User talk:Surtsicna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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)

Mary I of England[edit]

Hello Surtsicna. I was disappointed that you reverted my attempt to improve the syntax in this article’s lede – your diff. Your edit summary says No, not really. That would be: "Catherine of Aragon, who survived to adulthood." The comma makes all the difference.

After my edit, the sentence said "She was the only child of Henry VIII and his first wife Catherine of Aragon to survive to adulthood." I infer from your edit summary that you have no objection to my version of this sentence; but that you have an objection to the explanation I gave in my edit summary - Syntax. This sentence is intended to say Mary, the child, survived to adulthood. In fact it was saying Catherine, the mother, survived to adulthood!

At Wikipedia, all edits should be aimed at improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. We don’t revert other Users’ edits as a means of challenging the content of edit summaries, but that appears to be what you have done. If we disagree with an opinion or the content of an edit summary the appropriate course of action is to raise the matter for discussion – either on a User’s Talk page or on the article’s Talk page.

Let’s assume that you are correct and the absence of a comma represents complete mitigation of any difficulty in the syntax. That doesn’t alter the fact that to me, and presumably hundreds of others like me, the syntax appears amateurish and in need of improvement. You can’t be there, looking over the shoulder of everyone who reads this article, in order to explain that you are technically correct, and to explain the significance of the missing comma.

I believe my version of the sentence is superior to the version I found when I first read the article. If you believe my version is inferior to the long-standing version please raise the matter for discussion on the Talk page. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 11:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not object to your version. I see nothing wrong with the original one either. The editor who worked on the article and brought it to GA status, however, does not deserve to be told that he mislead the readers because he did no such thing. Surtsicna (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt and considered reply. Dolphin (t) 03:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

re Sancho I[edit]

Hello, thanks for the fixes. Wanted to know if you have any reference for this assertion: "Aragon was thus the first Iberian kingdom to recognize the independence of Portugal". I don't and am not sure if the marriage per se would imply a recognition of Portugal's independence. Also, on his daughter Branca, I requested a move, but then, on second thoughts, perhaps she is not worthy of a separate article since little is known about her. The source I quoted in her article (copy pasted from the parents' articles) says nothing about her being "lady of Guadalajara". Perhaps she was the lady of a convent in Guadalajara which is not specified in the source, but I don't see how she would have been the Lady of the city or province. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I have only read about Sancho in passing, so I cannot be of much help. As for Blanche, I do agree with you - she seems rather marginal. Having existed and having been a king's daughter does not make someone notable. I would support merging the article with that of her father. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Since I'm on holiday and only have by gen database with me, I'll wait til I get home and can check some books to see if I can reference that. Re Branca, that would be a good idea. Thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Matilda of Tuscany[edit]

The paragraph is a bit awkward. Her mother is identified up to that point as Beatrice of Lorraine. Her sister is the last Beatrice mentioned before the discussion of a marriage. One looks first for the word "had", then back to find the date of her sister's death (which is "the next year"), then wonders in passing if Godfrey was a necrophiliac. But if you like it, leave it. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If it was unclear to you, then it must be unclear to everyone who is not acquainted with the subject. If you find anything else confusing or misleading, please correct it. I have been working on the article on and off for about a year, and I have only done the first half. Surtsicna (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Gisela Januszewska[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Jajce v. Prusac[edit]


Photo taken cca 1897

this old image from cca 1897, scan from the book, uploaded at Flickr and, is actually erroneously designated as "Ruins of Jajce" !

Here's painting of Jajce with citadel and surroundings, from around same place and time (artist: Tivadar Kosztka Csontvary, completion date: 1903 - just six years later):

Or old photo, only retouched in fake colors, from around same period (end of the 19.century) as disputed image:

Factual location on this historic image (photo) of the ruined fortress is village of Prusac near Donji Vakuf in Bosnia (ruined fortress is also called Prusac), some 50 miles upstream of the Vrbas river from town and (real) fortress of Jajce.

Jajce was developed medieval town with extensive walls and large citadel, both of which can be seen well preserved today, centuries before any kind of photography existed, but even upon closer examination you should be able to see quite a few differences in surroundings, size of the fortress itself, proportions of the hill, and on (Googled) pictures of Jajce you should also notice two rivers and large waterfall right under the hill, in the middle of medieval walls, and no wide plane in sight because town is located in the hart of steep gorge.--Santasa99 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks a lot for clarifying. In that case, let's not use any image of Jajce. The photograph which focuses mostly on modern buildings does not add much to the article. I will try to replace it with something more relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind, however you need to understand that photo of "modern" Jajce, which I found on and placed in article, is actually photo of old town core, mostly, and only modern thing in that pic are new rooftops and facades with few new family houses.

In other words, photo contains at least 3/4 of medieval buildings (one "new" building visible in the photo is largest building in the center, which is museum form Austro-Hungarian period). Jajce, even prior to Ottoman conquest (prolonged period between 1463 and 1528), was already large and developed town (speaking in context of that region during medieval period), with huge town walls, where citadel was only that, part of the larger urban structure - citadel within walled city. Only significant buildings which didn't exist prior to Ottomans arrival are mosques.

This "modern" one is focused on citadel and immediate surroundings, with some parts of the town walls with defensive towers visible

You won't deny viewer of complete impression if you leave photo of "modern" town, but you can use something like those images for which I provided a links in my previous post.

As you can see in these old pictures, core of Jajce, more precisely walled old town, was pretty the same since the times of the last king and Ottoman conquest, as it was in 19. century, as it is today. Cheers!--Santasa99 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:Kate of Bosnia[edit]

Hallo Surtsicna,
You wrote me right when I was downloading the pictures... Actually, the picture quality is not perfect, but unfortunately the camera that I should have used that day did not show up together with his owner because of a flu... :-( Anyway, I will ask to my Roman friend to take this shot again with her professional camera! :-) Of course, feel free to move, change the caption and resize the picture! Cheers from Helvetia, Alex2006 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I might be prophetic! What I am not is an expert in photography, however, and I see nothing imperfect about the image. The angle is just what I had in mind. I am not sure if a mere "thanks" can properly express gratitude, but thank you anyway! Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A wider angle would have been maybe better...but perfection does not belong to our world! ;-) Anyway, glad that you liked it, and my compliments for the article! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Seigneurs of Sark[edit]

This was including all these deeply obscure folk in the "royal consorts of England" category. I have fixed that but it now seems to add a navbox category to the articles, which you may want to fix. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I probably created the template by copying Template:English consort and did not see that part. Thanks for fixing it. I'll see what I can do about the rest. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm useless at templates. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)