Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:31, 21 June 2013

Hello, Surtsicna, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Banate of Mačva

I requested move in the case of Banate of Mačva article. May I ask you to tell your opinion? See: talk page. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond to you. I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Cindy(talk to me) 15:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henrietta Clive, Countess of Powis

On 2 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henrietta Clive, Countess of Powis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the mineral collection of Lady Clive, a pioneer among female rock collectors, is one of the most important historic mineral collections at the National Museum Wales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henrietta Clive, Countess of Powis. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charlotte Percy, Duchess of Northumberland

On 4 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charlotte Percy, Duchess of Northumberland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the genus Clivia was named after Queen Victoria's childhood governess, the Duchess of Northumberland, who was the first to cultivate those plants in Great Britain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlotte Percy, Duchess of Northumberland. 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.

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Howard, Duchess of Norfolk (d. 1773)

On 11 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Howard, Duchess of Norfolk (d. 1773), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Duchess of Norfolk asked Captain James Cook to name an island after her, but died before he discovered Norfolk Island? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Howard, Duchess of Norfolk (d. 1773). 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gladys Deacon

On 11 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gladys Deacon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Duchess of Marlborough kept a revolver in her bedroom in Blenheim Palace to prevent her husband from entering? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gladys Deacon. 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitchy

The source supports the use of the word. Exactly what problem do you have with the fact that Jane has repeatedly labelled the gardening establishment "bitchy". --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP. What you inserted is not covered by the source. The source doesn't say that she "dismisses criticism as uninformed and bitchy". In fact, it doesn't say anything to that effect. Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Constance Lewes

On 25 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Constance Lewes, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Duchess of Westminster was one of only two women to compete in sailing at the 1908 Summer Olympics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constance Lewes. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes

in short. If you wanted to talk to me, the proper place was my talk page. If you want to repy to this, do so here: i now have the page on my watchlist. The cfd page is for discussion with wp editors in general. TheLongTone (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I did not intend to chat. I am not particularly keen to avoid seeing that article deleted, as I haven't put much effort into creating it, but I wouldn't like it to be deleted without a proper reason. I may be naive, but the woman doesn't seem to be non-notable. Furthermore, she doesn't seem to be notable only due to her marriage. Let's see what others think. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I csd'd because the article really in my view makes no claim of real notability: theonly things she does are not remarkable: they are just the kind of things peers' wives do. If she was attracting press coverage for these activities she would imo be a great deal more notable. I've had a look at the other articles you've written, and altho I'm not really that sure whether the two later ones are truly notable (don't worry, I've no intention of afd-ing them!) they are at least interesting. This woman seems dull, which is really why I flagged it. You say you haven't given the article much effort: maybe if you did & found something solid she's done other than sling canapes about the article would pass the afd.TheLongTone (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Elgin & Elgin

No problem, Surtsicna, a mistake easily made. When I went to add your image to Mary Bruce, Countess of Elgin, I found another version of it already there. Moonraker (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why I assumed that Charlotte's governess was the subject of the portrait. Once again, thank you for correcting me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hsiao Li Lindsay, Baroness Lindsay of Birker

On 26 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hsiao Li Lindsay, Baroness Lindsay of Birker, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lady Lindsay of Birker, the first Chinese-born peeress, smuggled supplies and taught English to communist guerrillas fighting the Japanese occupation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hsiao Li Lindsay, Baroness Lindsay of Birker. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eleanor Maguire

It's unclear whether you've formally approved this article, though your comments look as though it may be the case. If it is approved, can you please use the appropriate tick to show that the article is ready to go? (If not, then listing what checks or issues remain would be helpful.) Sorry to have to bother you, and thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, problem. I am sorry for causing inconvenience by forgetting to add the tick. Hopefully nobody minds. Thank you for reminding me! Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth I

What does Strong say exactly? I don't have a copy. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I, but a quick search suggests that he does not mention Elizabeth's illegitimacy at all. I haven't been able to find what he says about her being crowned by the Bishop of Carlisle. I do like the present solution very much, though. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and about this... I misunderstood you. For some reason, I thought you said her reign was considered illegitimate and decided to go with it though I didn't understand how or why. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lady Mary Grosvenor

Hello! Your submission of Lady Mary Grosvenor 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! Allen3  18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the issues Allen raised are fixed, but I can't find a source for her list of racing cars. If you want to fix it, let me know, and I'll put it back on hold, but judging from your comments, you were ready to write off the whole thing. Choess (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Here's a source for the list of cars: Motorsport People. I've added it to the article. There might be more, I haven't looked very closely. Yes, I was ready to give up and it seems that you understand why. Thanks for your help and support! Surtsicna (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

Template instead of outright numbers.] Agreed, a template for auto-renumbering is needed-- like reflist? If I knew how, would do (un vrai naif). Can you advise where to find or how to create a template for this? If you answer here or on the article Talkpage I will see by watchlist. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm completely clueless. It would be a great improvement, though. I tried asking for help here. Hopefully you'll have more luck (and knowledge) :) Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Going there and will attempt to do that. Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know if I can help. I'd really like to see such template used in the list(s). Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No luck with this so far, hence evasive proposal for the Line of succession now on that Talk page. But would prefer retaining the serial numbers there if a template device for general use emerges. Qexigator (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

need outside opinions in Crown of Castile

I have asked for outside opinions in Crown of Castile, the question is Did the the Crown of Castile end in 1812 or in 1715? I am notifying you because you have made non-trivial edits to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dutch royalty

The title Prince of Orange may be irrelevant in your opinion, in the Netherlands it is certainly relevant. So stop vandalizing these pages. Or are you planning to chop up all references to Prince of Wales? Same status, so irrelevant to you too? The Banner _talk 20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not removing succession boxes related to the title Prince of Orange. It is an actual, hereditary title and of course succession boxes for those should remain. However, succession boxes for something like "Heir to the Dutch throne" serve no purpose. They can only mislead the reader, as I have explained on the talk page of a relevant article. Besides, you're reverting even corrections of grammar and orthography without any explanation whatsoever, which is really disruptive. Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In your POV, maybe. The Banner _talk 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not an argument. You haven't responded to any of my arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Royal Danish trivia

Though I completely agree with your recent revert, the edit summary was not completely accurate. Frederick VIII of Denmark was in fact born Christian Frederik Vilhelm Carl. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did say: "as far as I know" :) Thanks for sharing that! Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous, nonsensical move on Princess Sophie von Hohenberg

Do you also plan on moving Manfred von Richthofen to Manfred of Richthofen? Along with all the other similarly and properly named articles? Dlabtot (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I take it that you would Maximilian, Duke of Hohenberg to Maximilian, Duke von Hohenberg and Princess Stéphanie of Monaco to Princess Stéphanie de Monaco, or wouldn't you? Why or why not? It was ridiculous and nonsensical to call her Princess Sophie von Hohenberg; Sophie von Hohenberg and Sophie Prinzessin von Hohenberg would both make sense, but Princess Sophie von Hohenberg simply doesn't. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you would be well served by a review of WP:COMMONNAME. Dlabtot (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I had already checked it. If you oppose the move, request one at the talk page. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeta Kotromanic

No, that wasn't me...I don't have time for that now, since I am very busy...one day maybe, and I will use the talk page as always. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Lady Cosima Windsor

I do not think there is any consensus to redirect this article. Please sned it back to WP:AFD if you really think that the past consensus has changed. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have answered you on the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duchess of Richmond's ball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HSH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Describing James VI and I

