Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 25 November 2023

m²

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)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox peerage title

Template:Infobox peerage title has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox family. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Your GA nomination of Baldwin V of Jerusalem

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

DYK for Humpbacked limia

On 20 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Humpbacked limia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that being critically endangered does not prevent the humpbacked limia from eating its own young? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Humpbacked limia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Humpbacked limia), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agnes of Courtenay

Hi Surtsicna. You added references to "Hamilton 1998", "Hamilton 2000", and "Hamilton 2005" to Agnes of Courtenay, but only the first two are defined in the article. Could you add the required cite, or lete know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course, ActivelyDisinterested. I am in the middle of a major reconstruction of the article. I am glad you are taking an active interest here ;) Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is ever anything I can help with just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamilton 2005 still missing. DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I am so happy that someone cares enough to go through these articles. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested and DuncanHill. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Ioveta

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ioveta, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morphia of Melitene

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morphia of Melitene you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the term "ethnic" because it referred to paganism until the mid-19th century, and linked Armenian Apostolic Church directly in case "separated" could be interperted as referring to the Armenian Catholic Church. But aside from these minor changes, the recent work on the article is very impressive. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thans, KhndzorUtogh. I disagree with the removal of "ethnic" because the pre-19th-century meaning has been entirely replaced and Misplaced Pages is not written for a pre-19th-century audience. The word "separated" connected the Armenian Church with other "separated eastern churches" mentioned later on, but I think I can work something out. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It reads awkwardly in a 12th century article, before the existence of nation states. If the topic of the article is Armenian, why not just say that, as Runciman does (page 75)? Why add an easily removable word like "ethnically"? It gives the impression of only being Armenian by descent, without any source. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like that Runciman quote is derived from William of Tyre describing Gabriel as "Armenian by birth, language, and habit, but Greek in faith", so just describing them as "ethnically Armenian" is diminishing. Nicholas Morton describes Gabriel as just an Armenian. Toby Bromige analyzes the identity of Gabriel and Morphia in depth, and makes a strong argument for them being culturally Armenian. I can quote the text if you cannot view this book. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I must say I am bewildered by your opposition to the word "ethnic". Is it really your concern that someone might interpret it as meaning pagan? Surtsicna (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I see why this might look odd lol, please allow me to clarify. I don't think anyone will interpret the word as pagan, but generally when I see the phrase "ethnic Armenian" it implies the person is of Armenian descent only, not culturally. I usually see it used to describe a second-generation or later diasporan that doesn't speak the language, and I think this wording is often used in articles for other ethnicities as well (ex. Nicolas Jaar is ethnically French, Nicolas Sarkozy is just French). Since this wording is only used in the modern age of nation states, it looks odd in a 12th century article in my opinion. According to Bromige, Gabriel and Morphia were Armenians in language and custom and no primary source relates them to the Byzantine empire by the time of the First Crusade. So could we please drop "by ethnicity"? I do not think Tom Hanks became less American by converting to Greek Orthodoxy.

Once again I want to add, you did a great job improving the Morphia article to GA status. I wish you the best with the future Crusade article nominations you mentioned below, and hope this discussion didn't make you think twice about contributing to other Armenian biographies related to the Crusades. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not determined solely by ancestry, and so it does not imply descent only. Morphia's daughters were not ethnically Armenian. Gabriel and Morphia were, as the article and cited sources say, ethnic Armenians who adhered to Byzantine Orthodoxy rather than to the separated Armenian Church. The word ethnic is there to distinguish ethnicity from religion: they belonged to the Armenian people but not to the Armenian Church. Surtsicna (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Then why not just drop the "ethnically" word? Not being a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church does not make someone less Armenian, nor does being a member necessarily make someone Armenian. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the word ethnic is there to distinguish ethnicity from religion. It is not about measuring anyone's Armenianness. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Replying to your H&V question.

Replying to your question on the Heraldry & Vexillology project.

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

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

Your GA nomination of Morphia of Melitene

The article Morphia of Melitene you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morphia of Melitene for comments about the article, and Talk:Morphia of Melitene/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

That was quite an exercise, Borsoka. I am not even sure what kind of scrutiny you save for FA reviews. I hope you will review more of the crusade articles I intend to nominate. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Morphia of Melitene

Hello! Your submission of Morphia of Melitene at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Formal apology

Dear Surtsicna,

I hope this message finds you well. First, I wanted to formally apologize for this comment I made in reply to one of your posts at the RfC I initiated on WT:ROYALTY earlier this week: To make this point above clear, ... should the RMs for Norwegian monarchs not have been decided on a case by case basis]? ... Is this RM] not a WP:POINTy attempt to force adherence to WP:COMMONNAME? Or do these concerns only matter if WP:CONSISTENT is at hand?

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Hurricane Andrew (444) 20:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Andrew. I have no doubt that, at the end of the day, you and I are equally committed to improving this encyclopedia. I certainly appreciated the effort you put into examining sources at the Prince Albert article. At the end of the day, we should both strive to spend more of our time creating new content than bickering about mostly inconsequential things. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, Andrew. You most certainly should not have performed that closure. Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna You are right, I absolutely should not have closed that RM. That was a completely impulsive decision on my end to force a personal viewpoint and totally inappropriate. I sincerely apologize again for my WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior, which you should not have been subjected to at all. Hurricane Andrew (444) 23:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Re past discussions

Between your NCROY RfC, Andrew's recent (now closed) RfC, the Edward I of England RM along with our past discussions on posthumous images in infoboxes, I've said some pretty spiteful and heated things to you. I apologise for them and hope we can get on better in the future. I don't bear grudges and if you'd ever like to work on something with me in the future then know that I won't hold anything against you. Best — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim O'Doherty. I have not always been the model of patience either, and I am sorry for that. We are both here to contribute and improve. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)