Jump to content

User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Scott Morrison

Read his own website. It's in capitals. You can use "prime minister" in lowercase in some circumstances, but the full title is "Prime Minister of Australia". You are wrong. Don't just try to change things, discuss it at the talk page. Deus et lex (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Deus et lex, I have left a message to you on your talk page. MOS:JOBTITLES is clear on this. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It's the title - read the website I sent you. If you refer to the title of the position, you use capital letters. "Scott Morrison is a prime minister", but "Prime Minister of Australia". Your message doesn't say anything useful. Please stop editing these pages. Deus et lex (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's a title and it should be in lower case. Wikipedia does not capitalize titles just because a holder does so. Wikipedia has its own guideline, MOS:JOBTITLES. A link to it is useful and I suggest that you read it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No, the title of the position is in uppercase. It's different. It's important to follow what the position actually uses, not some arbitrary style you want to use. Deus et lex (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not "some arbitrary style" that I want to use, it is the style guide of this project. Surtsicna (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You want to use it in your own arbitrary way that's inconsistent with everyday usage. No one ever writes to, or refers to, the PM as "prime minister of Australia", it's just wrong. If you read the style guide, it distinguishes between the title and the office anyway. "Prime Minister of Australia" is the title and can be appropriately capitalised. "Scott Morrison is a prime minister" refers to an office and can stay in lower case. They're different usages. Deus et lex (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Strange that @Eyer: doesn't get more involved in these types of discussions. He's usually the boldest, when it comes to de-capitalising. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I work full-time, and I'm in school full-time, so I usually just let these conversations happen. That said, MOS:JOBTITLES is clear... If the title is modified (including by "the"), then it's lowercase. No questions about it. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 17:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

A helpful guide from the official UK government website stating they do, in fact, keep count. [1] DaleYorks (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Royalty

What is the difference between "succession rights", "constitutional role", and "public role"? CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The articles hereditary monarchy, public person, constitutional monarchy, and primogeniture might be helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Suc-box content, that's gotta go.

I've begun an RFC at Village Pump (proposals). Any additional examples of the suc-box content-in-question, would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, GoodDay, RFC questions should be neutral, so you may want to rewrite that. I would go with a broad question such as: "Should records such as 'Oldest British prime minister' or 'Longest-lived US president' be included in succession boxes?" Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Good point. Adjustments made. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Ultraconservatism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ultraconservatism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 6#Ultraconservatism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ancestry of medieval kings

Hi Surtsicna,

I saw you reverted my edits on "Robert King of Naples" which involved me adding a few categories on his page such as "Italian people of Hungarian descent" or "Italian people of Spanish descent" etc. I would like to discuss with you why that was necessary and maybe come to a sort of consensus, since I don't think that was a fair revert, considering that the pages of many medieval royals have such categories. For example, all the pages of English royals such as that of Edward I, Edward II or Edward III consists of these categories that list their (relatively immediate) ancestry. I know that technically all european royals, and even many commoners in the Euro-Atlantic (especially american celebrities like alexandra daddario whose forebears are from all over europe) in our day are a mix of various ethnicities, yet it seems to be pretty standard amongst wikipedia to list the most immediate ethnic groups present in a person's genetics (take a look at the aforementioned alexandra daddario's page, for example).

To my mind, I propose that every medieval royal figure should be listed under these categories that at least stems back to their great-grandparents: which would mean that they have the categories of "X person of X descent" tracing back 3 generations. While this is arbitary, I propose this because wikipedia's "ancestry" charts go up to the great-grandparental level. Also: the difference between a great-grandparent and a great-grandchild is give or take a lifetime, which makes it seem like a logical point to "end" without needing to add all the small small factions of ancestry that traces back to further generations. Please let me know your thoughts.