You'll see from the last couple of edits on the above article that I've tweaked the box content for James. It occurs to me, however, that describing him as King of Great Britain might be an improvement, unless that looks odd beside the given dates? Kim Traynor (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does look odd beside the given dates, as his great-granddaughter Anne was the first monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain. James was simply king of Scotland and king of England, though he did fantasy about a kingdom of Great Britain. Surtsicna (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow night owl. I thought James came up with the name, but I see from your comment that Anne was the first to use it as an official title. That would mean that the info in the box, as it now stands, is accurate. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. Frankly, I've got no idea what I'm doing up this late. I really should be going to sleep. Cheers from UTC+02:00 zone! Surtsicna (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to reply, but here's something to ponder (though I hope it doesn't keep you awake). Most people 'in the know' consulting that family tree will notice Mary of Guise is nowhere to be seen. She may be impossible to fit in, but she is a key figure who seems conspicuous by her absence. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I only added people who are relevant enough to be mentioned in the article. Mary of Guise is notable, of course, but much more to Mary I than to James VI. Unnecessarily adding people who are not mentioned in the article would create lots of problems and the tree would lose its purpose. Surtsicna (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Kim Traynor (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charlotte Williams-Wynn (diarist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Biebrich and Sir William Williams, 2nd Baronet

Marjorie Proops (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Smithfield

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley

Hmm. I've been told by other editors that articles ought to be in sections, and that detailed dates of birth and death should not be included in the lead! And you seem to have garbled her date of birth - is there a reason for repeating the year? Given that there are umpteen USA places called Florence and also one in her birth province of Nova Scotia, I think that although the Tuscan city is the primary usage it makes sense to disambiguate it in the text. I'm not sure that anachronisms matter when it's a case of identifying placenames but I'll go for Tuscany and remove the duplicated year.

I don't know how long it'll be before some bright spark tags it as "needing sections"! PamD 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, have just see WP:OPENPARAGRAPH and full dates in lead sentence seems to be right - I wonder where I saw otherwise?! PamD 17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Our replies crossed.

I'm quite happy not to have sections, but interestingly Help:Section is quite dogmatic: "A page can and should be divided into sections, ...", and Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Section_organization says "An article should begin with an introductory lead section, which does not contain section headings (see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section). The remainder is divided into sections, each with a section heading ...", which gives fuel to the trigger-happy taggers wanting to add {{Sections}} while they play around at Page Curation to boost their edit count. Perhaps either or both of those resources needs a comment that sections may be inappropriate for a short stub until it grows! I think I added them this time because I found a bunch of family-type info and hadn't the time or energy to put together much else but felt a section would help.

And this all started off because I spotted an edit to my old school's article on my watchlist, looked at the article, noticed they'd invented a house system, wondered who the four houses were named for, then (a) clarified that one was in WP under her married name; (b) sorted out a muddle of links for a tennis player listed under both maiden and married names; (c) identified this lady, found her in ODNB, created her article and assorted links, and (d) have emailed the school office to ask who Frances West was (quite possibly someone vastly better known by her married or professional name, but FW when at school) - after correcting the misspelling as "Francis" in the WP infobox. And that's why I haven't done any of the jobs I ought to have been doing today - another day spent WikiGnoming. Fun, isn't it! PamD 18:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry charts

Hi dear Surtsicna! I think you can remember our discussion about the ancestry charts of the Japanese Imperial Family. About the ancestry of some of them you said: it is irrelevant. None of their ancestors are notable. Would a reader really care to know the name of their mother's father's mother?. I agreed with you but now I'm here about the ancestry chart of someone else: Princess Claire of Belgium. As you can see she was neither a royal person by birth nor from a notable family. Also it is unsourced. Now I think that we have to remove that section or I can rewrite the ancestry of Crown Princess Masako or Princess Akishino. What do you think? Keivan.f 20:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! You are right, of course, there is no need for the ancestry chart there. Thanks for pointing that out! Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Katharine Russell, Viscountess Amberley

On 9 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katharine Russell, Viscountess Amberley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Queen Victoria said that Viscountess Amberley "ought to get a good whipping" for speaking publicly in favour of women's suffrage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katharine Russell, Viscountess Amberley. 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Maude Stanley

There is a query regarding this DYK nomination; please discuss at Template:Did you know nominations/Maude Stanley. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne (2)

This is about your recent edits: 1_Elimination of unborn, of course. That has previously been mentioned on Talk. 2_But are you not unduly censorious in peremptorily removing the explanation about what the line of succession is about and what not? It may be very obvious to some, but there has evidently been and is likely to be a lack of clarity among others, editors or plain readers, and a tendency in press and broadcasting to misinform. 3_HRH is used in the list, and, in view of the initial muddle about this (from Clarence House?) there is evidently need for explanation here.

In my view these explanations should be in the article, and it is weaker without them (subject to correction af any errors). Have you a better way of mentioning them, perhaps by footnotes with links?

4_Agreed that mention of Edward's abdication could be omitted. 5_Your comment on removing another editor's "Individuals are placed and numbered in the list below according to information available to this page's editors" looks OTT to me. 6_Have you thought of removing the section on "Proposed rule changes". This is surely more out of place here than anything else. Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Isn't it clear what the line of succession is? If not immediately, doesn't the lead sentence explain it? I haven't seen anyone confuse the line of succession with the order of precedence. If that does happen, wouldn't a simple note such as "The line of succession should not be confused with the order of precedence" be enough? It seems a bit too much to go all the way to the Queen's long-deceased aunt to illustrate something so clear and simple.

As for the style, how about a link to Royal Highness#United Kingdom? It would be a simple, painless solution that wouldn't suggest any correlation between the style and the succession rights. Anyway, what muddle are we talking about? I suppose someone could mistakenly add "HRH" next to the names of the Princess Royal's descendants or something like that, but we surely can't explain why everything is the way it is in the text of that article, i.e. we don't have to explain things such as the style, why the Q in "Queen" is capitalised, etc. Even if we did, some would still ignore that.

I'm not sure what you mean by OTT; it led me to WikiProject Ottawa, and I doubt that's what you were suggesting :)

I haven't considered removing that section, though I do agree that a brief mention of the proposal in the lead section should be enough. I'm afraid that too much text in the article obscures the list itself. The article is, after all, about the actual line, not about succession to the British throne or the history of the British line of succession. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Broadly agree your last point and much of the rest. Leaving it for a while, but may be will revise the article later, unless you have done as above by then. Qexigator (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll make the changes immediately. Cheers! Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me. It will be better still when the bill has been passed and we can drop the "Proposed" section. Qexigator (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Its's good to see the Proposals section has gone, but has your recent edit for the lead taken away a needed "end" in heads of government of all the 16 Commonwealth realms agreed to take steps to adopt absolute primogeniture and the ban on the monarch's marriage to Roman Catholics? Qexigator (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course! Thanks for pointing that out. Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Somerset, 11th Duke of Beaufort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Maude Stanley

On 17 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maude Stanley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that her experiences with girls on the street led philosopher Bertrand Russell's "stern and gloomy" Aunt Maude to write Clubs for Working Girls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maude Stanley. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Hi! What do you think about this? You removed this section from the article, but I think this section is needed so I added that template to it. Is that section really needed in the article to be rewritten or not? As the other dead members of the royal family have this section in their articles so I think it's needed. What do you think? Keivan.f 12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I do think a legacy section is needed but not like one I removed. The one I removed contained only information already present in various other sections and appeared to be a classic case of WP:TRIVIA. However, since the 'legacy' information is already in the article (in section titled Tribute, funeral, and burial), I'm not sure if the template is the right way to do it. At first, it seemed like a good idea, but now it looks like we're saying that the article doesn't have information about her legacy. Frankly, I don't know. Surtsicna (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rosalind Howard, Countess of Carlisle

On 19 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rosalind Howard, Countess of Carlisle, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rosalind Howard, Countess of Carlisle. 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.

