Векочел

Page moves of monarchs

I mentioned you in this discussion. I tried to ping you, but wasn't able to find all the letters in your name. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Next time, copy and paste for simplicity. There is much argument to be had over the page names, that is what the move discussions are for, but I will try to summarize my stance here. There is no need for of country when there is no ambiguity over the page name. (In fact, I personally believe the article on the current British king should have the country name added because there are multiple Charles III's of considerable stature.) Anyway, I have noticed editors opposed to these moves saying the page moves are "sad" rather than appealing to Wikipedia policy. The editors supporting these moves, however, do generally appear to base their support votes based on Wikipedia policy. Векочел (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop!

Simple direct links are preferred. Do not remove pipes to them. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG I was puzzled why you reverted Векочел's changes. What about WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

These need to be handled individually, and not in bulk. There are times to use pipes, and there are times not to. This user doesn't appear to be making that distinction. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

UtherSRG, I have found it is generally preferable to use a redirect than piping to the main article. Is there any test you use to decide when a pipe is needed and when it's not? I am going with what MOS:NOPIPE says, as Rosbif pointed out. Векочел (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOPIPE is a how-to guide, not a definitive policy. You were unpiping without any seeming rationale for picking and choosing. If piping were something that shouldn't ever be, someone would write a bot, remove all pipes, and disable pipes being something that can be used. Sometimes redirects should be used; sometimes pipes should be used. Wikipedia:Piped link#Use shows there are valid uses for pipes. Can you say you were checking each pipe usage to see that they were appropriate to be unpiped and were not one of the valid uses? That seems unlikely given how fast you were doing the unpipings. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOPIPE is a guide, but it doesn't say anything that resembles "Simple direct links are preferred. Do not remove pipes to them." It actually makes it clear that redirects are generally preferable to unnecessary piped links.

The script that Векочел is using converts links of the form [[A|B]] into links of the form [[B]] if [[B]] is a valid redirect to [[A]], or if [[A]] and [[B]] both redirect to some other page [[C]]. The result is a link that has the same target and displays the same text as the original. I do agree that caution is advisable, and there are cases where exceptions may reasonably be made.

@UtherSRG: you reverted about a hundred of Векочел's edits in about ten minutes. Did you check each example to see that they were actually at fault? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Monarchs diagnosed with cancer

Hello, Векочел,

If a category has been tagged for speedy deletion as an empty category (CSD C1), there is really no good reason to take it to CFD for a week-long discussion. It will be deleted more quickly as a CSD C1, while CFD nominations can sometimes last weeks and what are editors going to debate about an empty category? It's unnecessary and I hope you will stop this practice. Only start CFD discussion about categories where a discussion would be fruitful. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Векочел,

Please leave an edit summary with every edit you make. This is especially important with the dozens of page moves you are doing recently where it's not clear why you are moving the articles to different page titles. If you leave a brief explanation, particularly one based in policy, it's less likely that your edit will be reverted because your fellow editors will understand why you made the edit you did. It really takes just a few extra sentences so please take an extra minute and leave an explanatory edit summary. It's good practice on the platform. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Векочел!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry

I was trying to to revert the whole DOB, per WP:DOB, but reverted your cn template instead. Now fixed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello! Did you really think this was a good idea, removing the linked reference to her place of birth? You could at least have linked it in the info box. I am asking you now to do that. Please be more careful, and please (as requested above) leave edit summaries! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• I will try to be more consisteny with my edit summaries. However, per MOS:BIRTHPLACE, Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates. Векочел (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! It would have beemn nice if you would have linked her place of birth in the info box when you removed it elsewhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You changed the link to a location in Norway and in Västergötland. Fixed now. Are you going to be more careful? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 (2)

Please do not change any info-box names so that they do not correspond to (1) article names and (2) names as given in article text. If you want such name changes you need to request article moves (renaming). No other way. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• See WP:NOPIPE. The page on Anund Jacob was presumably moved to remove the country name, and the article on Cnut the Great was also moved. Векочел (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  What is this supposed to mean? Please start using edit summaries. TylerBurden (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  It means illegitimate. His son was born out of wedlock. Векочел (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helen of Hungary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hello, Векочел,

Why are you making massive, undiscussed changes, removing religion from Infoboxes where previous editors had added it in? Is there policy regarding this? I was going to revert all of your changes until I saw you were an experienced editor, not a new account, but it seems like you are making changes on a grand scale without discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• In most cases the religion of these royals is simply not notable. We don't list the religion for Queen Elizabeth II's three younger children or for Charles III's sons, for instance. Векочел (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In cases like Catherine Jagellon, her religion is a vital detail, yet you removed it twice there also. I've now fixed that twice. Please slow down, at least read articles you wish to change, and be more careful! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Haile Selassie

@Векочел Would you mind helping User:CtasACT by going through all the references on the above mentioned article and also ensuring whether they meet Wikipedia's policy or not. The GA review is taking place at-Talk:Haile Selassie/GA2. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I will look at it shortly. Векочел (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please stop doing this! Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. I would think you knew that before going about all those faulty changes?! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Royalty is a subset of nobility. Indeed Category:Royalty on Wikipedia is a subset of Category:Nobility. Векочел (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not correct. Read the articles, be enlightened and stop doing this! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024 (2)

You are doing a lot of damage with changes like this. Unless you go back and fix those articles, we are heading for serious trouble. It is far more relevant that these people are the children of monarchs than any other less relevant titles. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A prince regnant is a type of monarch. Векочел (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that. That's not what I wrote to you about. Read it again and fix your errors! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The page Elizabeth II is already under Category:Daughters of kings. (I did not categorize it.) What is the point of removing a category when it helps to disambiguate? As for the pages which I placed in Swedish nobility, I will have a second look. Векочел (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You are changing categories from helpful ones to much less relevant ones when you make changes like the one I linked to at the top of this talk section. Understand? It is far more relevant that these people are the children of monarchs than any other less relevant titles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization states “Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.” So it would appear that User:Векочел is correct in moving to the more specific subcategory, since Category:Sons of princes regnant is a subcategory of Category:Sons of monarchs. It’s the same reason why Princess Astrid of Belgium is categorized under Category:Daughters of kings, not Category:Daughters of monarchs. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Mothers of monarchs

For the most part, I think the categories are, at least in theory, supposed to be limited to women who lived to see their children become monarchs. At the very least, that's the philosophy I was using when considering adding them to the category. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In history, whoever was the mother of a monarch is counted as such whether or not she lived to see the monarch's reign. It's the monarch's relationship to her that's most relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Children of princesses regnant has been nominated for merging

Category:Children of princesses regnant has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 CfDs

Your nominations are spurious. Being found disruptive months after creating categories is not a valid reason for deleting them. Please close your nominations immediately. I have commented on the first one, but frankly, a wholesale listing like that is also bordering on the disruptive. ——Serial Number 54129 17:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that Векочел, I respect that. As a compromise, let's leave that one open (I will adjust my comment) and see if it gains traction; I could always be wong... Thanks again. ——Serial Number 54129 17:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sons of princesses regnant

A tag has been placed on Category:Sons of princesses regnant indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Daughters of princesses regnant

A tag has been placed on Category:Daughters of princesses regnant indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hadrian's marriage

Well caught! That was a truly egregious error... Amazing how long these things can go undetected. Haploidavey (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)