User talk:Srnec

This is Srnec's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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 talk:Srnec/Archive, 18 May 2011–15 May 2013
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 16 May 2013–14 March 2014
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 March 2014–28 March 2016
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 29 March 2016–3 March 2018

User:Srnec/DYK

Hi Srnec, I have a question that I'm a little embarrassed to ask, since I'm learning how to write about medieval history through my work on articles about female saints. In your DYK review of Vita Sadalbergae, you directed me to include the ch. in the vita in the references. Could you tell me what the ch. is? I assumed that you meant the chapters in the vita, but do you mean something else, like the paragraph numbers in the translation sections of Sainted Women of the Dark Ages? Thanks your assistance, it's muchly appreciated. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I meant the chapter in the Vita. You could also call them sections. They are the numbered paragraphs. You could use § or ¶ to cite them. Although they are probably not numbered in the manuscripts (though they might be), I assume the numbering comes not from the translation but from the Latin edition on which it is based. In that case, citing by numbered section allows anybody to follow the citation to the Vita itself in the Latin or in a different translation. If you are citing a footnote, however, cite McNamara et al. directly and indicate the footnote. Srnec (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the translations in McNamara are paragraphed (is that a word?), like how translations handle verses in the Bible. That is what I'll do! I do cite footnotes, but only from the McNamara sections. Thanks again for your patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, just finished dealing with your suggestions over at the DKY nom. I even looked at some of the articles you created on your user page. I found some errors, though, that I feel compelled to bring up, just paying it forward like you did for me. De procinctu romanae miliciae doesn't have a talk page. Nihayat al-arab fi akhbar al-Furs wa'l-'Arab has cite ref errors. So does Tegernsee love letters, but just one.

It looks like the last one, without the unused source, uses just one source. I can tell you from experience that it's not enough, which means that it's in danger of deletion. I say from experience because for some reason, many of the articles I work on (bios of women and female-centered topics) tend to be scrutinized more. Sorry, I'm being facitious. I'm sure you're very familiar with the reasons. I'm a little surprised it's gone under the radar in the year since you've created it, since it's an LGBTQ-related topic. If I were you, I'd try to find other sources to bump it up, or be ready with a good defense for only using one source. Let me know if I can assist. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I created Vita Sadalbergae, so I'm certainly not scrutinizing it more because of what it is. As for the "cite ref errors", it seems to be that there are bibliographic entries that are unused. I don't agree that this is a problem, as some editors do, since Wikipedia is always a work in progress. But if you feel that those unused sources should be moved to a "Further reading", go right ahead. I will take a look at Dronke re: Tegernsee.

As for the DYK, it just occurred to me that I might be prohibited from reviewing it per WP:DYKRI: You are not allowed to approve your own hook or article. Is it "my" article if I created it but did not expand it? Srnec (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, I wasn't saying YOU were scrutinizing anything more, just that it's my experience that only using one source may cause difficulty. I'm on the other side of the issue you mention. I think we should cite only what we use, but that's a preference, not a policy. I agree that it should be moved into a "Further reading" section. I didn't check to see who created the Vita article, so yah, I assumed that you'd be the reviewer. But I agree that the creator shouldn't review articles, even if it's been expanded since its creation.

I hope you weren't insulted with all my changes. It's kinda my thing to take articles and expand them after doing additional research. I know that lots of editors, especially folks in Women in Red, like to create stubs for others come along later and expand. I can't bring myself to doing that; I have to complete as much research as I can, and then create or improve articles. Both are important tasks, so there's room for both ways. It does mean that my edit count is lower than you'd think, and I haven't created as many new articles as others. I don't care, though; my way is more fun, at least for me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D look at four recent works Timeline: This month in military history

