User talk:Srnec

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

User:Srnec/DYK

Why langr?

In answer to your question: Proper names are not italicized per se, the italics are coming separately via MOS:MAJORWORK. We have this issue because we do not (yet) use semantic mark-up. WP:WIP 🤷 HTH Paradoctor (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But foreign language is generally italicized. I don't think non-English proper names in general need language tagging. The names of works, which are translatable, do. Why not just use lang instead of langr plus italics? I do not know what semantic mark-up is. Srnec (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think non-English proper names in general need language tagging MOS:LANG makes no exceptions. Wouldn't make sense, accessibility with exceptions isn't accessibility.

generally italicized Except when it's not. I did link to the relevant guideline above.

I do not know what semantic mark-up is It's marking up text with tags indicating meaning rather than presentation. Italics are presentation, they do not tell a client whether Glugop is a MAJORWORK, a foreign word, a shipname, or a combination, or whatever else. See also separation of content and presentation. Paradoctor (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Xi Jinping need language tagging? I would call it a non-English proper name that does not need language tagging.

The guideline you linked has as an example {{lang|fr|Les Liaisons dangereuses}}, which is exactly what I would have used. It seems to me that it is hard to say whether the italics in a foreign language title of a major work are there because it is a major work (since they would be there even if it were translated into English) or because it is foreign (since italics are often used for foreign titles of minor works that wouldn't have them in English—in my experience).

Thank you for your explanation of semantic markup. Srnec (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Xi Jinping need language tagging? Yes. This a romanization of a Chinese proper name. It needs a tag, like this: {{langr|zh-Latn|Xi Jinping}}

There are instances where foreign words are not foreign words: loanwords, which constitute ~80% of the English vocabulary. For example, "Peking", which you can find in English dictionaries, is a loanword, so a Chinese-language tag would be wrong. OTOH, "Buxtehude" is German. The last sentence in MOS:NONENGITALIC is about this.

example As I said, WP:WIP. Semantic tagging is still in its infancy on Wikipedia. Try a random article with a non-English title, and check for yourself how many non-English many words and phrases are correctly tagged. And this is etablished, clear-cut policy, not something new. Good thing there is no WP:DEADLINE. ;)

hard to say whether [...] major work [...] or because it is foreign With semantic markup, it could be both or either. That is the very point I made in my previous comment. A screen reader cannot tell whether to switch language when encountering (presentational) italics markup. An IETF language solves this particular problem. Paradoctor (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference check

In your initial version of the article Rostagnus, you reference a dissertation "Franz Hemmann, Consonantismus des Gascognischen bis zum Ende des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts, PhD diss., University of Jena, 1888, p. 63" and even give a link to a Google doc. It is impossible for me to see whether the linked page actually has to do anything with the article subject, but the page in the Google doc you linked to is part of another dissertation (Josef Hengsbach, Beitrag zur Lehre von der Inclination im Provenzalischen, PhD diss., University of Marburg, 1885). The beginning of the Google doc shows that it's a compilation of eleven different works. Could you check and fix that? --MarioS (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened here, as I can find nothing in either dissertation about the name in question. I can, however, find something on p. 63 of this German dissertation. I have switched the citation. I can only assume that I switched to the wrong tab or something while putting the citation together. Srnec (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 August 17 § Category:Algerian writers in French

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 August 17 § Category:Algerian writers in French on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 232, August 2025

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 four works spanning ancient to modern times
Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for medieval genealogy

Hello, you recently noted on William X of Auvergne that the Foundation for medieval genealogy is a deprecated source. Why is that? I'm worried, since I've been using that a lot recently. I'm not really an expert on the topic but it looks like a good gateway for primary sources (even if I found that they get somethings wrong). Also, if that is unusuable, would citing their sources be a viable option? Tim mick (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim mick: I'm not sure there is a single place where Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands Project was deprecated as a reliable source for Wikipedia, but this comes closest. I myself never participated in discussions of its reliability. Coincidentally, I used it just yesterday and it gave me a reliable secondary source to cite. See Oveco Vermúdez. Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources to primary. Srnec (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. You wrote "FMG is a deprecated source" and I thought you meant that, I must have misunderstood. What did you mean? Tim mick (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the Medieval Lands Project hosted by FMG is a deprecated source. There has been a strong effort to purge it from Wikipedia. See the RFD I linked to and the discussions it links back to. You should probably not cite it directly at all, as it is considered the non-peer reviewed project of one person and he not a subject-matter expert. Srnec (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand, I'll refrain from using Medieval Lands from now on, thank you Tim mick (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Crusades in film

Hello, Srnec. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Crusades in film, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 233, September 2025

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 recent works
Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New England (medieval)

Hello, have you seen this page? Doesn't it violate WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE? I feel it represents Shepard's very tenuous speculations about the existence of Anglo-Saxon settlements "somewhere on the Black Sea coast" as fact. -- Ghirla^-трёп- 18:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, considering that no archaeological trace of Anglo-Saxon settlement in the region has been found since Shepard put forward his theory in 1974, something like Theory of Anglo-Saxon settlement of the Black Sea area would be a more appropriate name for this article, no? --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen it. In fact, I remember when it was created. The original stable form of the article is this. The sections on "Linguistic evidence" and "Dialectology" are later additions. I think they can be removed. Far too speculative and poor sourcing. (I like Caitlin Green's blog and it is scholarly, but I don't think it is generally good RS for Wikipedia.) In fact, I think very little that has been added since 2009 is valuable. It detracts from the article. I would cut everything after the sentence that begins "Shepard thus reinterprets..." (I find the sentence immediately following too speculative.)