Orlady (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley

On 22 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that philosopher Bertrand Russell feared the ridicule of his grandmother, Lady Stanley of Alderley (pictured), best known for defending the "right of women to the highest culture hitherto reserved to men"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henrietta Stanley, Baroness Stanley of Alderley. 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.

Orlady (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations - you've done such a lot to the little stub I created on 5th December, she clearly caught your interest! PamD 13:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am grateful for your bringing her to my attention. Reading about the Baroness Stanley of Alderley also led me to create articles about her daughters, Maude Stanley and Viscountess Amberley, and expand the article about the Countess of Carlisle. They all managed to catch my interest! Surtsicna (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also considered creating an article about Lady Stanley's least favourite child, Alice Pitt Rivers, but perhaps someone else will be more interested in her. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hullo!

Hullo and merry merry etc. I've greatly admired the articles you've created recently on early (proto?) feminists. I recently created an article on Aubrey House, which has strong early feminist connections, do check it out and let me know what you think. There are some great members of Clementia Taylor's circle that could be written about. The OXNDB is such a goldmine! Thank you for your great work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for noticing my contributions. I'll see if I can add anything to the article on Aubrey House, but you seem to have done quite a lot already. It's a pity you haven't nominated it at WP:Did you know, though. Surtsicna (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Lady Mary Lygon

Hi, I'm Ana Bykova. Surtsicna, thanks for creating Lady Mary Lygon!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for making a wiki page, it looks great. Please refer to the tags added to find out how you could improve it. Best wishes,

Anastasia Bykova (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Uploading an image

Hi Surtsicna! Can you upload this image from Thai Misplaced Pages to English Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia Commons? I always have problem with uploading images and this image is really needed and we can use it here because the image that is already using in that article is very old. Can you do it, please? Keivan.f 08:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! I'm glad I could help. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Keivan.f 18:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna! Can you upload these images to Wikimedia commons?

I think they don't have any problems. You can do it every time that you are not busy. Keivan.f 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand why you can't upload them yourself. Perhaps I can help with that. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I don't know why but I always have problem with uploading images. However, you can upload them another time. Keivan.f 18:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If I'm telling you to upload them it's because of that I can't upload them in Wikimedia. I can upload them in English, Persian or many other Wikipedias but it is very hard to upload them many times in each Misplaced Pages. Because of that I asked for help from you and I think it should be easy for you to upload them in Wikimedia so the other Wikipedas can use it too. I'm not in hurry so please do it every time that you want.Keivan.f 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot upload them without knowing the license. I don't speak Thai, unfortunately. Surtsicna (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OK! Thanks. Keivan.f 15:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Henry Somerset

On 2 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lady Henry Somerset, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lady Henry Somerset scandalised 1870s society by revealing her husband's homosexuality, but was later voted the best choice to be the United Kingdom's first female prime minister? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Henry Somerset. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon

Hello! Your submission of Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon 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! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Spices

Hi Surtsicna, I wonder if you can help me. I thought (as a man) if your spouse got a title you didn't get anything. Though, if you are a woman and your husband gets a title, then out of courtesy to him his wife is known as Lady Something or the Duchess of Somewhere but not in her own right is it. Do you see what I mean? I know you disagree and I'd like to know where I am going wrong. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I don't disagree, actually. Everything you said is true, but could you please tell me what exactly are we discussing? I don't recall taking part in any such discussion recently. Surtsicna (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your response. Was writing to you because I just read another instance where you awarded a spouse a title because the other half was given one. Viscountess Simon (above) is a classic case. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you've gone quiet. To expand on it a little I quote "(Dear God, being the first husband of a woman who later married a king does not make anyone royal. Otherwise, Andrew Parker-Bowles and Ernest Simpson would be royal.)" well, marrying the 6th Baroness does not make the spouse the 6th Baron does it? I ahve fixed it but you might like to discuss that too. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I truly don't understand what you're referring to. Kathleen Simon was Viscountess Simon because her husband was Viscount Simon. Edward Grey was summoned to parliament in the right of his wife as Baron Ferrers of Groby and thus became jure uxoris 6th Baron Baron Ferrers of Groby. He did not become baron by marrying her but by being summoned to parliament in her right. Is this what you meant? Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm on overload for the next 24 hours but in the case of Edward Grey he was summoned to parliament as BF of G *in right of his wife* (as you acknowledge) he was never baron himself. He was never 6th Baron. She was 6th Baroness but unable to attend parliament, he attended in her place. If they divorced without children that title would be used in the same way by her next husband, Grey would lose it. Do you see? More tomorrow, regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case you might want to challenge the title of the article about Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, though I should warn you that no-one challenges the fact that he was the 16th Earl of Warwick. The same is true for his father, Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury. Long story short, a woman married to a peer is not in the same situation as a man summoned to parliament in right of his peeress wife. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it correct by current rules or is it just a habit that people have got into? No I'll let the kingmaker's article rest, I think you are much more challenging. You have picked on an interesting example. ODNB describes him that way too. Douglas Richardson studiously avoids giving him any number at all. I think it all depends on the terms on which he was summoned to parliament. ODNB speaks of issue of letters patent which is the King creating a new title I'd have thought, no little summons to parliament (but that leaves us the question of the number —he'd have wanted all the precedence he could possibly have). You could look in the HoP archives and see what they have which might explain all. I do notice that through his mother Warwick descended from William Beauchamp (d. 1298) 9th E of W. I wonder if that were taken into account. Any way I don't think Richard Neville's case is quite so straightforward as the Groby one and Neville was enormously more powerful than Grey. You are careful not to disagree with me directly and me likewise if you read back above. Anyway keep at it because together we might find something. Cheers Eddaido (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor at DYK

I've attempted to review this (Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor). I've ok'd it though I'm a little worried that, resting almost entirely on the ODNB, it verges perilously close to close paraphrasing, not particularly in the words so much as in the structure/order. It's really very difficult to avoid, I find, when using a single source. Can you access another source just to get another view of the subject? Beatrice Webb's diaries might be useful, but sadly I only have the earlier volumes. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gabrielle Howard

Thanks for suggesting I look at this. I fear my recollections of photosynthesis are so far in the past that I'm not sure I'm a good reviewer for it, so I'm commenting here informally instead. I'd never heard of the Blackman reaction, but a quick Google search (eg ) suggests that what Matthaei & Blackman stumbled over with the temperature experiments is actually now known as the "dark reactions" or "Calvin cycle". It was termed the "Blackman reaction" in 1924, but certainly isn't ever called that now. (It's the reaction, not the experiment, which was named for Blackman.) Carbon fixation is only part of this cycle, and I don't have enough understanding in this area to know whether "finding that carbon fixation is based on biochemical reactions which depend on temperature" is a reasonable description of this work, given that the details of the cycle weren't discovered until decades later.

