User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Al-Andalusi (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 31 May 2023 (→‎Medieval Islamic World). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Rulers

Just for information, meanwhile I found that the tree under Category:Rulers not only contains heads of state and heads of government, but also governors in periods when the country or region was not independent. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well those were certainly not 'sovereign' then. Seems like we've got more to fix. Thanks for telling me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nieuwpoort.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Achaemenid satraps of Cappadocia moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of Achaemenid satraps of Cappadocia. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic states (category)

I wonder why did you got this deleted? In this category, Turkic states member of Organization of Turkic States (+ Turkmenistan, Northern Cyprus), and observer states of Türksoy, as well as autonomous regions of China in which they were dedicated for Turkic minorities in China. The category should be obvious, and it is not comparable into Germanic states or others. Beshogur (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beshogur, the category you are looking for is Category:Member states of the Organization of Turkic States. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_25#Category:Modern_Turkic_states. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken promise

"Category:Old East Slavic literature will be a child of Category:Kievan Rus culture, so don't worry."

It didn't happen. I had to manually parent it myself just now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry, I made a mistake by making one CfR dependent on another. I'll be more careful in the future. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit of the article "Garðaríki"

Dear Nederlandse Leeuw, you have removed a relevant map which showed the location of Gardariki towns (mentioned in many verifiable sources), with the following comment in your edit summary: "Nobody knows whethere there ever was a Rus' Khaganate."

However, this map doesn't even refer to the "Rus' Khaganate" at all. Instead it shows Early Rus settlements as well as other neighboring territories relevant to the content of the article. Please, explain why you did this. Alexschneider250 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerging categories

Hi, your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Category:1795 disestablishments in the Batavian Republic proposed "upmerging" without specifying the targets. It was closed by LaundryPizza03 as "Merge to Category:1790s disestablishments in the Batavian Republic" alone. I failed to spot this problem when pasting into WP:CFDW, but I think I have now repaired the damage and manually repopulated the other relevant parent categories.

Please specify the multiple applicable parents if you make further such nominations. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london hi, sorry, I thought it was clear that the target of all nominees was Category:1790s disestablishments in the Batavian Republic, but apparently it wasn't. Thanks for pointing it out. Next time I'll copypaste that after each individual nominee to prevent confusion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Certainly no rationale was presented for removing from other parents e.g. 179x disestablishments in Asia/Europe. It is general practice at CFD to merge to multiple parents where relevant. To do otherwise would be invidious to the other hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 15:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

!Kung people

Back in June 2021, you added a CN template to a brief item on Sebastian Junger's Tribe mentioning how long per day the !Kung had to work. I've taken the liberty of commenting that out with reasons ( See snippet view at "Tribe" https://books.google.com/books?id=VIl_CwAAQBAJ&q=Kung or full-page view at "Summary of Tribe" https://books.google.com/books?id=-hv3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT9 ) – do you want that added as a full-citation ref? – .Raven  .talk 02:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would be great! Thanks in advance. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and you're welcome.. – .Raven  .talk 13:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers, monarchs and regents

Hello. I have noticed that you have been removing regent-categories from their parent category, rulers, with the statement that regents are not rulers. I am afraid that you have misundertood the terminology. The term "ruler" is simply a big, neutral term for anyone who rules, be it as a monarch or a regent. "Ruler" is not a synonym to "monarch". Both a "monarch" (a hereditary ruler in their own right) as well as a "regent" (a non-hereditary ruler who rules temporarily in the name of the monarch) is a ruler. Thus, both monarchs and regents are sub-categories of the big, non-specific, neutral term "ruler". Please to not remove one of the specific sub-categories (regents) from the non-specific parent category "ruler". It will make it harder for people to find information. Please remember this. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm acting on the basis of well-established precedents in recent CfRs, CfMs and CfDs in accordance with other users. The fact that "ruler" is non-specific is exactly the issue we are seeking to solve. Please read Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_25#Category:Rulers and subsequent nominations. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo

