This category is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
I noticed User:Aciram remove Amastris (daughter of Oxyathres) from this category, and that Aciram has left a note saying that any ancient woman ruler who can be dated to a specific century should be removed from this category. So I'm left wondering: how does this category differ from "Category:Ancient women rulers" and why do we have it at all? Furius (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amastris (daughter of Oxyathres) was a ruler, yes, but she did not have the title of queen. She ruled Heraclea Pontica as 'Tyrant', not as 'queen regnant'. Not all female rulers have the title of queen, just as not all male rulers had the title of king. Some rulers are emperors, tyrants (the title), chiefs, dukes, etc. To be a queen regnant is to be a ruler (a monarch) AND have the title of queen. That is the difference.
I will adjust the text: this category is, by its name, a very limited category. It can only be used by women who were both monarchs, as well as having the title of queen. That is what queen regnant is.
The ruler-category is different: it can be used by rulers regardless of which title they had (empress, queen, chiefess, etc) or in which capacity they ruled (queen regnant, queen regent, monarch, regent, etc). So, there are a lot of differences.
There are a lot of confusion about these categories. For example: some users categorize queen consorts as "monarchs" despite the fact that they were not monarchs, just married to monarchs (though of course both monarchs and their spouses are royalty).
All this confusion could be avoided if we just look up the terms here on wikipedia, because most of them have their own articles. --Aciram (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the coin issued by her and depicted on her page literally has "Queen Amastris" (ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ ΑΜΑΣΤΡΙΟΣ) written on it... Given the translation issues involved in deciding whether a given ancient title counts as "queen," I'm still a bit uncertain whether it is worth having this category. Furius (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if thats the case and its referenced in the article, then why not just put her back in the category then? I read through the article but must have missed that. I agree that this category isn't very usefull because its limited to only one sort of ruler with only one title. We should be very careful not to equalize titles too much, different cultures must be respected - and its not necessary anyway, since rulers with all sorts of titles can fit in the ruler-category. This category is focused on one specific title and most adjust to that or be deleted. I won't protest if the category is deleted. --Aciram (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an Ancient female ruler ruled as a monarch, but did not have the title of queen, where should she be placed? A category with the title "Category Ancient women monarchs" would solve that. As of now, female monarchs can only be placed in this category if they had the title queen as well as being a monarch. Because of this reason, this category is less useful than if it had the more neutral "Women monarchs/Female monarchs", where all female monarchs, regardless if they had the title queen or not, could be placed.--Aciram (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific example in mind? Furius (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