I noticed that you reverted my edit removing Al-Basasiri's DISPLAYTITLE that was rendering it with a lowercase first letter. The only time that DISPLAYTITLE should be used to render a title with a lowercase first letter is when the word at the start of the title is supposed to be rendered that way even when it's at the start of a sentence, like with iPhone or xkcd. As the page itself makes apparent in phrases like "Al-Basasiri took part in Jalal's conflicts with his nephew," Al-Basasiri is capitalized like any other word when it's at the start of a sentence. The page shouldn't be lowercased using DISPLAYTITLE just because most of the word's uses are in the middle of sentences. Unless you have some other reason for this, please remove the DISPLAYTITLE. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@IdiosyncraticLawyer: My other reason is that people don't know that because it is Arabic not English. If it were The Basasiri, I'd agree with you. Lower-casing the title makes it clearer to people how to use it properly. You may revert if you feel strongly, but it may be better to have a centralized discussion somewhere and see what others think. I know at least one other editor (Apaugasma) who has lower-cased such titles. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Arabic definite article al- is always transliterated lower case except when at the start of a full sentence. (Note though that transliteration is only done when there is no common name in English; Al Jazeera will always be upper case because that's how English sources commonly refer to it.) Since a title is not a full sentence, al- is transliterated lower case in titles. This is standard practice in the field of Arabic studies. See for example the way al-Basasiri is transliterated in the title of its entry in the standard reference work in the field, the Encyclopaedia of Islam, here.

This is covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic: "Al-" and its variants (ash-, ad-, ar-, etc.) are always written in lower case, also when forming part of proper nouns, except when beginning a sentence. Maybe something should be added there about titles. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, understood. I've replaced the raw DISPLAYTITLE with {{Lowercase title}} to make the syntax cleaner while keeping the title lowercased. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pandenulf of Capua is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged into Principality of Capua#Originis.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandenulf of Capua until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

RaisedArizona (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merogais, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merogais until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Timeline: This month in military history

The redirect Dante Alighieri's has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 28 § Dante Alighieri's until a consensus is reached. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am working on the article about Fulk V of Anjou. It seems long overdue. To my surprise and frustration, I am struggling to find good overviews of his comital career. Have you got any tips? Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Olivier Guillot, maybe? I have Bachrach's Fulk Nerra, but that's two Fulks too early. I wonder if Adam Bishop, who has contributed to Routledge's Rulers of the Latin East series, knows anything. Nantes isn't too far from Angers. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Danielle Park was working on a book about both Fulk and Melisende for the same Routledge series, although I don't know when it will be published. Otherwise I don't know any works about Fulk's career as count, unfortunately. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is a PhD thesis, Crusade, Crisis, and Statecraft in Latin Christendom: The Case of Fulk V of Anjou (1090–1143). I have found it difficult to navigate because it sprawls across 500 pages and does not bother to order events chronologically, but it will have to do. Also, I only now realize that the Adam Bishop who wrote the biography of Robert of Nantes is our Adam Bishop. If I work towards getting the article to GA, do I get a review from the maestro? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's me! But I have to use my middle initial professionally, to avoid being confused with the other guy. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Srnec, you should perhaps take a look at the intro you have written for Hungary and Serbia and at the one (I presume) you have written for Bulgaria. In the former one, you describe the general situation of the state, conditions, foreign relations, etc. (which is the right approach), in the latter one, you engage in wild speculation, which is entirely lifted from Vasary, who has — I don't know how I should put it — a longish monograph about the Turkic people in Europe in the Late Middle Ages. Oh, there were Vlachs (there were Vlachs in Serbia, too, perhaps far more numerous), Rubruc called Western Bulgaria "Bulgaria Minor" because he considered Volga Bulgaria to be "Bulgaria Major" (what is that even doing here???). I do not claim I made the best edit, I didn't have time, but the edit your are protecting is not something that has been written in good faith, I'm sorry. I don't know where you are from, I assume Serbia, but it's kind of like me finding some obscure source and writing about the Albanians in Kosovo for a paragraph or two. I haven't gone back to the page since the last time, I'm doing something else, but I will sooner or later, and I hope and expect to have a constructive discussion with you, where if you indeed want to contribute, you do contribute to improving the section rather the other way round. Thank you, see you soon😊. VMORO 22:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The redirect Unit-point atomism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 6 § Unit-point atomism until a consensus is reached. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at works on the US and Australian militaries Review essay: Nick-D on South African military museums Timeline: This month in military history