Hi. I uploaded this file but I have problems with its description. A lot of websites write that its author is Nasuh Al-Matrakî. I don't know who he was. At first I thought it meant Matrakçı Nasuh. But he died long before 1600. Or maybe it was him, so the map is not from 1600. I want to ask you for help, because I don't want this file to be removed from Commons. Sincerely. Smpad (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smpad If you put "{{PD-old}}" after "Permission=" you should be fine. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very grateful for your answer. By the way, could you suggest a user to whom I could address regarding the authorship of this work? Smpad (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already added it: "{{creator:Matrakçı Nasuh}}" Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about this fact? :) He died long before 1600. So I have big concerns. Sincerely. Smpad (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your source says "c. 1600", that means your source is several decades off, but "c." indicates uncertainty, so that's okay. Don't worry about it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Sincerely. Smpad (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Battles involving Soviet Russia (1917–1922)

A tag has been placed on Category:Battles involving Soviet Russia (1917–1922) 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

You clearly put a lot of work in that proposal. It seems the trainwreck continues. If we can't get past the basics in the discussion, then we're apparently not getting anywhere... - jc37 16:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37 no need for you to apologise, I don't blame you for it. This sometimes happens. I'm just stepping away for a while and then see if anything has happened.
You were really onto something when you pointed out that "heritage" is very vaguely defined in the guidelines, and I think I've found out it is actually redundant (at Wikipedia:Category names#Heritage). Moreover, the WP:ETHNICRACECAT guideline pointing to List of contemporary ethnic groups (largely unsourced) is a really poor standard to establish what counts as an "ethnicity". Those are two things we should fix first before we can really hope to address the how-should-we-categorise-people-by-heritage question. I think my Alt proposal is moot until we do. At least that brings us closer to the sources of the problem.
As I'm writing this reply, I also run into Wikipedia:Ethnicity is not notable, which is worth a read. For now, I'm letting the dust settle. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

problems with Bill Warner (writer) article

Hello Nederlandse Leeuw, A couple of years ago you tried to introduce some balance and information to the article on Bill Warner (writer). I am trying to do the same but with limited success. Could you have a look at the page’s recent history and give me some advice, ideas or support on how to proceed? JeddBham64 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to skip this one, I am no longer interested in the subject. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman the Great