Regards, ZillennialMedievalist

Hi, ZillennialMedievalist. There are several issues with this practice when it comes to medieval rulers. Firstly, it is problematic to describe Robert as an Italian; not only was there no such nation at the time, but he was also ethnically French or Provençal. Secondly, it is a bit odd to speak of, say, Hungarian descent when each Hungarian-born ancestor had a non-Hungarian mother. Robert had no more Hungarian ancestry than Cuman, Greek, or German. Surtsicna (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Surtsicna, that is a good point. Duly noted. Cheers, ZillennialMedievalist:)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Title capitalization

Just check other royals like Queen Elizabeth, “ Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms.” —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 19:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Dimsar01, that is excessive capitalization too. As I said, please consult English language style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style or AP Stylebook. Wikipedia has one too, MOS:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Carlos, Prince of Asturias Family Tree

I think the family tree I added helps give more depth to the article because this goes further back and shows the extent to which Carlos was inbred, which the article discusses in detail. The other family tree is nice but it doesn't really show how truly inbred he was. Adding more people doesn't hurt, right? Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Unlimitedlead. The family tree already in the article lists all the common ancestors as the ahnentafel you added: Philip and Joanna in the third generation and Ferdinand and Isabella in the fourth. Going a generation further does not illustrate inbreeding any better, as there is no need to name Philip and Joanna's parents twice. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Mary of Hungary Family Tree

Hi, Surtsicna! I see that you reverted my family tree of Mary of Hungary. Could you further explain why you chose to? I see you said that her ancestors are not relevant on the page and that it doesn't include her siblings, but I don't think the ahnentafel can include siblings. For example, Elizabeth Tudor (1492–1495) died at age 3 and, sadly, had no impact on history and was too young to form a substantial relationship with her siblings, but she has a family tree. I actually think that her ancestors (notably her mother and father) were mentioned relevantly. Mary is described as inheriting the Habsburg lip from her Habsburg ancestors and how her grandfather Emperor Maximillian arranged her marriage plans. If you could explain your motivations, that'd be great! I want to know how I should approach family trees from now on. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being willing to discuss this, Unlimitedlead! You are right - an ahnentafel does not include siblings. That is why its utility is severely limited. It is almost never used in academic biographies. What is used instead is something like the tree you can see at Lady Jane Grey#Family tree. That tree is referenced to a biography of the subject and looks exactly like it does in that biography. That is ideal not only because it perfectly satisfies the verifiability requirements but also because it demonstrates encyclopedic relevance of the information. It would be quite difficult to justify mentioning Jane's great-great-grandparents that are not mentioned in any of the biographies of Jane. But of course, not all subjects have had academic biographies written about them. In such cases, a family tree including those people who are mentioned in the article would serve the reader better than an ahnentafel engineered to include certain people regardless of their relevance. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding! I'll keep this in mind. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

1000th Knight of the Garter

Hello, I'd like to bring up a certain royalty-related article and I figure you're a good editor to have this discussion with. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge is listed as the 1000th Knight of the Garter on various articles, including the very detailed list of every knight since the order's inception. But, in order for this to work, the women members of the same order had to be treated as Ladies (LG) rather than knights (KG) which yes, is a separate category but the problem happens with Anne, Princess Royal. She's listed as a KG almost everywhere else but LG on the comprehensive list of knights. I've seen articles that point out she insisted on being a knight (KG) rather than a lady (LG) too. Here's one example: https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/how-princess-anne-insisted-same-5338049 (side note: feel free to edit this part of my post to a friendlier format if you bring more people to the discussion). If she's a KG rather than LG, then in that case the list should go: 976 - John Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Preston Candover 977 - Anne, Princess Royal 978 - John Baring, 7th Baron Ashburton but instead, the list looks like this: 976 - John Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Preston Candover L9 - Anne, Princess Royal 977 - John Baring, 7th Baron Ashburton. If she's a knight, then the whole order of numbers is messed up after her and William would be the 1001st knight. Let me know what you think. Major media have reported William as being the 1000th knight, possibly due to a Wikipedia error. I also see some inconsistency with other women in the order too on the list. Women are much more common in the order but the list treats them inconsistently as either knights (KG) or ladies (LG) which complicates the numbers even more. Ok, this is getting a bit longer than I originally anticipated but it seems that Lady Margaret Beaufort was made an LG in the 15th century but the list article doesn't even reflect that, so Queen Alexandra would be L2 rather than L1. I'm not even sure what effect annulments are supposed to have because generally in law, annulments like in marriage are treated like something was never the case, retroactively. An annulled marriage is treated like the couple were never married, an annulled contract is like a contract that was never made, etc. Anyway, I hope you can understand the points I'm trying to make here. Let me know if this warrants further discussion with editors. --Killuminator (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Papal intros

