This is an archive of past discussions about User:Surtsicna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Apologies for leaping before looking. 'Twas a real beetle ... learn something new quite a lot around here. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! As you can see above, I've a plate of very stale cookies here and the new one is much appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Tamoya ohboya
On 28 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tamoya ohboya, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that stings from Tamoya ohboya, named for the exclamation "oh boy", cause severe pain and skin damage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tamoya ohboya. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Prof saxx! Thank you for your kind comment. Google Books sometimes acts very odd; for example, while expanding the article on Mary of Hungary, I was searching for the word "Mary" in a biography titled "Mary of Hungary: second regent of the Netherlands". According to the search results, no Mary was ever mentioned in the book. When I searched for "Queen Mary", however, I got plenty of results. That obviously makes no sense. Sometimes the system tries to cheat on you, but it is very easy to cheat on the system itself (using tricks to get to the information that is supposed to be hidden from view).
I love it ... I'd completely forgotten about this article until this came up in my watchlist. Did we even have DYK 4 years ago? If so I knew basically nothing about it. —Soap—15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I am very, very sorry that I forgot to inform you about this. I assumed that my edits would appear on your watchlist. Your opinion would have been much appreciated at Template:Did you know nominations/Tyrannasorus rex. Anyway, I am glad the hook has your approval now. It seems that DYK was created in 2004, but I too only started contributing to it in the autumn of 2012 (after 4 years of editing). Luckily for this bug, the article about it was only a few sentences long when I came across it, enabling me to expand it sufficiently. None of the articles I created before learning about DYK will ever be eligible for DYK because they are now too long to be expanded fivefold. Ah, well. Surtsicna (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
They were on my watchlist, I just have been too busy to pay attention to most of my watched articles lately so I didn't click to see what the edits were. I'm not upset about not being there for the nomination though because I wouldn't have had anything real to add other than to endorse the hook that we went with as opposed to the alternate, and to encourage not waiting for April Fools'. I've heard of Carmenelectra shechisme too ... I remember some time ago I found a website, http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/, full of all names of creatures with funny names created "when zoologists get bored". That's where I first read about Tyrannasorus rex as well as many others, and I created the article after finding that no one else had. —Soap—04:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
That is where I found out about T. rex too! You'll be happy to hear that our T. rex got 15,612 views yesterday, which more than enough for it to be listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics. I am certain that the hook would have attracted much more attention had it not been last on the list, since only the last hook on the list cannot be seen without scrolling down on the Main Page. Oh, well, my hooks always seem to end up at the bottom anyway. I would truly appreciate if you could review Template:Did you know nominations/Neal Evenhuis. I think you would be interested in him. Besides, it would help ease my mind about failing to seek your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Tyrannasorus rex :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
On 3 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carmenelectra, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Carmenelectra was named after the model(pictured) because both have "splendid" bodies? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for your suggestion to include the image; it certainly helped attract attention. If only we could have avoided all that whining about it! Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have reverted six times on this article today. I don't see any reason why this should not result in a block for 3RR violation - you are an experienced contributor and this is a content dispute, not reversion of vandalism as you claim. I suggest strongly that you self-revert your last edit. I have also informed the other editor, who has "only" reverted four times. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Heya Surtsicna, sorry about that, I was just going off the template:infobox royalty where it said "The Houses, Dynasties, or Families to which the subject belonged/s (by birth, marriage or otherwise)..." and being that it's plural and his mother was from the Hauteville family thats why I added that. Should the template verbage be corrected then? Or am I just interpreting that wrong? Just trying to explain why I did what I did. Thanks, —dain-talk20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! A person is very rarely considerd a member of two seperate royal houses, and Frederick is no exception. The instructions may indeed be misleadingly worded. Perhaps you should mention that at the template talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Surtsicna. I'm afraid my only connexion with Mostar is that I have visited it a few times since the destruction of the Stari Most. The picture is there on my page because I found crossing the new bridge quite touching and I like the symbolism of the rebuilding. I have seen similar bridges elsewhere which are simply antiquities. Moonraker (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Anne St. Leger
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Just wanted to let you know — someone else approved this hook already, and I'm fast-forwarding it per your request. It should appear on the Main Page at 8AM tomorrow, UK time. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for expediting the process and for taking part in the Thomas Hogg discussion. The hook was approved by Moonraker, who was also anxious for it to be promoted as soon as possible. You have picked the best time for it to be featured. Thanks again. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I almost put it in the queue that will be going up next, but then I realised that it wouldn't be that helpful for it to feature from midnight until 8AM. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You are right, of course. Besides, I am an hour ahead of the UK, so I would not have been able to proudly stare at it at the main page :) The position of the hook is also excellent, as it is as close to the portrait of Richard as possible. You have done a wonderful job! Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