I saw your comment on Ivan III about including "the Great" in the title and thought it was a good point. In his case I do not think it is overwhelming enough to include in the title (like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great etc). It also reminded me about Roman the Great who, despite being also known as "the Great", it is not overwhelming enough (possibly not as common). I think "Roman Mstislavich" would be better and the common name, but I would like a second opinion. I was too hasty with RMs and would rather not boldly move it. Also a lot of results about something else come up when searching for "Roman the Great" which makes it a bit trickier. Mellk (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk You're welcome! I took my time to make that point because it doesn't just apply to Ivan III of Moscow or Alexander III of Macedon, but to every single person in history. Honestly, I cannot think of a single case in which "the Great" might not be at least somewhat contentious and subjective. I don't mean to change them all at once, but I certainly don't think it's a good idea to add more "the Greats" to our already existing problematic set.
I would support a rename of Roman "the Great" into something else, but for that, I'd have to look up the literature first for a good name. I'm generally not in favour of a patronymic like "Mstislavich" in the title, it's not very recognisable and doesn't follow WP:SOVEREIGN #3. But what to call the country (Galicia? Galicia-Volhynia? Halych? Halych-Volyn? Ruthenia? etc.) is a potential minefield. Anyway, we can get into the details soon. But perhaps it's better to wait for the 3 current RMs to finish? It's getting a bit complicated with these discussions going on simultaneously. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had considered WP:SOVEREIGN. I wish it was clearer about "country" because some articles (famous or not famous) do not include it, whether because there is no need to disambiguate or because they are determined to be the primary topic. In the case of Roman Mstislavich, I think the patronymic can be included with the argument of common name.[1] For example with Rurik Rostislavich and Davyd Rostislavich and so on. If it was required to include country, then this it is trickier in this case, there is also an inconsistency. I think Principality of Halych might need to be moved to Principality of Galicia. But this can wait. Mellk (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk Yes, some guidelines could use more clarity. To be honest, until you began the Vasily III RM, I was unaware of the WP:SOVEREIGN guideline, except that I had always seen and used it in practice.
It's a good question why Rurik Rostislavich is not named Rurik (number) of Kiev. A minority of Wikipedias identify him as "Rurik II of Kiev". I think I know why this should be avoided in this case: the historicity of Rurik is heavily contested, and rejected by many modern scholars. But even those who accept it will acknowledge that Rurik never ruled from Kiev. After all, the PVL suggests he died in Novgorod / Staraya Ladoga, and Oleg was the first Rus' prince of Kiev. Counting Rurik Rostislavich as "the second" suggests there was a "first", but other than the heavily disputed Rurik, there is none in our historical records prior to Rurik Rostislavich (Ostrowski 2018 and others have pointed this out).
For Davyd Rostislavich I have no idea.
I assume that Principality of Galicia used to be its WP:COMMONNAME in English literature, and it may or may not still be the case (I haven't checked, but it could go either way). The page "Principality of Halych" was created under that name in 2006 as a redirect to "Halych-Volhynia", and then since 2010 it is a full-fledged article. The title has never been moved since creation. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, even if the spelling "Halych" on English Wikipedia might have been introduced somewhat prematurely, I think Principality of Halych should probably keep that name. Not only because of potential confusion with Galich, Russia (which at one point was also a principality). But because it is extremely sensitive in Ukraine right now to move the name of an article on a former state, which has had a prominent place in Ukrainian historiography, "back" to a Russian-derived English spelling, just because the latter might still be the common name for a few more years. I'm willing to defend the status quo of Kievan Rus' as long as that is the common name and English literature hasn't shifted to Kyivan Rus' yet (which it likely will in the coming years), but I don't think moving "Halych" back to "Galicia" is a viable option anymore. If you want lots of editwarring and heated debates on the talk page, then you may try it, but I'm not.