Howdy, I've fixed up the intros as far back as Pope Clement II, restoring your previous edits. An editor or editors has/have been replacing the head of the Catholic Church intro with pope or bishop of Rome. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Avoid bold

I understand your complaint about avoiding bold but that should not be used as cover for rearranging lead sentences in a less than ideal fashion. Nor should it be a crusade only in respect of Israeli Palestinian related articles. In particular, where the bolded name is a common name (rather than descriptive), Israeli-Palestine conflict for example, then it is usual to introduce the article with a bolded repetition of the title. It really doesn't matter whether you personally approve of this practice.Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Selfstudier. Absurdly redundant sentences are themselves less than ideal, are they not? The suggestion of a "crusade only in respect of Israeli Palestinian related articles" is misguided and unnecessary; I cannot imagine what sort of ulterior motive one might see in wanting less redundancy in lead sentences. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed your efforts on various IP related pages on my watchlist, I take your word for it that you are doing the same in other areas as well. I don't like redundancy any more than you do but if you can reword without debolding, in particular where it is common name, then that would be better, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Rewording instead of debolding is sometimes an option and I do believe that the article title should be the subject of the lead sentence whenever possible. In many cases, however, debolding usually produces the most informative and least redundant sentence. I think that style and informativeness should be #1 priority; do you disagree? Anyway, see these examples of my edits: [1], [2], [3]. Surtsicna (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Style means different things to different people, the guild scrap with each other all the time and they are supposed to be the arbiters of it. If you mean avoiding redundancy, I wouldn't argue with that. I agree that articles should be informative, of course I do, that is certainly a priority. It's just that the IP area is very touchy and in particular, amendments to article leads can cause a lot of trouble.Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I understand your concern. I certainly do not mean to change the essence of any lead paragraph but merely to avoid saying the same thing twice. Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Inconstiency Issues with English Monarchs Naming

Hello, I noticed that you have reverted quite a bit of my revisions. Please try to remember that my main purposes for these revisions is to fix the consistency issues with the naming of the monarchs/titles, which is quite harder than it looks admittedly. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yourlocallordandsavior, at one point I realized what you intended to do. I think inconsistency is usually something worth addressing but sometimes it might be for the better. Surtsicna (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Surtsicna, can you elaborate a little more on that? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Simply put, not all topics are created equal, and so one-size-fits-all solution might not be the best approach. For example, while James V might be listed as "James V, King of Scotland" in the James IV infobox, having "James VI and I, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland" in the Mary I infobox is a bit of an overkill, don't you think? Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
At the same time, wouldn't it annoy some people in Scotland or Ireland if the Stuart monarchs beginning from James VI were called "of England", or "King of England"? I also had that consideration in mind in revising the infoboxes. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, but such concerns have been dismissed in all article talk page discussions so far. Surtsicna (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLE

Hi Surtsicna. Given your good work on Bailiwick of Guernsey I wonder if you'd be willing to give States Assembly the same treatment? I fixed the capitalisation last month, but it has since been undone by a connected editor. I've not reverted their edits, to avoid an edit war. It would be good to have an uninvolved third party do the necessary. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Curb Safe Charmer. I will give it a try. Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahnentafel (continued)

So it sounds like when a tree is needed, the method in Lady Jane Grey#Family tree is better than the format I've seen more commonly. Is that right? The other side of it is, how would one know when it is good to include? I wonder that because for me they're so useful in my own searches, the more bios that have them I enjoy it. But I know I'm far different than most. Thomasvitrano87 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thomasvitrano87. Yes, that is the format that is more common in reliable sources, and thus should be more common on Wikipedia too. Alas, it is far easier to copy-paste ahnentafeln. I notice that you now have two accounts, which is generally not allowed. I suggest that you reach out to Wikipedia:Help desk and explain that you need help regarding your two accounts. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Problematic editing