Without access to the print sources used for the article, I can't readily determine whether the present hook (with the above error corrected) is fair, as the research cited in the book I link includes a paper by Blackman alone, and not the paper by Matthaei alone that you mention. But a straight hook just saying her experiments underpinned the discovery of the dark reactions of photosynthesis would seem to be interesting. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I'll try Googling around myself in the hopes of clarifying some things. I am very grateful for your effort! Surtsicna (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louise Howard

On 14 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louise Howard, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that lecturer Louise Matthaei was dismissed by the University of Cambridge because her father was German? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Howard. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Lord William Hamilton at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gabrielle Howard

On 16 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gabrielle Howard, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the early 1900s, Gabrielle Matthaei determined the role of temperature in photosynthesis, though the reaction does not bear her name today? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gabrielle Howard. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lord William Hamilton

Hello! Your submission of Lord William Hamilton 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! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Iceland

Hi. I posted a question to the relevant talk page (Kingdom of Iceland) about kings just over a week ago - that is, whether they're always called by their English name on the English wikipedia, and though I didn't get an answer, I'm sure it's yes (although, that doesn't seem to be the case with the average foreigner, footballers Petr Cech and Nemanja Vidic being examples of that). However, seeing as the king was called Kristján instead of the Danish name Christian in Iceland, that should merit an inclusion somewhere (as he was not only the King of Denmark, but also the King of Iceland). Should that place be the article on the king itself, or maybe somewhere in the article about the Kingdom? finval (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I believe the article about the king would be a good place to mention it. I'll include it right away! Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor

On 19 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the twin sister of the anti-war activist Lady Parmoor was imprisoned for publishing a leaflet uncensored by the government? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marian Cripps, Baroness Parmoor. 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 09:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

A few days ago you approved Template:Did you know nominations/R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal - I thought you might be interested to know that the article got nearly 50,000 views over the last 3 days, making it the fifth most successful non-lead DYK hook of all time. Not a bad result. :-) Prioryman (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad result? What a gross underestimation, Prioryman! I am glad that I am far from alone in liking the hook and the article. Congratulations and thank you for informing me. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Turns out the reason is that it got Reddited: . Prioryman (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Who does one have to pray to to have their hook Reddited? :D Now, in all fairness, it was a great hook. Scientology does not engage in religious worship? I bet Tom Cruise vomitted up that placenta last Tuesday ;) Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Catherine Petre, Baroness Petre

Hi again, I have the nastiest feeling this woman was never known as Baroness Petre or Baroness Stourton and your (European-style ideas?) statements should be changed. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that idea really is nasty. Lady Petre was never Baroness Petre? I do hope that is not what you are suggesting. European-style Surtsicna out. Surtsicna (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do, can you tell me why you believe she should be known to your Misplaced Pages readers (a select and fortunate group) as Baroness Petre? Eddaido (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Because she was Baroness Petre. I suggest that you read something about her and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Location, if you can manage that. Now, I do not appreciate your hostility and I would like you to cease posting on my talk page. If there are any other questions I can answer for you, ask them on article talk pages. Surtsicna (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lord William Hamilton

On 20 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lord William Hamilton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lord William Hamilton, Vice-Chamberlain to Caroline of Ansbach, was so poor that the Queen described him and his wife as "handsome beggars"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lord William Hamilton. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Vane, 2nd Viscount Vane

On 22 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Vane, 2nd Viscount Vane, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Viscount Vane's offer of a reward in the newspapers for information about his eloped wife was compared to a search for "some favourite spaniel bitch"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Vane, 2nd Viscount Vane. 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.

KTC (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Árpád dynasty family tree

While reading the Árpád dynasty article, I noticed Ladislaus IV of Hungary is missing from the dynasty's family tree. He was the son of Stephen V of Hungary and reigned between 1272 and 1290, until his assassination. Sorry, I could not fill the gap, because that template is too complicated for me. Could you fix it? :) --Norden1990 (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Norden1990 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon

On 24 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1933, Lady Simon received a damehood for her efforts to combat slavery and racial discrimination? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon. 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.

KTC (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the reviews and your overall work at DYK! LlamaAl (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that...

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)

Don't worry, I am quite sure that the only purpose of that little creature's name is to raise people's eyebrows :) Surtsicna (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for updating the image of Abdullah II of Jordan! I added a caption. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 17:54, 27 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Russell, Viscount Amberley

On 31 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Russell, Viscount Amberley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lord Amberley allowed his wife's sexual partner, Douglas Spalding, to keep chickens in their drawing room and library, which terrified their guests? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Russell, Viscount Amberley. 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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimnazija Mostar

Dear Surtsicna, I checked the first link you use in the article Gimnazija Mostar, but it looks like it doesn't mention this school, or the City of Mostar at all: http://books.google.ba/books?hl=hr&id=bzXzWgVajnQC&q=Mostar#v=onepage&q=Mostar&f=false If I am wrong please let me know on what page you found the information, otherwise I think it should be removed.

PS. Great work on the article, I was in process of writing one with the same title when you published yours.

--Prof saxx (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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).

Anyway, the encyclopedia mentions the Mostar Gymnasium on page 34: "...as part of a general strategy to create a 'genuinely Bosnian' national identity that would be at the same time detached from the Ottoman past and repellent to the aspirations of pan-Slavism, a number of representative buildings - such as the Mostar Gymnasium or the Sarajevo Library - were built in a peculiar orientalized style. Sometimes dubbed 'pseudo-Moorish,' these buildings would combine a pastiche of Muslim Spanish, North African, and Mamluk elements to create an 'Islamic architecture" of European fantasy.'" Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tyrannasorus rex

On 1 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tyrannasorus rex, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tyrannasorus rex had wings and six legs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tyrannasorus rex. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

DYK: Jean Giambrone

Thanks so much for reviewing it as she has now made the list (7:00 pm)! — Wyliepedia 08:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on your achievement! I hope to see more hooks from you :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Carmenelectra

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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the way the hook was altered. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on making the all time list. StAnselm (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Carmenelectra

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)

Nomination of Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article.

DYK for Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith

On 4 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lady Courtney (pictured) hosted the first meeting of the committee from which the Save the Children Fund would develop? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Courtney, Baroness Courtney of Penwith. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

regarding Fredrick II edit

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- talk   20:46, 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)

Touche! That sounds like a good idea, would you mind giving your two cents on it over there as well? Cheers, —  dain- talk   21:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mostar

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

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

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.

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Oh, no objection; I wasn't thinking anything was wrong with what you were doing or saying. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gimnazija Mostar

On 6 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gimnazija Mostar, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gimnazija Mostar was built in Moorish Revival style due to Austro-Hungarian wish to create an "Islamic architecture of European fantasy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gimnazija Mostar. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Frances Vane, Viscountess Vane

On 7 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frances Vane, Viscountess Vane, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Lady Fanny (pictured) not only scandalously refused to deny her sexual escapades, but also advertised them in her 1751 memoirs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frances Vane, Viscountess Vane. 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.

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Frederik or Frederick (for Danish monarchs)

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 . 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 Misplaced Pages-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

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

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)

==DYK nomination of Blanche of France (nun)==

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)

==DYK nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gil de Vidaure==

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gil de Vidaure 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) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eleanor Manners, Countess of Rutland

On 13 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eleanor Manners, Countess of Rutland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Countess of Rutland, mother of 11, had to inform the English queen Anne of Cleves that receiving a goodnight kiss was not enough to conceive a child? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eleanor Manners, Countess of Rutland. 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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Maria Leopoldine of Austria

On 14 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maria Leopoldine of Austria, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 17-year-old Holy Roman Empress Maria Leopoldine (pictured) died giving birth to her cousin's child? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Leopoldine of Austria. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

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.

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thanks for all that you've done for the project. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 01:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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

On 16 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blanche of Burgundy, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during her underground imprisonment for adultery, Blanche of Burgundy gave birth and became queen of two kingdoms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blanche of Burgundy. 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.

Carabinieri (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Blanche of France (nun)

On 17 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blanche of France (nun), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Blanche of France was made a nun at the age of seven in order to atone for her aunt Blanche's adultery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blanche of France (nun). 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Mary Fox

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?