However, given that Roman's son is currently still named Daniel of Galicia and the main article Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, a rename to Roman of Galicia or Roman of Galicia–Volhynia might still be acceptable. Especially the latter has a chance. On the other hand, I think that Daniel of Galicia will eventually evolve to something like Danylo of Ruthenia, because his endonym name is being picked up in English, and there is an increased emphasis on his title of rex Ruthenorum in recent literature, even though the combo "Danylo of Ruthenia" is still rare. Oh well, we'll see. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think "Galicia" is a Russian-derived spelling. Like "Volhynia" I think it is from Latin. Probably because of historical reasons (Rēgnum Galiciae et Lodomeriae). From what I can see "Galicia" is still more commonly used. There would already have been a lot of trouble at the article Galicia (Eastern Europe) if it was the case anyway. Mellk (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk It's not me who you need to convince, but the rest of the community. I can already tell you it will lead to controversy. Just last year there was an edit war going on. Anyway.
There is something else that I think we need to discuss, namely the articles uk:Війна за об'єднання Галицько-Волинського князівства and ru:Война за объединение Галицко-Волынского княжества about the conflict that breaks out upon Roman's death in 1205. I had been preparing to translate this article to English due to my interest in List of wars of succession (where I've already placed the Interlanguage links). But upon closer inspection, both articles appear to me to be WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Many events in it may be supported by references, but the whole term "Galician–Volynian War of Unification" or "War of the Unification of the Galician–Volynian Principality" appears not to be supported by any source directly, certainly not in English. The periodisation also seems a bit random.
It seems to me to be a modern home-made framing of events by a Ukrainian (or Russian?) Wikipedian who kind of wanted to cast it as some sort of war of "independence" (from Poland, Hungary, and eventually the Golden Horde) as well as a war of "national" unification (of "Ruthenia" during the collapse of Kievan Rus'). Both notions are probably way too modern for the 13th century.
I think that if it is to mean anything, it was a war of succession because of the death of Roman. It still demands critical examination why we should date this war from 1205 to 1245. That periodisation seems too Daniel/Danylo-centric to me. The main claim being made here seems to be that he was the one who forged Halych and Volhynia from a mere personal union (which began under Roman in 1199) into a unified state (arguably topped off with a single title variously described as rex Ruthenorum, rex Russiæ etc. in 1254). Because it is quite closely connected to the question who Roman was (as a monarch) and how we should call him, perhaps this is an issue we need to work out first before renaming. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. Maybe it is a good idea to first to start a discussion about it but as I already mentioned, it is not something urgent. In regards to those articles, both seem to be mostly written by one editor in each project so it is possible there is OR involved. A lot of old and primary sources as well. Mellk (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk I'm glad you agree! :)
Meanwhile, I've been reorganising all Category:Kievan Rus' princesses today, and I noticed that of Galicia is actually the WP:COMMONNAME for the Romanovichi of Galicia/Halychyna/Halych and Volhynia/Volynia/Volyn (blimey!, so much variation...): List_of_rulers_of_Galicia_and_Volhynia#Romanovichi. Given this strong precedent, I guess Roman of Galicia is our most convention--following option. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Google Scholar I only get 27 results for "Roman of Galicia", 7 results for "Roman of Halych", 6 results for "Roman of Volhynia", 4 results for "Roman of Volyn", but 223 results for "Roman Mstislavich" and 68 results for "Roman Mstyslavych". I feel like if we have to use that format then yeah, "Roman of Galicia" would be our best bet, but I feel like "Roman Mstislavich" is the common name. WP:SOVEREIGN: If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it. Mellk (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn't expect that. To be honest, that is a strong COMMONNAME argument. But "Roman Mstislavich" would not look familiar to me at all. I've noticed that it's common on ukwiki, ruwiki and bewiki to name Rus' princes Foo Barivich, and such patronymics are still common in East Slavic languages today (as far as I know in Russia and Ukraine; don't know about Belarus). But I'm not used to it, and I honestly regularly get confused while navigating ruwiki and ukwiki. Foo Barivich could be followed by Bar Fooivich, Foo Fooivich or Foobar Barivich, but then that is a different "Bar" or "Foo"! ;) For English Wikipedia, it may still not pass WP:RECOGNISABILITY (frequently cited in the recent RMs on the Vasilys and Dmitry III). I don't know. I guess we better wait for the dust to settle on the other RMs. But gathering some options and agreeing on our best candidate before we go ahead could save us a lot of trouble. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses of national leaders