As you may have seen, I recently posted an answer to an editor who had accused you of vandalism. At the time when I wrote that answer I had looked only at your editing, to determine whether it was vandalism. Since then I've looked at the other editor's history, and there are clearly problems. At present I am editing on my phone, and doing the amount of investigation needed to come to a proper decision would be fiddly and awkward, but I will try to look into it more thoroughly when I am next editing on a computer. JBW (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I am in no hurry, JBW. Thank you for your assistance! Surtsicna (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Awards

The likes of "Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire" or "Fellow of the British Academy" are awards therefore MOS:JOBTITLES does not apply and they are properly titled. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite something to corroborate that assertion, Gaia Octavia Agrippa? MOS:JOBTITLES deals with "offices, titles, and positions" and I would classify those as titles. University of Oxford Style Guide explicitly advises using the lower case "fellow". Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
For the "University of Oxford Style Guide" do you mean this? In which case fellow: Capitalise only when used as part of an academic’s formal title, not when referring to fellows in general. √ There are ten Fifty-Pound Fellows at All Souls. X At its foundation, provision was made at All Souls for 40 Fellows. refers to the job title of fellow and doesn't concern awards.
I'm not sure where you are from, but we don't lowercase the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor just because they contain common nouns. See MOS:MILTERMS: Proper names of specific military awards and decorations are capitalized (Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross).
Assuming Oxford can use their own style guide correctly, here is them capitalising Fellow(s) of the British Academy, and here is the capitalisation of honours relating to the Order of the British Empire.
An example of combining titles with awards would be: "She became a dame [not Dame] the following year when she was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2021 New Year Honours" or "Bob Geldof holds an honorary knighthood [not Honorary Knighthood] and is only entitled to use the post-nominal letters of his KBE." or "Geoffrey, a Christ Church fellow [not Christ Church Fellow], was elected Fellow of the British Academy (FBA) in 2010"
"Offices, titles, and positions [list of examples] are common nouns". This is explicit in that we shouldn't be capitalising common nouns, whereas these awards are proper names, so MOS:JOBTITLES does not apply but MOS:MILTERMS does (for civilian award too). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed; proper names should be capitalized, as they always are. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2021 New Year Honours also looks fine to me per MOS:JOBTITLES; but if preceded by an article, I would have She was appointed a dame commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2021 New Year Honours. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
That's wrong. We don't change the capitalisation of awards. MOS:MILTERMS: Proper names of specific military awards and decorations are capitalized (Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross). It doesn't become "He was the recipient of a medal of honor". Its the same for orders with different ranks. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
That is because you would not say: "John Smith was a Medal of Honor." But you could say: "John Smith was a knight commander of the Order of the British Empire." The former refers to the proper name of an award; the latter refers to the title corresponding to a rank within an order. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Reason of Reversion

I added an ancestry tree in the page of "Anne of Cleves" which was reverted by you in 19th June, mentioning "This was removed for a reason" as reason. Would you please let me know the reason of that reversion? It'll help me do further edits.Mehenaz Tabassoom (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Mehenaz Tabassoom! The reason is that no such chart is found in published biographies of Anne, nor are those people named in any context. Content of Wikipedia articles should reflect the content publications specializing in the subject; see WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Surtsicna (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahnentafeln

Hi again Surtsicna, I just saw the discussion on the template page (via the NPOV thread) and was wondering where in that mess I could put my opinion. It didn't seem like there were any proper RfCs, and there are so many ongoing parallel sections I'm not sure which one I should comment in to contribute to consensus. Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JoelleJay. It is a bit tricky indeed. Normally I would suggest Template talk:Ahnentafel#Requests for comments (RfC) but that RfC is malformed and the last comment posted there dates from 2019. One alternative is having your say at the bottom of Template_talk:Ahnentafel#Ahnentafel_template_raison_d'être,_WP:V_issues,_and_5_generations_default_extent? and the other is starting a new section. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi there Surtsicna, I need help as I was not aware of the procedures concerning Ahnetafels. You can see my revisions done which were reverted. How can I have them restored? Comte_de_sayn (talk) 18.22, 23 June 2021 (ETC)
Hi. I would suggest that you do not restore them because of WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:PROPORTION policies. Surtsicna (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, Ok thank you. (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2021 (ETC)

Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston#Survey 2

Hi Surtsicna. I've updated the RM to include alternative title formats (such as Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston), so if you would like to amend or clarify your !vote, please feel free to do so. I've also split the discussion from the survey to contain any protracted debate. Much appreciated, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

House of Stuart genealogical table

Please see a new template I created, Template:House of Stuart genealogical table, which I copied from Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Since you'd worked on that table, I thought you'd be interested in it and I welcome your feedback, opinions and (of course!) edits. —GoldRingChip 14:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GoldRingChip. I prefer to customize the tables for individual articles, going by published biographies of each subject. I am not sure the template can be applied to biographies other than that of Anne. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, it could be used for other players around the Glorious Revolution: James II, William/Mary, George I? —GoldRingChip 15:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
It could be, but the point of replacing ahnentafeln with the customized charts is that they are, well, customized, and that they reflect the content of published biographies on each of the subjects. For example, a George I chart might need to reflect his paternal inheritance, and Mary II's might not need to include George or the Orléans cousins. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. Since this one is def. not customizable, it's just good for a few articles. So maybe it's use will be limited. —GoldRingChip 16:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault

Dear Surtsicna. Thank you for the recent attention you gave the page James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault. I respect your vast experience, which I lack and am keen to learn from you. On the mentioned article you removed the zoomed-in picture in the infobox and replaced it with the full one, which appeared further down among the text. I thought it was nice to have a zoomed-in ID-photo-like picture without a caption in the infobox and the full one below with a caption, especially in cases when few pictures are available for the subject. I feel the picture of the biographical subject in the infobox can often do without a caption. I have done this on several biographical articles. Is there a rule against this in Wikipedia or some reason why it should not be done? Perhaps I should undo them all? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Johannes Schade. To be honest, I do not think that is a good practice. One of the reasons is that it duplicates content. Another is that a picture of the subject's face alone often misses key details that help identify the subject, especially when the artist is not skilled or paid enough to bother with facial features. For example, in the case of Hamilton, the Order of Saint Michael collar is very helpful in identifying him. Surtsicna (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna. Thank you very much for your honest opinion, but surely you cannot mean that duplicating content is always to be avoided. Infoboxes, lead sections, and succession boxes all duplicate information that also appears in the main text but are generally encouraged. An ID-photo-like portrait cropped out of a large picture might show detail that cannot be seen when the entire picture is fitted on the page and might better show the personality of the biographical subject than the entire picture. See e.g. Gustavus Hamilton, 2nd Viscount Boyne. However, in the given case I will accept your judgement that is based on huge experience that I will never be able to match. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
In Boyne's case I would also much rather see the whole portrait in the infobox than just a face crop. The crops are aesthetically poor, in my opinion, because it is obvious that something is missing from the image, i.e. that it was not intended to show only the face. But please do not overestimate my opinions. You are proposing something new and unusual, and if you are confident that the wider community would agree with it, you could start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna. Thank you very much for your constructive criticism, honest comment, modesty, and suggestions. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting

Considering the recent "interest" in your removing unreferenced and irrelevent ahnentafels, do you think that it is strange that a new user's 4th edit is to place an ahnentafel in an article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not find it strange at all, Kansas Bear. New editors prolifically copy-pasting that template, despite vocal opposition from major contributors, is exactly what led it to creep into over 8,000 articles (including, and I kid you not, Édith Piaf, Robert E. Lee, Abigail Adams, Audrey Hepburn, etc). But see this section, where I already discussed the matter with that new user. Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Revertion