Peter 12:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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.

Peter 14:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Ah. Well, all is settled then.

Peter 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Beatrice of Falkenburg

On 17 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beatrice of Falkenburg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the oldest extant donor portrait by Norwich Greyfriars (pictured) is that of the 23-year-old German queen Beatrice of Falkenburg, widow of Richard of Cornwall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beatrice of Falkenburg. 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.

Gatoclass 15:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Teresa Gil de Vidaure

On 18 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Teresa Gil de Vidaure, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that King James the Conqueror of Aragon (pictured) left his leper wife, Teresa Gil de Vidaure, in order to pursue an incestuous relationship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Teresa Gil de Vidaure. 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.

Nyttend (talk 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Line of succession to the Liechtensteiner throne

On 19 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Line of succession to the Liechtensteiner throne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that UN criticism of the exclusion of women from the line of succession to the Liechtensteiner throne was rejected by Hans-Adam II, who noted that the rule was older than the state itself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Line of succession to the Liechtensteiner throne. 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.

 — Nyttend (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bertha of Holland

On 20 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bertha of Holland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the French queen Bertha of Holland (pictured) was left by her husband because she was "too fat", although he himself was too heavy to ride a horse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bertha of Holland. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		Your beautiful and informative articles are making a wonderful contribution to the encyclopaedia. They are a real treat. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such a nice feedback! I hope I won't disappoint anyone in the future :D Surtsicna (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Whatever the Western world calls or knows him, using just his name is not respectful, I think.Egeymi (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

On 21 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neal Evenhuis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the scientist Neal Evenhuis is known for giving humorous and punny names to insects, such as Carmenelectra, Phthiria relativitae, Pieza kake, Pieza pie, and Pieza deresistans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neal Evenhuis. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Prince Eugen, Duke of Närke

On 21 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prince Eugen, Duke of Närke, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Prince Eugen of Sweden, a painter trained in France, was seen as a suitable candidate for the throne of Norway in 1905? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Eugen, Duke of Närke. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Archduke Alexander Leopold of Austria

On 23 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Archduke Alexander Leopold of Austria, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Archduke Alexander Leopold of Austria burned to death while preparing a fireworks display for his sister-in-law, Empress Maria Theresa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Archduke Alexander Leopold of Austria. 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.

Carabinieri (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Marie Fox

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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Marie Fox

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?

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 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

On 25 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederic, Count of Luna, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that King Martin of Aragon wanted to ensure the accession of his illegitimate grandson, Frederic of Luna, but died from laughter before he could do so? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frederic, Count of Luna. 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.

Carabinieri (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ernest Gibbins

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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Keep up the good work on here! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope I will. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Trial of Thomas Hogg

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.

Carabinieri (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

On 2 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Hathaway, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that American aviator Robert Hathaway unknowingly became feudal ruler of Sark by marrying the ruling dame, but was dismayed to learn that the island was too small to golf there? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Hathaway. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

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

On 3 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papal conclave, 2013, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that any Roman Catholic baptised male is eligible for election as pope in March 2013? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Papal conclave, 2013. 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 an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Michael Beaumont

On 5 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Michael Beaumont, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1990, Michael Beaumont, feudal ruler of Sark, overcame a nuclear physicist's one-man invasion attempt and remains the only inhabitant allowed to keep pigeons and unspayed bitches? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Michael Beaumont. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Mary Fox

On 8 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lady Mary Fox, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that British king William IV's daughter, Lady Mary Fox (pictured), wrote a feminist narrative about a mysterious land now known as Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Mary 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Frederick Collings

On 14 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Frederick Collings, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sarkese ruler William Frederick Collings made his disabled heiress climb cliffs and hunt, and sent her a consolation telegram to say he was sorry her firstborn was a girl? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Frederick Collings. 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.

Harrias 00:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Haseki Sultan

I saw that you moved Haseki to Haseki sultan, but I think the "s" of sultan should be capitalized, like Valide Sultan. I also checked Turkish Misplaced Pages about this. I tried to correct it, but I couldn't. So please correct it yourself. Thanks. Keivan.f 21:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the "s" in Valide Sultan should not be capitalized? It is not a proper noun. Compare it with queen consort, queen regnant, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know Turkish very well, but according to Turkish Misplaced Pages the "s" should be capitalized. I think it's different from European titles and also the other Eastern titles like Queen consort, Queen mother, etc. And also if Turkish people write those royal titles like that, we should also write those titles like them. Keivan.f 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That does not make sense. This Misplaced Pages is in English and it is natural to adhere to English language grammar and orthography. We have Stari Most instead of the native Stari most because in English, proper nouns tend to be capitalized and common nouns (as in haseki sultan) tend to be uncapitalized. Should it be Ayasofya instead of Hagia Sophia? Surtsicna (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Surtsicna! I really thought about what you said. I think Haseki Sultan isn't a title like Queen consort. As you know, the word Sultan in Ottoman Turkish was used for the monarch, his consort or consorts and his mother. Thus, I think the "S" should be capitalized as the "Q" is capitalized in Queen consort. And also it's better for you to know the word Haseki means consort, so it could uncapitalized if it became after the word Sultan but as it becomes first so I think both of them should be capitalized. What do you think? Keivan.f 07:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I think your premise is wrong. Why should queen consort be capitalized? It is not a "correct formal title"; see WP:JOBTITLES. Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Greek Crown

Good evening my friend. Of Course there is a source that suggests that the crown passed according to male-preferance cognatic primogeniture. Article 45 of the constitution of Kingdom of Greece describes that clearly. http://norfid.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/suntagma-ths-elladas-19521.pdf --Peeperman (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Interesting. I searched for something like that in English, but could not find anything but indications that the succession law was bizarrely vague. What exactly does it say? Also, how do we know that Irene is the last in line? Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Greek Crown, and its constitutional rights are heritable and contained in the direct and legimate descendants of King George I by seniority, with male preference. Explanation reference: The fact of the article is that by preference the Greek Crown is inherited by the issues of the current monarch by seniority, with male preference. That's it. Sorry for my bad English! --Peeperman (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Papal intro consistency

I'm trying to bring consistency to the intros of all 266 papal bios articles. If you're gonna revert my capitalization of pope? then do so for all those articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For God's sake, since when is being consistent more important than being correct? Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for contributing to Misplaced Pages for sheer joy rather than for recognition. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Misplaced Pages Editor Retention Project)

Surtsicna edits articles primarily related to Royal Families and nobility

Surtsicna

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 31, 2013

One of the many silent workers on Misplaced Pages, Surtsicna has been an example for all of Misplaced Pages through his ceaseless editing without a single page about himself. His 30000+ article edits and 140+ articles created speak volumes about his dedication to the project. His articles are based primarily on Medieval nobility and royal families and have been the focus of over 40 DYKs. His simple talk page showcases the humility of the type of underappreciated editor who forms the backbone of this encyclopedia.

Recognized for

High quality contributions on Noble families

Notable work

Robert Hathaway

Submit a nomination

• User:Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination:
  • I nominate Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as Editor of the Week for being an excellent Wikipedian, who seems to go out of his way to remain under-appreciated. He seems to work on Misplaced Pages for the sheer joy of editing, creating over 160 articles (he's brought around 40 to DYK in the past 6 months) and racking up over 30k edits to articles, it's editors like him who really make this encyclopedia something worth reading. Worm(talk)

• You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

• Thanks again for your efforts!