For info: after a big clean-up there are still quite a few "spouses of national leaders" categories left, namely Category:Lists of spouses of national leaders‎ and Category:Spouses of national leaders by country as well as its subcategories. Presumably they should be merged to their "politicians" parents? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle Not sure why you're asking me. This seems more of a question for closer @Fayenatic london. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts for Category:Spouses of national leaders by country subcategory proposals

Copypaste from CfR

We should diffuse as much as possible to Category:Spouses of presidents by country, and Category:Spouses of prime ministers by country. There is no a Category:Spouses of vice presidents yet (edit: now there is!) to put cats like Category:Second spouses of the United States. Anything that won't fit in these 3 categories should be upmerged to Category:Spouses of politicians (per Marcocapelle). The VPOTUS is not really a "prime minister", nor a "head of government" (the POTUS is both head of state and govt), so that won't work. Category:Wives of national leaders by country does include a few other "second ladies" categories, the U.S. is so far apparently unique in the "second spouses" business. I think I'm just gonna BOLDly create it to make this process easier. Created: Category:Spouses of vice presidents. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would become the main category for the main article Second lady (WP:ALTNAME second gentleman), but I can't really make Category:Second gentlemen of the United States a grandchild of Category:Second ladies. Per MOS:GNL and WP:C2C Category:Spouses of politicians, "spouses" is to be preferred. Category:First Ladies redirects to the now-deleted Category:Spouses of national leaders anyway. Category:Second spouses, Category:Second ladies or Category:Second Ladies don't exist. I suppose Category:Spouses of vice presidents is the most appropriate name, even if the main article says it can also be spouse of a lieutenant governor or other second-ranked government official. We can't create categories like Category:Spouses of other second-ranked government officials. :-) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly taken all second ladies out of Category:Wives of national leaders by country and put them into Category:Spouses of vice presidents to make this process easier. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle What should we do with the remainder of Category:Wives of national leaders by country? We could just delete it, and manually move the children to Category:Spouses of presidents by country, Category:Spouses of prime ministers by country, and Category:Consorts of monarchs respectively, while merging them to parents Category:Women by country and Category:Women in politics by nationality? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Category:Spouses of leaders of the United States could be deleted after we re-parent its two children to Category:Spouses of American politicians. FLOTUS is already in Category:Spouses of presidents by country, SSOTUS is already in Category:Spouses of vice presidents. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
End of copypaste

Page moves

Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw,

Some of your page moves involving articles about "rulers" are getting reverted so a discussion might be warranted here on the subject. I'm neutral on what the page title should be but I wanted to let you know that some of your moves had been challenged. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling women

Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw, and thank you for your contritbutions. You have removed several women from the category "Ancient women rulers". Some of these women were in fact rulers: not monarchs, but regents in place of for example an absent husband or a minor son. Regents are rulers just as monarchs are, just different types of rulers. You also removed Lady of the Lions: she was indeed a ruler, but she was a vassal to the Egyptian ruler and therefore used the customary diplomatic language as such, just as her male ruler-colleagues did: this did not mean she was not a ruler. Please read the articles more carefully before you remove the category from them. And please take care to remember that both monarchs and regents were rulers. Thank you again for your contributions, and have a nice day.--Aciram (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram Hello, thank you for your contributions as well. I think there may have been a misunderstanding. Category:Regents is not in the Category:Rulers tree, nor in its parent Category:Sovereignty. This is because, unlike "rulers", regents do not actually have sovereignty. Merriam-Webster states: regent: a person who governs a kingdom in the minority, absence, or disability of the sovereign. As I pointed out: They only govern the state on behalf of an underage monarch (or otherwise incapacitated monarch), who remains legally sovereign. A regent may be considered a "head of government" rather than head of state (which the child monarch is), although I haven't seen them commonly described or categorised as such. Several precedents at CfD have confirmed this in recent months. This is why in 22 April 2023 I removed Category:Women rulers as a parent of Category:Female regents, because the latter's parent Category:Regents is not in the Category:Rulers tree either. (Only now I see that you put it back the same day.) This seems to be the source of the misunderstanding. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am fully and completely aware of the difference between a regent and a monarch. A regent rules temporary on behalf of a monarch, that is not the issue. Please do not doubt I am aware of the difference. A "ruler" is simply a neutral expression for a person who rules, regardless for what reason, and regardless if they rule as regent, or rule as monarch. Both of them ruled. The regents should really by in the ruler-category. Both monarchs and regents ruled. This is a fact. That regents ruled on behalf of monarchs, and monarchs rules because they inherited the throne, does not change the fact that they both ruled, and the categories should reflect this fact, don't you think? It is also usefull to have a neutral mother-category to include both types of rulers.
Imagine this scenario: a reader wants to know: "Which women ruled during the 16th-century?" Well, women ruled both as regents and as monarchs in the 16th-century. The person will find all 16th-century women rulers in the "16th-century women rulers", regardless if they ruled as regents or if they ruled as monarchs. They both ruled. Of course, the "16th-century women rulers" could eventually have been divided in to "16th-century women monarchs" and "16th-century women regents", both included in to the "16th-century women rulers", but that had not been done yet. However, you appear to say, that Wikipedia has now decided, that we should pretend that regents did not rule. A regent governs and rules, otherwise he/she would not be a regent. The fact that a regent does not rule as monarchs, does not mean they do not rule.
This is not only obviously incorrect, but it also makes me deeply sad, as a contributor to Wikipedia since 15 years, and I might decide do leave Wikipedia. I have devoted my years here to women's history. It is very usefull to be able to find women rulers (regardless if they ruled as regents or as monarchs) sorted by century. If wikipedia now wishes to pretend that regents did not rule, then we will no longer have female rulers gathered by century any more. They female rulers will be split in monarchs and regents, of which regents are not sorted by century. Thus, the information will be harder to find for anyone interested in the subject, and the century category, emptied of all female rulers who ruled as regents instead of monarchs, will give an incorrect impression of how many women ruled under certain periods of time. A deeply destructive move of Wikipedia, to decided that regents did not rule. I can imagine it was perhaps influenced by the fact that England had few regents, which does not give a global view of the subject.
I consider this so destructive for the study and availability of women in history that I may decide to leave Wikipedia. It may no longer be a project I wish to participate in. If you wish, continue to remove all women rulers who ruled as regents from the century categories, so we can no longer find them, and no longer see how many women ruled during different centuries. I am sadder than I can express, after having worked with women's history for Wikipedia for so many years. To see this hapen is more destructive than I can put in words. --Aciram (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Aciram, thanks for your elaborate response. I am sorry to hear that you are saddened by my understanding that regents are not "rulers", which you appear to interpret as somehow undermining women's history. That is very much not what I am trying to accomplish (rather the opposite). I myself have also been contributing to Wikipedia for over 15 years, and although not from the start, have been actively writing about women's history for the past 5 years. In that regard, you and I actually have the same goal, I very much appreciate all the work you have been doing in these more than 15 years, and I appreciate it that you are warning me about possibly doing it wrong. I can make mistakes, of course, and I will gladly be corrected, especially about a topic which I consider to be important.
I do not in any way seek to erase "women rulers" from history by recategorising or renaming these biographies about female regents; it is just part of a wider process to better define what "rulers" even are, because it's a very ambiguous term that means lots of different things to lots of different people. At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_25#Category:Rulers I have given my rationale for making these categorisations more precise, and after some heavy initial opposition, most Wikipedians have come to agree with most of the points I have made, and we have initiated a process of making things clearer. In many cases this simply means that e.g. a "women ruler" is better categorised as a "queen regnant", "queen consort", "female regent" etc., depending on which is more accurate. Many of the women which were in Category:Ancient women rulers were simply WP:OVERCATegorised because they were already in subcategories such as Category:Ancient queens regnant or Category:Female pharaohs, both of which are "Ancient women rulers" by definition.
Although I don't think regents should be categorised as "rulers", I do agree that we need something like a neutral mother-category to include both types of rulers. I have already created that category, namely Category:Female political office-holders. This is the parent of Category:Female regents and grandparent of Category:Ancient women regents, and also the parent of Category:Female heads of state and grandparent of Category:Women monarchs (of which Category:Queens regnant is a child) and Category:Women presidents etc., and also the parent of Category:Female heads of government (of which Category:Women prime ministers is a child). To visualise:
This is the exact same model that I am proposing (and together with other Wikipedians and working towards) for "rulers" in general. (My core proposal is to Merge Category:Rulers into Category:Political office-holders by role). Eventually, if the process does proceed as intended and expected, men will no longer be categorised as "rulers" either. I don't have anything specific or particular against "women rulers", I have something against the ambiguity of the word "rulers" in general. I'm really sorry that you perceive this as a "destruction" of "women's history", because in the bigger picture, it's not about, let alone against, women. I didn't mean to make you feel that way at all, and I'm sorry that I have upset you, but I'm glad you have reached out to me with your concerns.
I do think I may have made a few mistakes yesterday in regard to the edits of mine which you have (perhaps correctly) reverted. We can talk about the specifics of those cases (Karimala, Shibtu, Lady of the Lions, Tawananna, and Pheretima (Cyrenaean queen)) if you're willing. Again, sorry that I have upset you, that certainly wasn't my intention, as I think we generally share the same goals when it comes to documenting women's history here on Wikipedia. My apologies. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you'd like to continue writing inside biographies that this or that woman "ruled as a regent for [child monarch] in [place] in [time]", that is completely fine with me. I'm not some language police trying to ban the noun "ruler" or the verb "to rule" from the main body of articles. My goal is simply clear and unambiguous categorisation for the benefit of editors and readers alike. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram Hi, I would appreciate a response to what I've written to you above. I've done my best to apologise and explain several things that you were probably rightly concerned about. I really hope we could solve these issues together, because I think we largely agree. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tsardom of Russia