How long do you sleep? Either you should still be up at 11PM or awake by 7AM :-) I didn't think of the placement near WP:ITN; it was simply that the hook in the second spot was conveniently removable, and the bolded links in the first and third hooks were far to the left of where this one's is, so this one really stands out better. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I meant that I would not have been able to watch it at the main page had it been featured from midnight until 8 AM. Ah, whatever, I am already not functioning properly :D I always wondered what is taken into consideration while preparing the queue. Either way, the hook is going to be a nice addition to the main page. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Anne St. Leger
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
On 5 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne St. Leger, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that King Richard III disinherited his niece, Anne St. Leger, whose descendants provided DNA samples necessary for identification of his remains? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anne St. Leger. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you pay attention to hit count, be sure to count two pages — both Anne St. Leger and Anne St Leger. As far as Gimnazija Mostar, I'm not clear what you now want; did your second message mean "Never mind, don't do anything", or do you still have something in mind for me to do? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since more than one in eight nominations are accompanied by pictures, we can't include all of the nominated images (I suppose you're probably well aware of this), and I don't want to get involved in discussions with other queue-fillers about which one is more suitable than others. I've had The Anne St Leger issue was different, since it was going to be featured at some point, and moving it up in time was the only "modification" that needed to be done. I've made lots of nominations-with-images that appeared without the images. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your interesting suggestion on the spelling in connection with Frederik V on Horseback. Nowadays there seems to be a tendency in Denmark to use the Danish spelling "Frederik" in English rather than the anglicized "Frederick". In the English language version of the official royal website here, the statue is referred to as "Equestrian Statue of Frederik V on Amalienborg Palace Square". Similarly, the Queen of Denmark always refers to herself as "Margrethe" (rather than Margaret) and to the crown prince as "Frederik". I therefore think we should keep the title of the statue article as it is although I have also made a redirect from Frederick V on Horseback.--Ipigott (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I understand that the Danish tend to use the Danish spelling when writing in English, but I am not sure how relevant that is. Surely a wider English language usage is more relevant, don't you think? I am also not sure that the monarchy website is an authority on the issue; "Frederick V on Horseback" is as common as (if not more common than) "Frederik V on Horseback". I suggested the move because someone will surely be inclined to perform it once the hook is on the main page, and moving an article while it is featured on DYK makes tracking views a little bit more difficult. Besides, I am not sure why the article about the statue should not be consistent with the article about the king; the arguments are the same. Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what authority you are using but I would point out that a Google search on "Frederik V on Horseback" gives 9,370 hits while "Frederick V on Horseback" gives 7 hits. But that may indeed be a result of the WP articles. I see however that searches on "Equestrian statue of Frederi(c)k V" provides more balanced results with only about 30% more in favour of the Danish spelling. I see too that the BBC constantly used Frederik in connection with the crown prince. See here. Ditto the [New York Times]. I think this must reflect wider English usage today although I agree that the history books have preferred Frederick over the centuries. --Ipigott (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the Crown Prince fits into all of this, but you are right about the web results: even without Wikipedia-related results, 84 use "Frederik" and 5 use "Frederick". I was referring to Google Book Search results, of which 12 use "Frederik" and another 12 use "Frederick". Once again, the move would avoid a possible inconvenience and certain inconsistency, but it is by no means obligatory. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Maria Leopoldine of Austria
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Surtsicna, I just reviewed your DYK nomination for Maria Leopoldine of Austria, which I'm afraid I declined. Unless I'm missing something, it's nowhere near 5x expanded in the last five days. Let me know if I've got it wrong or if you add more content and want me to take another look. --Canley (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Lady Wilson of Rievaulx and Lady Baltimore
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Is this the right place to contact you? As you have much experience in articles to do with titled persons, and as I much appreciated the logic behind your putting forward the proper title for the page on Baroness Stanley of Alderley, I thought, in case you have not seen already, to bring to your attention that the articles on Lady Wilson and Lady Baltimore are under the titles "Mary Wilson, Lady Wilson of Rievaulx" and "Charlotte Lee, Lady Baltimore". Would they not be better under the titles "Mary Wilson, Baroness Wilson of Rievaulx" and "Charlotte Lee, Baroness Baltimore", in line with their husbands' articles not to mention with those of the many other wives of barons, both life and hereditary? There was a discussion for a requested move on Lady Wilson's page with the rather confused arguments in favour of "Mary Wilson, Lady Wilson of Rievaulx" that nonetheless prevailed. I have begun a new discussion without yet requesting a move and should be very grateful indeed if you might make known in that discussion your interpretation of the question of titling the artices of wives of barons. 129.67.121.166 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for letting me know about Wikidata interwikis -- for whatever reason, I got extremely confused about everything :D For that reason, I give you this Invisible Barnstar.
Hey, you really didn't have to! It was bound to look suspicious. An anonymous user removing massive amount of material - which experienced user wouldn't revert that? I am yet to learn how this new system works, but hopefully it will at least spare us the annoying bot changes on our watchlist. Anyway, thanks for the barnstar. See-through is my favourite colour! Surtsicna (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Blanche of Burgundy
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I looked at Lady Mary Fox after you edited Anthony Roll. Is it really justified to a have a separate article on her if the only notable thing about her is that she sold part of the Roll to the British Library?