• This infobox has also been erected to proclaim your accomplishments. Again, congratulations! Go Phightins! 23:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Your dilegence on behalf of the encyclopedia is a beacon for others to follow. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! This message is probably the nicest Wikisurprise I've ever had. I'll try to live up to the praise :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations and much Thanks for being here on Misplaced Pages, and being such a help!!! Cheers. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The past two days have been terrible and, as silly as it might sound, coming back to this message has been somewhat soothing. Thank you all for noticing! Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Impending fatherhood"

Looks like that editor has already reached 3RR? Maybe someone should add a warning template at their Talk Page? Or even file at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I would not report him or her yet. It appears that the editor truly wants to improve the article, but does not understand that adding tabloid speculation is not the way to do so. Could you add the warning template? I cannot remember how that works. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I could do, but to start with I've left a note with admin User:Bbb23. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion thread at the article Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

...for these edits. I had just run out of steam on Isabeau when I read the first sentence and gulped because it was wrong. I couldn't get it right, so thanks so much for stepping in there. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for doing such a great job expanding the article - I am really enjoying it! Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointless template

I saw that you removed those templates, because they add nothing to the articles. But you just removed them from the articles of the British Royal Family members, but I think we should remove them from the articles of all Royal Families. What do you think? Also, I removed a paragraph from the beginig of the article of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall because I think all of those things were in the other sections. They really weren't important things. You can see it on the revision history of the article. Should I remove that paragraph again? Keivan.f 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we should remove them on sight. They are inherently trivial and almost always redundant. As for the paragraph, I don't see anything wrong with it. It is a nice summary, which is what the lead is all about. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cunnilingus or fellatio not causing pregnancy

Hello, Surtsicna. Regarding the removals you made to these articles, as seen here and here, I'm stopping by your talk page to let you know that I replied to them via WP:Dummy edits. You can see my replies here and here. I obviously understand why you made the removals, and I have stated similar about the ridiculousness of the notion of oral sex causing pregnancy, but I decided that I should point out to you that some people have pondered the question with regard to fellatio. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I have seen your replies. I was reading about gender systems and the peculiar practices of Sambia people when I came across an encyclopaedic article that specifically denies that oral sex can cause pregnancy. I would not have been surprised had it been worded differently, i.e. less obviously. Surtsicna (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, your having already seen my replies means that you are watching those articles now. An extra pair of eyes on those articles from a good editor, as you seem to be, is certainly a good thing. And by "an encyclopaedic article that specifically denies that oral sex can cause pregnancy," I take it that you mean the Cunnilingus article (since you edited that before the Fellatio article)? As for the Sambia people, I definitely know what you mean about their peculiar fellatio practices (though it is less about fellatio in the sense of sexual stimulation for them); they are also mentioned in the Fellatio article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I first read the article about fellatio (don't tell me that the Sambia happen to have customs related to cunnilingus too!), but did not notice the pregnancy part until navigating to the article on cunnilingus. What I meant was that I did not expect to find an excerpt from a teen magazine in an encyclopaedia article - which, by the way, is otherwise uncommonly well-written. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering how you got to the Cunnilingus article before the Fellatio article after reading about the Sambia people and their semen ingestion custom. And, LOL, "an excerpt from a teen magazine"? Yes, "Can you get pregnant from oral sex?" has seemed to be asked by a lot of young teenagers, and I hope that it's usually young teenagers asking that question instead of pre-teenagers (since it's scarier that people that young, pre-teenagers, would be asking about the specifics of oral sex) or older teenagers and adults (since they should know better). I didn't add those excerpts, by the way, and they were recently added. Anyway, thanks for the chat. We'll likely see each other around from time to time. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Marian Cruger Coffin

Thanks for your kind words about this article! I'm planning to nominate it for GA status after the DYK is done. You might be interested in a related article - I've collaborated with another editor to write an article on one of her most famous gardens, Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware). There's a DYK nomination of it that still needs reviewing, at Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware). Prioryman (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken care of that, naturally :) Reading about places like that makes me regret living an ocean away. Surtsicna (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Yes, I know what you mean. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edward the Confessor

Hello, Surtsicna,

The third paragraph of the section entitled "Later reign" starts with the following words:

"In 1053 Edward ordered the assassination of the south Welsh prince, Rhys ap Rhydderch in reprisal for a raid on England,..."

Well, I think it should read: "In 1052 Edward ordered..."

... Because in the third paragraph of the Misplaced Pages's entry or article "Rhys ap Rhydderch" anyone can read the following:

King Edward the Confessor of England ordered the killing of Rhys in reprisal for his raiding of England, the decision being made at the royal court held at Christmas, 1052. Rhys was killed, according to the D version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, because he "did harmful things". The chronicle of Florence of Worcester recorded a bit more information, stating that Rhys was killed at "Bulendun", which may be Bullen's Bank near Clyro in Radnorshire.

More about EDWARD THE CONFESSOR,

Also, the fourth line of the third paragraph of the section entitled "Canonisation" reads: "... canonization...". I think this should be changed in order to read: "... canonisation..." as it appears in the title of the section.

A salute from Guadalajara, Mexico.

Alejandro Ochoa G.
189.162.136.115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.136.115 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You are welcome to edit the article yourself if you think there is something that should be corrected. If reverted, you should ask for clarification at Talk:Edward the Confessor. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious

noble ladies
Thank you for quality articles on people of European nobility, especially women such as Beatrice of Falkenburg, maintaining articles of the topic, removing trivia, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you for noticing, especially the removal of trivia! Articles on nobility seem to be especially prone to it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hold yer horses!

The Succession Act may have received Royal Assent and passed into law, but its provisions don't come into effect until such time as the Lord Pres (Clegg) says so. That is to say, the throne still, as of right now, descends according to the 1701 Act. DBD 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha! I must say the title made me laugh! Anyway, pardon my jumping the gun. I was not aware of that requirement. When exactly is that supposed to happen? The eagerness of editors to make articles up to date is guaranteed to lead to mistakes such as mine. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clegg is likely to announce the commencement as soon as the last necessary law in the last necessary realm receives royal assent... There's a source for that somewhere. No worries, we all jump the gun sometimes! DBD 17:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass move of Royal coronations to Coronations

Hello, Surtsicna. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Coronations in Poland, Coronations in Norway, etc. It looks like, you have not used any of the usual channels for a series of controversial page-moves, not only regarding Poland and Norway, but also Hungary and Russia... Regrettably, your new titles seem to lack the necessary wp:consensus. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Queen Máxima of the Netherlands

Please check the Dutch Royal Site attached. She is styled with the formal name of Queen, but she is NOT Queen of the Netherlands. This was officially stated by the Royal House and the Dutch Government. Her name is Queen Maxima, her title is Princess of the Netherlands. I have attached prove of this with the appropriate page, where you offer nothing to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.3 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The title of the page should -according to Wiki rules- actually read Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands just as Charles, Prince of Wales or Willem-Alexander, King of the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.2.3 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a discussion on your TALK page, yet refuse to join into one. You insist upon your own interpretation and offer nothing is reference. Please stop deleting the referring pages or add your own. It is impolite and might might even be taken for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.20.216 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange

I may not be fully aware of all wikipedia's conventions but please can you explain why you have removed Catharina-Amalia's photograph from her page?

Jwasanders (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I removed it because it was not fair use, as it was claimed. In fact, it should probably be deleted. I hope you understand. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Privilege of Buda

On 2 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Privilege of Buda, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Treaty of Buda enabled Louis I of Hungary to become king of Poland because his uncle had no legitimate sons, but had to be followed by the Treaty of Košice because Louis himself had no sons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Privilege of Buda. 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Dutch throne - Princes Maurits and Bernhard

I strongly disagree with your revert. The article subsection is on the current line of succession to the throne, and these two Princes are no longer in that line since the accession of the current King.