Your statement that the Tradom of Russia does not equal the Russian Federation is a very good point. I have reviewd a few of the people who were in the 17th-century Russians categories and found some of them were in Russian Empire categories even though they died before the founding of the Russian Empire in 1723. I have to admit that I am also beginning to wonder since the Tsardom of Russia existed from 1549-1723 and the Russian Empire from 1723-1917 if it really makes sense to have by century categories at all, and if we should not end all the Russians by century categories, and just sort people based on the polity they were subjects of, since none of these polities have really been around long enough to justify splitting by century. It would have the added advantage of using category breaks that reflect something than the arbitrary end of a century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert Thanks! I agree that many of these "People by century" categories can be misleading or just unhelpful if they cross the boundaries of when a particular state or country was founded. E.g. I argued that Category:18th-century presidents of the United States should be upmerged per WP:SMALLCAT because it had only 2 items; though it was ultimately kept, one opponent acknowledged that The United States didn't begin on a convenient century boundary. I responded: I think several categories within Category:History of the Batavian Republic by period may also not pass the WP:SMALLCAT test, such as Category:1795 disestablishments in the Batavian Republic‎ > Category:1795 disestablishments in the Dutch Empire > Category:1795 disestablishments in Dutch India, which contains only 1 item. Three completely useless cats that I'm ready to throw out like yesterday's newspaper, even though the Batavian Republic was founded and abolished in really categorisation-inconvenient times. The result was that these categories were upmerged/deleted, as you can see.
Incidentally, I noticed that someone arbitrarily changed some dates in the infobox, I've reverted that. Tsardom of Russia is commonly dated to 1547–1721, Russian Empire is commonly dated to 1721–1917. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSN

Hi Nederlandse Leeuw. I thought I'd reply here rather than than at template discussion. I hope you weren't upset by our first encounter, it certainly wasn't my intention. I thought of contact you afterwards, but didn't follow it up. I did mean what I said at RSN at the time, you comments on my talk page did give me pause (which is why I took it to RSN). I hope you understand it was never personal. My talk page is always open if you need anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for leaving this message here, I appreciate it. I know you were genuinely open to it, that is why I tried to make my case. It just unexpectedly backfired. As I said, I was forced (rightly! because I was the one invoking them as RS) to critically examine a documentary series / production team which I had appreciated for years, but overestimated as a reliable source. I just shouldn't have mixed that source with Wikipedia before checking it more properly. There is no need to apologise, you and User:Horse Eye's Back said what you had to. I mostly blame myself for not having checked the reliability and credentials earlier. It's a pleasure working with you two now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Finless Foods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finless Foods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finless Foods 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 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 until the discussion has finished.

