User talk:Srnec/Archive, 18 May 2011–15 May 2013

User talk:Srnec/Archive, 10 December 2005–8 January 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 9 January–20 July 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 21 July 2008–23 February 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 24 February 2009–14 August 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 August 2009–14 June 2010
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 June 2010–17 May 2011

User:Srnec/DYK

Castilian counts

Maybe I should have asked first, but I decided to 'be bold' and split off the Counts of Castile (never liked them being called 'monarchs' and same had been done with Aragon and Portugal already). Before I clean up all the redirects and links, I would like your input on the name I gave it (List of Castilian counts vs. List of Counts of Castile - I would like to say that I intentionally picked this as it better deals with the split-county period, but I really was just being lazy and swapped out the word monarchs), or even whether such a split was appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about "monarchs", but both "Castilian counts" and "counts of Castile" are a bit ambiguous. I think I slightly prefer the latter. We could avoid it by merging back into List of Castilian monarchs and renaming that page something like List of rulers of Castile, which does not imply that any all counts or kings who were Castilian will be included, but only all people who "ruled" Castile. Or, we could move the new list to County of Castile and split off pertinent material from Kingdom of Castile to there. Then the counts and the county/ies are discussed on one page and just what the list is of will be clear. What do you think? Srnec (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have the counts separate, particularly given that the counts are (and should remain) a true list, while the kings are given in tables. There is also the issue of 'rulers' when there is a wide range in the degree to which Rodrigo, Gonzalo Tellez, Fernan Gonzalez (at various times in his life), Sancho Garces, and Garci Sanchez actually ruled. Maybe you are right that County of Castile is the best solution. I'll mull over it some more. (We also need an article on the Beni Gomez, but I haven't gotten around to it.) Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Srnec. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 08:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied again. If you want to just watchlist my talk page I'll quit bugging you here. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, it's in the mainspace at South American dreadnought race. Thanks again for the naming suggestion! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll read the whole thing soon. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've nominated it at WP:Milhist's A-class review here if you'd like to leave any comments. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need an opinion/help.

In your time on Wikipedia, have you had any dealings with self-published books as sources? If so, what exactly are the restrictions(if any) on such sources? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) WP:SPS provides an overview, but basically they have to be written by a recognized expert who works a the relevant field (ie someone known for physics research self-publishes a work on history = probably not reliable). My advice is to avoid them if at all possible, as you will face questions and/or opposition at GAN and certainly FAC if you source your article to an SPS. Peer-reviewed sources are always preferred. :-) Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you very much. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OttomanNavy

Thank you for your good work. Takabeg (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. The Ottoman Navy is no specialty of mine, but these articles seemed to me to need some navigational aids to help readers find them. I see that a lot of them are your work. Keep it up! Srnec (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Passaro

Hello, Srnec. First of all, I'm sorry for my flagrant delay in answering. I'll be faster next time. But what about your message? Well, I truly appreciate your positive comments on my work. It takes me a long time and an exhaustive work. An article about the Spanish war in Sicily would be a hard task, but I'll do my best in the short or long term. Greetings.--Sir Ignel (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]