Yes, they could return to the line if their mother were Queen, but she is not. If she ever is, that will be the right time to include these two princes in a chart showing the succession.

I am going to re-revert, and put something on the article's talk page so we can have some additional input from other people. P M C 10:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say that they are in the line. What we have there is a graphical representation of relationships between people who are in the line. Princess Beatrix is also there, although she cannot possibly ascend the throne again. In fact, Prince Maurits has a better chance at ascending the throne than Princess Beatrix. Please, discuss before changing the status quo. Surtsicna (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. By including them in the chart, the implication is clear: the article is titled 'Line of Succession to the Dutch Throne' The subsection and chart is titled 'Line of Succession'. As you said just now yourself, it 'is a graphical representation of relationships between people who are in the line.' These two princes are now excluded from the line by the Grondwet, and thus it is clear they should not appear in the chart. Should some disaster befall the 7 higher-placed heirs while their mother is still alive, they will return. That is when they and their children should be added back in. Not before. The only reason the two former queens appear here, is to show how and why Constantijn and Margriet are in line to succeed, otherwise they too would no longer appear, since one is 'constituionally dead' and the other is actually dead.

The notes under the chart make it clear that Margriet has four sons, two of whom could be in line to the throne should she ever come to the throne herself, and explain why it is they are not (currently) in the line of succession. That is the best way to represent this information.

The line of succession to the British throne does not serve as a comparison, because that line is not limited by degrees of kinship as the Dutch throne is. P M C 13:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Union of Hungary and Poland

Hello! Your submission of Union of Hungary and Poland 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! —♦♦ AMBER 21:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Union of Hungary and Poland

On 9 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Union of Hungary and Poland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the union of Hungary and Poland fell apart due to the regent Elizabeth of Bosnia's reluctance to give up her grip on power by moving from Buda to Kraków, where she had no supporters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Union of Hungary and Poland. 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Monte delle doti

Hello! Your submission of Monte delle doti 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar, Queen Noor

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning up Queen Noor. 89.242.200.100 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Royal Styles

G'day Surtsicna, you appear to have started to unilaterally remove the royal styles templates as you believe them to be pointless and to add nothing. Per previous discussions on this subject, there are reasons that other editors have found it useful to include them (and a few editors who disagreed). Wearing my reader hat (rather than my editor hat), I certainly find this information of interest. Given the past history I think that if you really want to eliminate them, this needs to be raised for discussion. From my perspective, I am more concerned about preserving the information, if there is a better way to do this (eg incorporating into another template) and editorially the alternative it makes sense, then you won't get any objection from me. If I there has been a recent discussion on the subject that I have missed, my apologies and feel free to point me to it. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I was not aware of any such discussion but I am sure that, had a seperate one been opened for each of the articles, it would have resulted in the removal of the template. In articles I removed them from, they simply did not add anything. They were directly and absolutely redundant to the very text they appeared next to. In those cases, even the image of the coat of arms appeared elsewhere. I refrained from removing the template in cases where at least one part of it - the image of the coat of arms - was not redundant, though only because I was too lazy to simply replace the box with the image itself, which would be a much more useful solution. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

ww2censor (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, but that edit not only did not have an edit summery, but it literally read: "Fraciscus PP", which looks like vandalism to me. I'd rather protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages 100 times over by reverting possible, and I did say "possible" in my edit summery, than be wrong a few times on the "good faith" issue.--JOJ 19:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to apologise to me. It may have looked like vandalism to you, but only because you are not well acquainted with the matter. You could (should) have Googled it, which would have taken you a few seconds. You are missing the entire point of the Assume good faith guideline - if you are "not sure what this is", why assume that it's vandalism? Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, if it looks like vandalism its getting reverted. Better to be safe than sorry. Thats not a faith thing, its a BLP thing.--JOJ 20:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot (and don't want to) tell you how to behave, but don't be surprised if people get offended and react very negatively to such thoughtless actions. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well WP:BLP pretty much trumps an occasional breach of good faith.--JOJ 21:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Son & daughter of King Eric XIV of Sweden

How do you arrive at the standpoint that Prince Gustav and Princess Sigrid did not bear those titles, and then proceed to move them without discussion to article names with phonetically non-empathetic patronyms (we should avoid Swedish lessons on English WP)? I'm not too pleased about it. A bit arbitrary? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there any sources that confirm that they were styled as prince and princess of Sweden? Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Plenty. Such as biographies of both. And every other encyclopaedia, including Swedish WP.

Are there any sources that confirm that they were not? Their parents were crowned monarchs (even if relatively briefly). Why wouldn't they be? I've never seen this questioned before. Why are you questioning it? Can you be specific, please? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That does not sound very convincing, SergeWoodzing. It makes no sense to request a source that says what they were not. By that logic, I would be able to claim that they were, in fact, extraterrestrials, and you would not be able to refute it because there is no source that confirms that they were not. Anyway, I am not questioning the fact that they were children of a monarch (and of his wife). What I am questioning is the appropriatness of referring to them as "Prince(ss) X of Sweden", as that seems very anachronistic. It may be correct to describe them as Swedish prince and princess, since they fit the meanings of those words, but I don't think the format was appropriate - unless, of course, it can be proven that they were called "Princess Sigrid" and "Prince Eric" during their lifetimes. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your demand here borders on the bizarre. How many 16th century princes and princesses can that be "proven" about? Would you like photo-ID's? Driver licenses? In any case, the moves you did, adding another phonetical impairment like "Eriksdotter" (which she was not called "during her lifetime") to English WP, were controversial and should not have taken place without discussion. Please revert them and request a move in due process! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing bizarre about my request for a proof that they were styled "Prince(ss) X of Sweden". It is the most reasonable request a user can make during a discussion. If they were styled as such, you should have no problem whatsoever in finding proof. They did not live before writing was invented, did they? Anyway, the idea that an inaccurate and misleading title is better than a "phonetically non-empathetic patronym" seems a bit odd, to say the least. I could live with Sigrid of Sweden (Vasa) or Sigrid Vasa, though I cannot think of a phonetically empathetic solution for the article about Eric. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan

Hello! Your submission of Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan 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! Crispulop (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria

Hi Surtsicna, I've sent Isabeau to peer review in preparation for another run at FAC. Because you had some comments in regard to content, I thought I'd alert you - that's a good place to raise issues before FAC. Thanks, Victoria (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Crown prince of Yugoslavia?

