submission. At the moment I am dealing with an illness which could prevent me from actively participating in any lengthy debates and I don't want to start something when I cannot give it 100% energy. But, if he cannot do it then I guess I'll go ahead with it because I simply cannot let these things slide. And I don't intend to offend the closer but I think a fair review is definitely needed in this case. Keivan.f  Talk 16:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Some sort of record, surely? Two faulty closes on one RM, and both with different outcomes. Are we going to go through endless closes until, from exhaustion, somebody gives in and closes it the "right" way? Ho-hum. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no right or wrong way because either outcome would upset a segment of the participants. For the record, I did not even participate in that RM but the closing argument of a controversial RM needs to be convincing. "No consensus" due to an even number of votes is not enough. This is not a voting contest and since the votes were even a closing argument should analyze the arguments presented based on their merit and adherence to guidelines so that a discussion like this does not raise its head in a couple of months, again. I don't want the RM opened, I want an independent user to close it properly so that we can all use it as a reference for future RMs. Keivan.f  Talk 18:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. One month of discussion and no progress. Both sides make equally strong arguments, and in equal numbers. No, there is no consensus. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the opposing side (some of them) were only airing grievances about how they are not satisfied with the recent changes to WP:NCROY. That is not the right place to discuss the guidelines and grievances cannot be taken into consideration when deciding whether there is a consensus or not. Unless everyone wishes to discuss some aspects of WP:NCROY again, the guidelines state that for a monarch who happens to be the primary topic no territorial designations are needed. Now you either have these sets of rules that you follow or you just don't have them at all and go through each RM on a case by case basis. So everyone has to address this issue, because I don't know why at the moment we have pages such as Edward I of England on on side and Edward VII on the other. It's just so inconsistent and bizarre. Keivan.f  Talk 19:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is inconsistent and bizarre. I wonder why that changed... Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Baldwin V of Jerusalem
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Elzear Horn
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Zehava Jacoby
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Tomb of Baldwin V
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/SPICES (Scouting)
Surtsicna, please return to your review at this DYK nomination and decide whether it should continue or be closed, based on the nominator's edits and posted comment from late last month. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ioveta
Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Convent of Saint Lazarus
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5
 Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 07:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's incredible that I was just a few hours late from my holiday, Narutolovehinata5 and Z1720, but the decision to close the nomination was logical. Surtsicna (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Stephanie of Courtenay
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Request move comment
Hi, can you please make a comment so a consensus can be reached at: Talk:History of the Balkans and Talk:Slavic migrations to the Balkans. Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Morphia of Melitene
Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"Isla Phillips" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isla_Phillips&redirect=no Isla Phillips] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A pipe-cleaning tool
Hi,

In September of last year, you contributed to a discussion at WT:REDIR about WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOTBROKEN, and so on. While looking into the issue in more depth I found you'd been involved in some prior discussions on the same subject. I drafted a message to you then, and didn't send it.

I've recently been involved in the case of a long-term block evader whose activities include converting redirects to piped links, and had an idea for a JavaScript tool that could be used to selectively revert his edits. I put in a request, and one of the helpful people at WP:US/R has come up with a prototype. It's a short script that will replace a link of the form  with one of the form   when   is a valid redirect to. I've done a few tests, and it seems to work very well.

I'm still fairly new here, and I'm uncertain about the wisdom (practical and political) of using such an approach more broadly. As an example, I've run the script on a page you edited yesterday, "Gian Gastone de' Medici". I'd value your opinion.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jean-de-Nivelle. That looks very good! As far as I can tell the only exceptions to WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN are navboxes and the Main Page, so if we were just to avoid those, we'd be fine. This seems like a really good idea. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I've used the tool to make a hundred or so edits in the last few days, specifically targeting pages edited by the block evader I mentioned. There may be some risk of objections to its broader use on the grounds of WP:MEATBOT etc., so I'm proceeding cautiously. Why not install the script and have a play? I'm checking the results as I go, but so far it seems much better (more accurate, and many, many times quicker) than doing the same thing by hand. One situation it doesn't handle is the use of deliberate disambiguation links, like this one, so it's best to check for those before publishing an edit. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with this edit? Mid Bedfordshire by-election (disambiguation) is itself only a redirect to Mid Bedfordshire by-election. Surtsicna (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the inclusion of a disambiguation link alerts a bot, and the page is added to a list of pages that need fixing. Using the format  reassures the bot that the disambiguation link is deliberate. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. Interesting. I have never used a script in my 15 years on Wikipedia. I might give this a try - when I figure out how. Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's my first time as well - and I'm a convert! I'm going to be in and out for the rest of the day, but if you need any help setting it up, just ping me. Obviously there's no documentation yet. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahnentafel
Hello Surtsicna! I've seen your edit summary and would like to ask where you deem an ahnentafel to be appropiate, and where it is not.

EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, EmilySarah99. Theoretically, it is appropriate if you can source them to a biography of the subject, showing that historians who have researched the person consider the person's descent from the people in the ahnentafel to be relevant. What biographies show instead are family trees with siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins. I am adding those instead, and if you'd like to help, it would be appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not, I will have to figure those out. EmilySarah99 (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Este medallions
They are from a genealogical manuscript of the 1470s: http://www.ilbulinoedizionidarte.it/italiano/facsimili_250.asp. Unfortunately, the Biblioteca Estense website works only intermittently. Srnec (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Srnec. I was half-convinced they were some fan art. Do you think they bring value to the biographies, especially for 12th or 13th century men? I am always wary of including such portrayals: reliable sources do not feature them, and they are rather misleading in regards to the fashion of the time. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * To me, the pic of Alberto Azzo II is more misleading as to the prevailing artistic and script styles of the 11th century than it is misleading as to how he would have looked. As to whether it adds value, I suspect for the average reader it does. It helps confirm his notability as someone important enough for somebody to paint. In the age of manuscript digitization, we have an embarrassment of riches, so I'm not sure that what reliable sources feature is all that indicative. Srnec (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Isla Phillips for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isla Phillips is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Isla Phillips until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Theresa May's tenure as Home Secretary
I noticed that your edit here introduced a disambiguation link. The issue is that Foreign Secretary links to the British office, while foreign secretary doesn't. I would have fixed it myself, but I'm capital-agnostic, pipe-averse, and indecisive, so I thought I'd just let you know. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic language|Scottish Gaelic
If you think that's absurd, how about ? Have a look through this lot! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Pictish language
Why are you "fixing" links that do not need fixing because they are not broken? The Banner talk 10:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, The Banner. Have you read the guideline I linked, namely WP:NOPIPE? Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. But are you aware that you are fixing things that do not need fixing? And that you are doing just useless edits? The Banner  talk 12:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, The Banner, now I suggest MOS:NOPIPE: "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term". The edits are supposed to bring the article in line with the Manual of Style. I do not think such edits are useless edits and I do not mind making them. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It never states that you have to remove valid direct links in favour of a redirect. The Banner  talk 13:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Banner, please. It says "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term". Do not use a piped link. Do not. It does not have to command editors to do things because we are all volunteers here. Your argument is that the redirects are "less correct" and that is not true. The article does not follow the Manual of Style, and there is nothing wrong with editing it to make it follow the Manual of Style. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Where does it state that you have to remove valid direct links in favour of redirects? It is an advice on how to create new links. Not a rule that says that it is mandatory to remove valid links. You are reading something what is not there. The Banner  talk 13:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the Manual of Style is the editor ever told that they have to do something. That is because we are all volunteers. On Manual of Style/Linking alone it says "do not" 22 times. MOS:GEOLINK: "Do not link the larger unit." It means remove the link to the larger unit if there is one. MOS:DRAFTNOLINK: "Do not link to pages outside the article namespace." It means remove the links to pages outside the article namespace if you see them. MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." It means if a reader is forced to use a link to understand the sentence, fix it. MOS:CIRCULAR: "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page." It means if you see a circular link, remove it. Otherwise the article is not following the Manual of Style. If you are truly disputing the meaning and intent of the words "do not", I suggest that you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style because that is how the entire thing functions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. You are inventing a rules what is not stated. The Banner  talk 14:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ask whether "do not do something" means "fix it when you see it done" at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. In the meantime, please, do not interfere with MoS edits. Redirects are, per MoS, preferable to pipes. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion you wanted is now opened here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The Banner  talk 14:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on this source? Unreliable?

 * Jones, Barry (30 November 2022). Dictionary of World Biography: Ninth edition. ANU Press. ISBN 978-1-76046-552-0. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Poecilia picta
 Schwede 66  01:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Poecilia vivipara
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Lancelot of Navarre
—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"Orthodox Islam" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox_Islam&redirect=no Orthodox Islam] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Please, some assistance required
G'day, @Surtsicna, I hope your wiki-absence will be short, so we can get in touch. There is a FA pre-nomination discussion and tweaking at Talk:Stjepan_Vukčić_Kosača, and assistance from someone of your familiarity with a subject and sources could be huge boost in this preparation for the nom. Already at this point your inputs on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)