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

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

User:Srnec/DYK

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geneocide of Libya, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libyan genocide was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the clean up on Saint Hunfrid, I don't know how to write wiki pages well, I'm only good at finding the info LOL Hunfridus871 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 240, April 2026

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 four 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) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmontese literature and the Poitiers inscription

Hi Srnec,

I would like to thank you for your recent contributions to the Piedmontese literature article. Your additions regarding the Poitiers inscription have significantly improved the quality of the page.

I am the user who originally created the article, and I am very interested in reading the study by W. Paden ("Piedmontese in Poitiers?") that you cited. I have already read Agrigoroaei's work, but I cannot find a way to access Paden's article.

Would it be possible for you to share it with me or point me toward a digital copy? Also, if you have any further suggestions to improve the article for its DYK nomination, I would be happy to hear them.

Best regards,Bertin Osengh (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bertin Osengh: If you have Wikipedia Library access, you can see the paper here. If you don't, I can send it you. Is your email enabled? Srnec (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I would really appreciate that. I don't have access to the Wikipedia Library yet, but I have just enabled my email options in my preferences. You should be able to send it to me now. This paper looks extremely interesting! Best regards, Bertin Osengh (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

McNamara book

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]

The Bugle: Issue 241, May 2026

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

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) 02:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE for Al-Basasiri

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]

Nomination of Pandenulf of Capua for merging to Principality of Capua#Originis

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]

Nomination of Merogais for deletion

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]

The Bugle: Issue 242, June 2026

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 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) 13:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]