Hello! I noticed your contributions to Todd Rokita and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
Hello. Thank you for correcting me earlier. I must ask though, how do you navigate through the genealogics.org website? Whenever you link one in your edit summary, the link never seems to work properly. I am currently at the home page, where do I go from here? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to search for the personal names of the individuals in the search page, though you might need separate tabs to find both. The person pages have an ID number on them and there's a tab to calculate relationship, so you'll need to enter the ID number of the other person and that will calculate the relationship. You can also set how many generations to check, since you might need to go back a while
For what's it's worth, based on what the site showed me, here are the shortest lines of descent from their most recent common ancestor.
Oh, wow, this website is amazing! Thank you! Also, I would suggest that you make a Wikipedia account. You seem knowledgeable on the rules and MOS, and I have seen you contributing to quite a few pages I am familiar with (you contributed to Constantine II of Greece-related articles if I am correct). I think you would be a great editor! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting involved with the page if you want to help out you could help expend highest grossing films based on television series that not part of the same continuity chart and the year chart do not worry about opening weekends I will focus on that Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Hello! If you intend to continue to remove government-issued, legal titles, as you did here you will be asked to provide a link to substantiate your interpretation of the term "substanrtive titles". In Sweden, ducal titles are given to relatives by the monarch with no goverment sanction. I thought perhaps that might interest you. Please be more careful! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox royalty states that the title field should include "Principal substantive title(s) in use", which is defined by the site's article (Substantive title) as "The title is officially borne by only one person at a time" and "It is to be distinguished from a title shared among cadets, borne as a courtesy title by a peer's relatives, or acquired through marriage". That would preclude the "Prince of Sweden" and "Count of Wisborg" title from being included in the infobox. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to throw other people under the bus, but for what it's worth, I was following the lead of people like User:DrKay, who did similar things citing the template and policy as seen here. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would also be my interpretation that Prince of Sweden and Count of Wisborg are cadet titles and that Prince Bernadotte and Duke of Dalarna are substantive. DrKay (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because his mother was Duchess regnant of Parma. The Category "Sons of Counts", per its own description is for "Sons of reigning counts". His father held the personal style of count, but he didn't rule over a county. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, would you please post a link here to corroborate your POV that coats of arms do not go in info boxes. That would be helpful. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying it because none of the other royal pages that use Template:Infobox royalty do so and it looks unsightly. Specifically the issue was that when linking the individual's parents, spouse, and children, the person put the coat of arms for the said relatives next to their wikilinks, which isn't really pertinent information for the individual in question (for example on Carl XVI Gustaf's page, the individual coat of arms for each of his three children isn't example something that needs to be included there).98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the coat of arms of the subject person in principle does belong in h info box, and many other editors also believe that. Perhaps you have ralized that you were wrong to take them out all over? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I wasn't the only one who reverted that (as seen hereUser:TylerBurden also reverted them) and specifically the issue was that it was adding the coat of arms for other people, not the subject of the article. See below for an example of how the reverted edits portrayed the infobox.
As you can see, the edit put the coat of arms for his wife and daughter next to their links, which is inconsistent with how every other article using the royalty infobox does so. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I brought up here is a request for you to post a link here to corroborate your POV that coats of arms do not go in info boxes and the fact that you have been removing them indiscriminately all over. Not just in (justifiable) cases like that. Please respond to the main issue, if at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox royalty is what I was basing my edits and it doesn't make any comment on coat of arms. What it says regarding the format of spouses and issue in the template is the following:
I do not have a concern with you removing the links form the list article. I do not have much info about it and remain neutral. But I doubt that removing the see also section from so many articles is warranted. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who removed them from the list article. It was others who redefined the scope. I was just trying to make sure that the links to the article were consistent with what was on the list. If the see also section was blanked, that was because the article was the only one in the section. If there were other links in the section, I left them alone. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Just a clarification, the judges were (in the past atleast) in the list right. So, I believe that their long tenure justifies a link to the list in the see also. Again, I do not contest restructuring of the list, nor am I telling you did it. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ones who were previously on the list were ones who were on the list in the past, usually due to senior status, with their active service often being much shorter. The reasons it was changed was due to concerns about list length (there had been nearly 300 before the incursion criteria was changed from 40 years total to a fixed 100/50/25 entry cutoff) and, to a degree, the fact that senior judges often are practically retired and carry out little to no duties. If I recall correctly, most of the ones I removed only barely surpassed 40 years combining active and senior and their active service was only about 15 to 20 years, which isn't exceptionally long. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, you mean to say that the articles did not require/warrant a need for the inclusion of the list in their see also sections? Bunnypranav (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument states, considering their seniority, shouldn't the list related to longevity of service be linked in the see also? The see also exists for the reason of linking to related articles. If you still feel there is a dispute, I request you to consent for a WP:3O. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have been listed as perennial candidates. I checked the edit history and see that you objected to it. What do you think about the latest entries. Theofunny (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_(cropped).jpg)