I saw that you annulled my changes, he can not be crown prince of a country that does not exist, on serbian wiki is named by his proper name Aleksandar II Karađorđević -Milicevic01 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell that to the Princess of Hanover and the Government of Monaco; apparently, she can be princess of a country that hasn't existed since 1866. Anyway, Alexander is styled as crown prince by convention. Misplaced Pages uses the most common English language name, not the legal name (otherwise we'd have James Earl Carter, Jr. instead of Jimmy Carter). How Serbian Misplaced Pages deals with the issue is completely irrelevant. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, tnx for the info, i simple presumed since he isnt called crown prince of yugoslavia in his home country, that also on en. wiki should not be called crown prince of yugoslavia. -Milicevic01 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Royal wedding

I don't understand why you reverted my edit, which was surely an improvement. I can see the wedding on TV right now and for some hours to come. Do you believe you have better information? Bishonen | talk 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

Hi! I am sorry, I should have explained it. I did not pay attention to page history. I don't think we should present continuous, i.e. we should go from "will take place" to "took place", because this is an encyclopedia, not a news portal. Anyway, this issue is going to be moot within minutes :) Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Always pay attention to page history. Bishonen | talk 14:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

That is not a response to my concerns. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing over one word. Well, I have never seen that before but now I have. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I nominated the article to ITN. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Has the acronym POV acquired a new meaning recently? I don't see Bishonen or me violating what is usually referred to as the POV policy ("Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias"). What did you have in mind, BabbaQ? Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Surtsicna, my own concern was that you made the text incoherent by changing my first progressive form, only, to future tense, while leaving the others. Hopefully checking the history and simply reverting me wholesale (if possible with an explanatory edit summary), which I wouldn't have objected to, would have prevented that. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• Good decision nominating the article for DYK. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I saw that your INT nomination was going to fail, so I decided to expand it and nominate for DYK instead. It had potential, so it would have been a shame if it failed to appear on the Main Page. Anyway, I restored the red link to Michael Bjerkhagen. The Swedish Misplaced Pages has an article about him and he is covered by English language sources, so he's most likely notable enough. Surtsicna (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan

On 10 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 18-year-old Crown Prince Hussein of Jordan, son of King Abdullah II and Queen Rania, has served as regent several times since reaching the age of majority? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hussein bin Abdullah, Crown Prince of Jordan. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill

Hello! Your submission of Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Penelope Lyttelton, Viscountess Cobham

On 13 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Penelope Lyttelton, Viscountess Cobham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Penelope, Viscountess Cobham, is known as the "Quango Queen" due to her involvement in many quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Penelope Lyttelton, Viscountess Cobham. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Sheikh Maktoum

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Sheikh Maktoum.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Irina Aleksandrovna Ovtchinnikova

Hello! Your submission of Irina Aleksandrovna Ovtchinnikova 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! Redtigerxyz 10:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Hey Surtsicna! Fantastic job on the article for Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha! I've had it on my Misplaced Pages to-do list for years now, so I was elated to see that you drafted such a comprehensive article on him! I'll remove him from my list, and will keep on the lookout for additional images. Thanks again for all extraordinary contributions to Misplaced Pages! -- Caponer (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Hello! Your submission of Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 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! czar · · 05:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Title Move Discussion

I have opened up discussion at Talk:Enthronement of the Japanese Emperor#Title Move Discussion. You are invited to provide your opinion in the interest of consensus. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Boneyard! Thanks for inviting me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for reviewing Mansoor al-Jamri for DYK. I'm glad you asked me to change the hook as it was absolutely not appropriate. I would like you to have this as a reward for the niceness you displayed while reviewing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested in the article, you can give it some quick copy-editing, or even better review it for GA. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your appreciation, as well as for considering me fit to review the article for GA status. However, I will be away for several days, so I'm afraid I'll have to pass. I wish you best of luck with the GA review, though I doubt you'll need it. I'll make sure this barnstar stays on my talk page :) Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Enthronement in Japan

Just letting you know that when I added my comments to the talk page discussion about moving this article, I added a bolded "move" just above your reply, in accordance with what seems to be general practice with "keep/delete" or "move/retain" discussions like this. I hope you don't mind; if you do, please accept my profound apologies, and feel free to remove the "move." - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. Of course I don't mind. Surtsicna (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Nice work on Prince Leopold Clement of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Indulge me in a nit-pick. I think "mistress" strongly implies "the female sexual partner of a married man". A married man can have a mistress; an unmarried man has a girlfriend who puts out. I'm willing to admit there may be no easy encyclopedic way of expressing that. - Nunh-huh 05:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean, but which word do you think we should use instead? "Girlfriend"? I don't mind it if you insist it's more accurate. According to this dictionary, though, "mistress" can mean "a woman who has a continuing extramarital sexual relationship with a man". Surtsicna (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think girlfriend is probably closer to the truth than mistress is (or prostitute!), but I don't have a strong objection to continuing "mistress" if we can't find an alternative. "Mistress", though, certainly is a disapproving term, and I'm not sure Misplaced Pages should disapprove, in its own voice, of a relationship because it's considered unequal. The dictionary you pointed to is quoting Collins; the operative definition in the New American Oxford Dictionary is "a woman having an extramarital sexual relationship, esp. with a married man". I don't think it's a British/American difference, but rather an issue of being sensitive to connotations and tone as well as denotations. I would suggest "lover" or "paramour". Nunh-huh 06:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I forgot to point out that Rybicka (or her ghost or whatever) should be happy we're not calling her a prostitute. Several other Wikipedias do, which is why it took me so long to find the sources. I kept looking for a prince murdered by a prostitute until I learned of her name at the reference desk. Anyway, "lover" sounds fine, I suppose. Surtsicna (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like one wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of Rybicka, even of her ghost... I think "the Prince's lover" is a really great substitution from mistress! Thanks for indulging me in fixing this little bête noire. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill

On 18 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Christopher O'Neill (pictured) declined a royal title upon marrying Princess Madeleine of Sweden? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O'Neill. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be polite

I happened to see an edit summary where you called someone a vandal when they were acting in good faith, and noticed that you make a habit of it (, , , ). It is impolite to call edits 'vandalism' just because you disagree with them or you believe they were wrong, if the edits can be reasonably construed to be intended to improve Misplaced Pages. (See WP:VANDAL) Looking at your history, it looks like you are often abrupt, surly or even rude when you disagree with someone. (For example, , , , , , , , all this within just the last week, and I'm sure I missed some.) Doing so breaks a basic pillar of Misplaced Pages (WP:POLITE), creates an unpleasant atmosphere, and drives away contributors. It is one of the main reasons why the number of active contributors to Misplaced Pages is slowly decreasing. You used to know this, because I saw that in 2009 you wrote "I won't allow anyone being rude - and reverting non-vandalism without explanation is very rude." If you care about the long term outcome of this project, I suggest that you take a minute to consider before writing something negative, and never write a comment you would not be comfortable saying directly to the face of one of your friends at work, because that's what we are here - coworkers and collaborators on this project - and you need to behave like that. FurrySings (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

While I can be abrupt, I would not say that I am rude or surly. In fact, I would never have referred to you as surly because doing so is a rather rude personal attack (especially because you had never stepped on my toe). For that reason, I cannot say that I appreciate this condescension. If I had insulted you in any way, this patronization might have been justifiable. The fact that you went through hundreds of thousands of my edits, going into 2009, is also quite daunting. Besides, I am not sure if you even found what you were looking for. What could possibly be impolite about summary such as this one? This edit and summary are as exemplary as possible; the edit was described as "unhelpful" and it was explained why. These two summaries were not directed at anyone in particular. I was referring to article content, not to editors. How would you describe the notion of "Princess of Valdemar"? It obviously makes no sense, making it appropriate to say it's nonsense. Suggesting that these edits show any kind of rudeness is quite proposterous, if not outright an insulting untruth. Finally, I have to say that I am appalled by your boldness; I could never have come to a user's talk page for the first time just to say that they "need to behave like that". I refrain from commenting on editors and instead comment on edits, which is what (I dare suggest) you should do too. Surtsicna (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For exemplary rebuttal of intrusive inanity dumped on your talk page Qexigator (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barnstar, Qexigator! It's terrible that I even had to earn it, but I was truly shocked by such impertinence. Hopefully, I'll never get to give you such a barnstar. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Irina Aleksandrovna Ovtchinnikova

On 21 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irina Aleksandrovna Ovtchinnikova, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Prince Peter of Greece lost his dynastic rights by marrying a twice-divorced Russian commoner soon after Edward VIII abdicated the British throne to marry a twice-divorced U.S. commoner? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irina Aleksandrovna Ovtchinnikova. 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)