Hi, I saw the previous edits on Formosus and Nicholaus. Well, in this case a lot of other fake/post mortem visual interpretations (especially such of Saints) that are still in a lot of Wikipidia articles have to be removed. Either the one or the other. Can't be both ways. Cheers. Ентусиастъ (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Feel free to remove any obscure doodles you find. Cheers! Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Editor's Barnstar
Awarded for improving lead sentences and reducing redundancy through WP:AVOIDBOLD. — Goszei (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Symphyotrichum Award

The Symphyotrichum Award
For taking on the review of a long, detailed Symphyotrichum article and your thoughtful comments when doing so. Much thanks. Eewilson (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Possibly the loveliest so far. Thank you, and for the article too. Surtsicna (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lucia of Segni

Hello! Your submission of Lucia of Segni 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! el.ziade (talkallam) 08:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault (tree chart)

Dear Surtsicna. Thanks for your further improvements of the article James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault. Queen Mary's portrait by François Clouet is very beautiful. Why did you replace my "Family tree" with your "Genealogical Chart"? What was wrong with it? It worries me because I made about 100 of these family trees for biographical articles of Irish aristocrats. All in the same style and appearing in the same position under the infobox (e.g. Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your family tree was very nice, Johannes Schade. Its major fault was being uncited, whereas the one I replaced it with cites a biography of Mary in which it appears. It also illustrates Arran's place in the line of succession (after the royal Stewarts but ahead of the Lennox Stewarts) and his relationship with the monarchs he served (James V, Mary I, James VI) and his adversaries (Mary of Guise, Matthew Lennox), so I think it is more informative. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna. It was not uncited. The mark is at the top, practically in the same place as on yours. Quite obviously these two charts do not focus on the same topic. Yours focuses on the royals, mine on his family, his parents, his wife, his notable children. Perhaps we can have both, or perhaps we could combine them? I am off to bed. Talk to you tomorrow again. With many thanks, Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, my apologies! I did not see the reference. I very much like the idea of combining them. In fact, the source I cited includes all of his immediate family, so we can just add them without citing Cokayne (1910). Surtsicna (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna. Should I have a go at combining them? You will have to give me some time. I have a family visit and cannot spend much time on Wikipedia or would you like to do it? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna. Thanks for you patience. You will find below the collapsed proposal for the combined tree chart. I did not want to save it directly on the article because this might be taken as starting an edit war. Have a look, improved it, then save the results —or reject it outright. I exchanged husbands and wives. As I understand it the husband is placed left of the wife according to the prevailing convention in such charts.
With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I always make horizontal (marital) lines straight, even if it means pushing one generation further down, but this is an elegant solution too, Johannes Schade. If I chose the colors, I would go with only two, one for all the Stewarts and one for all the Hamiltons. But MOS:COLOR tells us to be careful when using colors because visually impaired readers might be denied access to information conveyed in such a way. And do you think it is better to have these charts aligned to the left than centered in dedicated sections? You are very thoughtful, and I cannot imagine how anything you do could be construed as an edit war. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna. Thanks for your very helpful comments on the tree chart. I had not known MOS:COLOR. This tree chart is too busy and has too many colours. I think your idea to colour by Stewart and Hamilton is excellent. I think I will make two charts, one for the family and the other for the relation with the royal Stewarts. The article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty at (Revision 09:31, 27 February 2021) had three tree charts. User Buidhe (>100,000 edits)deleted two of them with the summary comment "don't see how this is sufficiently relevant", but perhaps two could be justified for Châtellerault. This week is still family visit so I will be slow. Many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I actually quite like your original idea of having all the information in one chart, Johannes Schade. That is how it is presented in the source too. It is unfortunate that the source does not show that his wife was a granddaughter of James IV, so that relationship should probably not be included. Surtsicna (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna. Please find below an updated version of the chart that uses only three colours and drops the DIV frame. I felt that the Lennox Stewarts needed to have their own colour as they are practically unrelated to the descendants of James II in the male line. I wonder whether sections that contain a graphic or table as their only content are valid. I think that a page-wide comprehensive genealogical chart might be acceptable as part of the end matter of MOS:LAYOUT similar to the succession boxes. I would avoid the word "genealogical" as it might provoke objection according to WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I added a link to the article Stewart of Darnley in the introductory sentence.
What do you think? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Johannes Schade, I would not fear the word "genealogical". Genealogy is fine per WP:NOTGENEALOGY as long as it is not its own purpose; and this genealogical table is based on the one found in a published biography of the relevant ruler. The Lennox Stuarts and the royal Stuarts did indeed share the same patriline, both having descended from the 4th high steward in the male line. Therefore I would suggest at least using only different shades of the same colour if not simply the same colour. Certainly no historian speaks of a change of dynasty between Mary I and James VI. As for graphic-only sections, I have toyed with your style of charts at Hugh III of Cyprus, but I have not yet mastered it. I do wonder how you would tackle it. Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Archive 19