However, I don't think we should frame it as a theory of Anglo-Saxon settlement—I think that minimizes/downplays the primary sources. That is, the settlement is explicitly stated in the sources. The question is their accuracy and reliability. D. M. Nicol, "Byzantium and England" (not cited in article), sees the two sources as the "account of Orderic Vitalis ... amplified and embellished". Christopher Hobbs, in Brill's Companion to Byzantium and the West, 900–1204 (also uncited), concludes: "It by no means seems implausible that some Anglo-Saxons could have left Constantinople in order to settle on the Black Sea. It is difficult, however, to determine its size and significance given the limited source material." Here is a Russian source (that has an English translation!).

I wonder if it might not make more sense to expand the article to cover Anglo-Saxons in the Varangian Guard and leave this story as just one aspect of that more certain development. The creator of the page is still (semi-)active on Wikipedia. Srnec (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Lando

I saw that you changed the start date to September back in December 2016. Could you provide a source for this specific date? Otherwise, if the other three sources are unreliable to you, it would make more sense to change it to July-November, given the uncertainty. Szibre (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"circa September" means "around September", so it isn't saying September with any certainty. Here is a source for July–November. I have amended the article. We have a document from February 914 and the Liber pontificalis says he reigned 4+ months, which I suspect is the basis for the November date. Depending on when after his last mention you place his death, you can get a September start date on the basis of the Liber. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course circa means around. now I understend why you chooce september in the begining.

thanks for your new edit, it looks perfect. Szibre (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary Srnec 🎉

Hey @Srnec. Your wiki edit anniversary was 7 days ago, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to this Wikimedia project. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. With over 126,942 edits, your dedication is an inspiration to the community. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Srnec. Thank you for your work on Northern Swabians. Another editor, Aesurias, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Obviously no need for me to review as you have auto-rights, but this is a fascinating article! Enjoyed reading very much. :)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aesurias}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Aesurias (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Crusades in film

Hello, Srnec. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Crusades in film".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 234, October 2025

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: Three Wikipedia editors review five books
Timeline: This month in military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is "infobox creep"?

Yesterday you reverted 3 of my edits on the pages Teqorideamani, Talakhidamani, and Yesebokheamani with the cited reason of reverting "infobox creep". This is confusing to me as I was not able to find any policy, MOS, or essay pages that mention infobox creep. I kind of get the idea of what you mean from just the name but I cant be sure. however, under the assumption that infobox creep refers to infoboxes appearing on pages they are not needed or wanted, I disagree that my edits fall under this category. I think that all Kushite kings should have an infobox for navigation, consistency, and readability reasons and I don't understand why those three in particular had theirs removed when every other Kushite monarch's page, including others I added a infobox to at the same time didn't. PharaohCrab (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they popped up on my watchlist is why. Compare scope creep, feature creep, etc. When you say every other Kushite monarch's page, including others I added you seem to admit that there wasn't really any consistency at all. The essay that explains my view (at least in part) is Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. In the particular case of these articles, my view is that they are short and there is lots of uncertainty. We do not need a box to repeat what is in the first sentence. If consistency is that important, perhaps we should have a wider discussion at a relevant WikiProject. Srnec (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a recent edit

Dear Srnec,

I thought I might reach out regarding an august 2025 edit you made on the Matara, Eritrea page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matara,_Eritrea&direction=next&oldid=1284722544 You replaced the lead image, but I believe that image is attributed incorrectly to this location. The metadata coordinates of the image do not match Matara, and I believe the Qohaito page shows the concerns the same columns. I'm would ask whether you would agree that the image should be removed from the matara page.

The flickr discription seems to be copied from the Matara wikipedia page and/or official government sources, https://shabait.com/2012/09/14/historical-site-of-matara/ In this case I think the Government source is copied/plagiarized from the Wikipage.

Futhermore I had a question since you seem to be an experienced constructive editor. I wonder the Hawulti (monument) page could be merged with the Matara page. It is the only visible object at the site. ''the only remaining feature today is the “obelisk” (stele engraved with an inscription)''

https://journals.openedition.org/palethnologie/5690

It's has significant notability p579 https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVI/505-630.pdf

Kind regards SarahSmithLay (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would merge those two pages (Hawulti and Matara) because the former is also about an inscription, best considered in its own article than in an article on a site. I have no objection to reverting the image change, but I have no knowledge about the site. I just tried to improve the image from Commons. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srnec,

Thank you for your response and sharing your thoughts on both points.

Kind regards SarahSmithLay (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November article improvement drive

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Battle of Covadonga. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]