Hi! That is a genuine concern, but I doubt that is the only notable thing about her. Another notable thing would be that she was a king's daughter. I am currently working on an article about another Mary Fox (which is one of the reasons why I insisted on using Lady Mary Fox in the article about Anthony Roll) and so I stumbled upon the article about William IV's daughter. I will do my best to expand the article about Lady Mary as soon as I am done with the one about her namesake. Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Being the illegitimate child of a later king is not automatically mean notability. There's been thousands and thousands of those throughout history, and we´have no need to write articles on literally all of them. If her notability does not actually extent beyond owning and selling part of the Anthony Roll, there's no more point to having an article on her than there is to have a separate article on Anthony Anthony.
Of course. I agree with you completely. That is why I will see if there is a sufficient coverage by sources and attempt to expand the article. If I find that there is nothing to be said about her, I will redirect the article. You are welcome to do the same, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's task to respect anyone. If it were, we would refer to him as "His Majesty", to Kim Jong-il as "Dearest Supreme Leader" and to Barbara Bush as "Mrs. Bush". Of course, we do no such things. It is perfectly acceptable to use the man's name to refer to him. See WP:MoS (biographies). Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I known the guidelines you referred to. It does not have reference to the use of names in infoboxes, stating "use just first names" or "use the name as known in the Western world." I also know that Wikipedia has any task to respect people. But it does not reinforce the use of informal language and informal addressee forms, either.Egeymi (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a very well-known guideline called WP:Use English. Since this Wikipedia is in English and not in Arabic, it is not surprising that the preferred name is the one that is most commonly used in English speaking world. There is also Template:Infobox royalty/doc, which is why the infobox in the article about Charles, Prince of Wales, does not name him Charles Philip Arthur George. There is nothing informal about referring to King Faisal as Faisal; Queen Elizabeth II is routinely called Elizabeth throughout the article about her and I am not aware of anyone ever objecting to that. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This is even worse because it is redundant to the very next parameter which describes him as "King of Saudi Arabia". Look at the above mentioned infoboxes and at the one in the article about Beatrix of the Netherlands. It does not call her "Beatrix of the Netherlands" or "Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard", but simply "Beatrix", which is perfectly reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Neal Evenhuis
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 23 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie Fox, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Marie Fox(pictured), a foundling whose parentage remains a mystery, was adopted by a nobleman and became a princess, author and translator? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Fox. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please read the article talk page and do not keep saying that her father being unknown amounts to her biological parentage being unknown. It amounts to her father being unknown. Thanks. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Was not the Pearl Countess of Richmond?
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A sentence below from Eleanor of Brittany and her Treatment by King John and Henry III by Gwen Seabourne could be Googled:"In 1208, John allowed her to use the titles of Brittany and Richmond." While [1] also lists Eleanor as c. Richmond as well as the date she acceded (27 May 1208, just the year that Arthur was believed to have died).——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of work on Earl of Richmond and Duchy of Brittany from December 2012 through today. The use of titles in the context of Brittany in the case of Eleanor raises several issues. Please visit her article page and that of Arthur, her brother, as well as Alix of Thouars, her half sister and view the current Succession Boxes for a glimpse at the issues. In Brittany Eleanor's case raises the issue of rightful heir, using either the Salic, and strict, tradition of France or the alternatives mechanism that sometimes emerged in Brittany. That said her legal rights and ability to reign were moot because of her imprisonment by both John followed by his successor. It is fair to consider her a titular Duchess of Brittany and a titular Countess of Richmond. John would go on to offer the Earldom of Richmond to Pierre Mauclerc of Brittany, so his permitting Eleanor to use the titles, was a courtesy at best. The king of France also held sway on these issues, and would have treated Eleanor's use of the title as that, a courtesy at best. Such a sad history, but in the case of France there is no doubt that the House of Dreux becomes Dukes of Brittany even if the Earldom of Richmond becomes more complicated. That is a synopsis of a complicated story. In one form of the article on Earl of Richmond I had clearly added Eleanor to the list with a suitable statement on the contingency and limitations of any title she used or that an overlord such as John asserted was her right to use. If that has been taken out by someone you may consider looking at the History record to see what was taken out, how it was displayed at the time and what to do know. Good luck ! Breizhtalk (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Frederic, Count of Luna
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 26 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ernest Gibbins, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the scientist Ernest Gibbins was speared to death by tribesmen who believed he would use their blood samples for "white man's witchcraft"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ernest Gibbins. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
On 27 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trial of Thomas Hogg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Thomas Hogg was accused of fathering piglets because they resembled him, which was allegedly proven when the mother sow became aroused by him? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just wanted to say congratulations on the DYK today; I found it absolutely fascinating, the hook was very funny and the article is written extremely well. Thanks for cheering me up :) Staceydolxx (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. It truly means much to me, especially since two of my recent hooks have been criticised for unclarity after appearing on the main page. I hope you and me were not the only readers who found it fascinating! Surtsicna (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Robert Hathaway
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Howdy. It's pointless to have Vacant in the succession box, during the current sede vacante, as there's a vacancy before & after every pope's reign. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've thought of that, but it doesn't make sense to say that he was succeeded by "To be determined" either, does it? Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
It does, when to be determined means he's going to have a successor, eventually. Anyways, your compromise is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Papal conclave, 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Your submission of Blanche of France (nun) 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! Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