Hi, I left a message for you some time ago when you were absent but you never responded and a bot has since archived it. If you missed it or don't find the topic worthwhile let me know.--Killuminator (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Killuminator. I did miss it, but having read it now, I am afraid I know next to nothing about knighthoods. Have you tried asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals? Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll copy the text and see if I can start some discussion because the list as it is might have some issues. --Killuminator (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hugh III of Cyprus

Dear Surtsicna. Please see my attempt below. My highest priority was to reduce the width of the chart as it was (on my screen) wider than the space left for the text next to it. Try to see how it looks on a cell phone. I admit that the tree looks more elegant without the borders around the leaves, but without them disturbing gaps often open between the lines and the writing. Normally, blocks are 3 cells wide. I find with is most easily achieved by making the code names of all the persons appearing on the chart 5 characters long.

Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful, Johannes Schade. Thank you for your effort. It seems I will have to relearn how to create these charts. One thing that bothers me is that proximity to Isabella I is not easily visible, and it is vital information because succession claims were based on it. My chart might be as wide as it is because I found it imperative to have all of her grandchildren in one line and all of her great-grandchildren in another. Is that something that can be achieved while maintaining a reasonable width? Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna. I would believe only at the price of making the chart wider. I usually keep it at not more than 5 boxes at the same level see e.g. (Theobald Dillon, 7th Viscount Dillon). I feel that a well-thought through introductory sentence at the top under the heading can improve the understanding of the graph. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I figured out that breaking names into two rows is what saves most space in your charts, Johannes Schade. I'll give that a go. Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck

Hi Surtsicna, Please may I follow up on the genealogy tree that you removed from the King of Bhutan's page as I'm not quite clear on your reasoning that it must be deleted. The ahnentafel was included in April 2012 and obviously involved a lot of work by the user. The lineage of the King is of significant interest to people interested in the history of Bhutan and the region. Could I point you to the comprehensive (600-pages) book The History of Bhutan, by Dr Karma Phuntsho, an Oxford alumni and arguably Bhutan's most respected historian, which explains the interconnected histories of the King of Bhutan and its Himalayan neighbours and the various families, some royal, others connected to high lamas and important figures of Sikkim and Tibet etc. The original contributor has not provided a reference, which I recognise is a problem, and nor are they are a registered user, so not able to be contacted. However, I think rather than just delete all that hard work and information, could a note saying 'citation needed' be more appropriate? I will endeavour to find references for the information, but can't guarantee managing that any time soon, so would like to suggest restoring the genealogy with a tag as a solution. :) Doctor 17 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Doctor 17. The problem with the ahnentafel is that it presents information that you quite certainly will not find in any historian's publication. For example, the king being the son of Tshering Yangdon, daughter of Yab Ugyen Dorji, son of Sangay Tenzin, daughter of Ngodrup Pem, is random information, lacking any context. It is far from clear why the reader should know that; who are these people? For all we know, Sangay Tenzin could even be the name of a serial killer with no connection to the king at all, and so the lack of sources is too problematic to be solved by a citation tag (see WP:BLP). But even if a source were to be cited, it would likely be a genealogy website, and the relevance of the information would still be unclear. Surtsicna (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely clear on your reasoning Surtsicna...is your concern the lack of referencing or the relevance of the information? I understand the lack of referencing, and have suggested the appropriate tag, but don't understand why you dispute the relevance of the King's lineage. I'm somewhat confused by your assertion that they are just random names without context. Please can you explain. Doctor 17 (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Doctor 17, the king's lineage is relevant for so long as it explains why he is king. Him being the son of a daughter of the son of the son of someone named Kuenga Gyeltshen is not relevant. There is no apparent reason why the reader should know that. It is gratuitous genealogy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, Respectfully, the king's lineage is relevant beyond 'explaining' why he is king, it is also of note due to the others in his ancestry that includes notable families and other important figures in Bhutan and beyond. Including the names beyond the patrilineal lineage is not "gratuitous", but perfectly meets the criteria of Genealogical entries. “Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.” Clearly the King is notable and his ancestry equally notable.
You argue that “the king being the son of Tshering Yangdon, daughter of Yab Ugyen Dorji, son of Sangay Tenzin, daughter of Ngodrup Pem, is random information, lacking any context… For all we know, Sangay Tenzin could even be the name of a serial killer with no connection to the king at all”. Here is a link to the Royal Family tree created by Dasho (Sir) Karma Ura and published by the Centre for Bhutan and GNH Studies, recognised by University of Cambridge as “an autonomous research institute dedicated towards promoting research and scholarship on Bhutan.” As you can see Sangay Tenzin is actually a tulku, which means he is the reincarnated custodian of a specific lineage of Vajrayana teachings. Ngodrup Pem is a direct descendant of a Penlop of Paro, which at various times, is a title also held by various royals. They are significant people in Bhutanese history.
Again, I would like to emphasise that in April 2012 someone put a lot of work into including this information, a simplified version of the royal ancestry, and it is of significant interest, maybe not to you, but I’m sure you will agree that is not the criteria for deletion? Doctor 17 (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Surtsicna, I would like to undo your revert of the ancestry tree and add the reference of Centre for Bhutan and GNH Studies. I am hoping that I have assuaged your concerns over relevance of the information and that the source is reputable. I have no desire to enter into an editing war with you so, out of courtesy and in good faith, I would just like to check that you are okay with that. Doctor 17 (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Doctor 17, forgive me for failing to respond yesterday. I had not noticed your post because others posted at the same time in different sections. I cannot say my concerns have been assuaged. The king being notable does not make his ancestry notable; Donald Trump is notable too but it does not mean the article about him needs extensive genealogy. You have not explained how saying that the king is the son of Tshering Yangdon, daughter of Yab Ugyen Dorji, son of Sangay Tenzin, daughter of Ngodrup Pem helps "support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE: information should be "put in context with explanations referenced to independent source". There is no explanation in the article for the inclusion of e.g. the name Sangay Tenzin. It is merely dumped there. Yes, ahnentafel templates proliferated in 2012; they were copy-pasted en mass across articles and were added even to the biographies of actors, musicians, athletes, democratically elected politicians, etc, all in spite of community misgivings. But that was wrong.
Now, the source you cited is excellent. If you can put this information into context by explaining who these people are and why these connections are notable, while citing sources that say exactly what you are saying, I would suggest creating a (perhaps simplified) version of it for the House of Wangchuck article instead. Template:Chart can achieve that. Surtsicna (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Surtsicna, I'm very pleased you agree with the impeccability of the source.:) Regarding your ongoing concern about the notability of the King's lineage, I am still confused. The King of Bhutan isn't a figure like Donald Trump, but a King, and just like the European royals, behind him are centuries of notable ancestors that extend through the royal houses of Sikkim and include spiritual figures, such as Tulku Sangay Tenzin, as I explained. I've looked at the page for Queen Elizabeth - she has the same style tree and it includes people with no explanation about them in the text on that page (eg: Frances Dora Smith, Francis, Duke of Teck, Caroline Louisa Burnaby). The same with the King of Thailand. He has the same style tree with names not included in the main text. So I am not following your reasoning about the ancestry of the King of Bhutan not being appropriate on his page. Please can you clarify. Doctor 17 (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not think ahnentafeln should be in those articles either. Surtsicna (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surtsicna/Archive_19&oldid=1040701035"