Edit.pdf (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Islamic World

Hi there. Just saw your April delete nomination where you made multiple references to myself. I would've appreciated a ping to chime in on the discussion, considering that I, as you are fully aware of, spent years creating and editing articles in question. From the looks of it, you're passionate about european history and are trying to shoe-horn every other history (medieval islamic history in this case) to fit-in with the european notions on religion and culture you're acquainted with. I suggest you start by doing a search count on google scholar and other academic databases for "medieval islamic world", "medieval islamic civilization", and just "medieval islam" to realize that it's not just a made up word that a single editor came up with. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Andalusi Hi, thanks for your message. I suppose I should explain, because some of your criticism is warranted. The first is that I've only recently begun using Twinkle, which automatically notifies the creator of a category, article, template etc. that it has been nominated for discussion. Before that I rarely notified anyone because it was a hassle finding out the original creators who may have left Wikipedia 15 years ago already, and then manually posting a message on their talk pages. But for more recent creators it is useful. You should have been given a notification when I nominated those cats, so I hereby apologise. I'm glad I discovered Twinkle to make this whole process so much easier.
Secondly, I am passionate and critical of all history everywhere around the world. If I see something wrong, I will try to correct it, regardless of geography. A lot of "European" categorisations don't make sense either, so I will nominate them for deletion, merging, renaming or splitting as well (see the Category:European chronicles CfD as a recent example, where I fiercely criticise the label "European" as irrelevant or arbitrary). More broadly speaking, I've been arguing (often successfully) to rename categories from European/Asian/African/etc. foos to Foos in Europe/Asia/Africa/etc. if "Europe" is just a location and nothing more. A lot of people seem to want to make more out of it than it is in inappropriate ways. I think you and I agree on that more than you might think.
Thirdly, I know "medieval Islamic world" is not a made-up word, but it should not be over-used for categorisation purposes in cases where it doesn't apply (just like "European", "Europe", "Asian", "Asia" etc.). As a matter of fact, I've studied history in college, and one of the courses I took was actually "Christianity, Judaism and Islam in the Middle Ages", amongst many other relevant course, so I'm actually quite familiar with the the topic. I don't have anything in particular against any religion or culture other than those I am acquainted with, as you suggest; just like with history, I am interested in but critical of all information about all topics, regardless of how familiar I am with them. Usually I am more critical of topics I know more about, actually, because I can see which errors or misleading statements are made about it. And the basic issue of categorisating "medieval Islamic world" as if it were a country is, well, because it wasn't a "country". It may have plenty of other valid applications, but not as a "country". (Obviously "Europe" is not a "country" either). I hope this clarifies things, and you'll understand where I'm coming from. Constructive criticism is always appreciated, because like everyone else I can make mistakes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. All good. I'm curious to know how you arrived at the understanding that a category with "medieval Islamic world" implies that it is a country? That was never the intention obviously and I don't think it suggests anywhere that this "world" be treated as a singular entity. Perhaps, the misunderstanding is coming from you? Because we have Category:Military history of the ancient Near East and no one says that this suggests the "ancient Near East" was a country. Think of medieval Islamic world as a medieval equivalent of the ancient Near East (very roughly). It's true that medieval Islamic world is not really a country AND was extremely diverse...but it also makes a lot of sense to group the entities, cultures, peoples for that time + geography under one umbrella. I chose "medieval Islam" in the beginning, for us to be in line with the academic literature. However, statements like "Jews of medieval Islam" (which is standard usage in the academic literature) sounded confusing to some of the editors, and eventually it was renamed to "medieval Islamic world". Happy to consider renaming the categories. But the idea that we remove it altogether so everything medieval and Islamic is diffused under a generic "medieval" category is a step backwards. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers of Belarus

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Hi! Why did you delete my edits at List of national leaders of Belarus? It had important information about the previous rulers in the land which is now Belarus. It was supposed to be something like List of leaders of Ukraine, which incompasses all the rulers from Kievan Rus to the present. What I know is that I had a too much great deal of work into simply have you delete it. If you don't agree with my edits please move them (at least) to other page Belarus-relate, like a page called Rulers of Belarus, for example. Just don't erase a great amount of work because you don't agree it doesn't fit there. I wasn't even notified about your dissatisfaction. Please be more careful in the future! Greetings,Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhmrodrigues I have responded at Talk:List of national leaders of Belarus#Before 1918. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nederlandse_Leeuw&oldid=1157873913"