User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Languages of Europe

Painting by Eero Järnefelt

Thanks for that; it was overdue. Imho, language/linguistic articles are some of the worst cited articles in the encyclopedia (well, on my watchlist, anyway). Not sure why that is, but I have some theories. Anyway it's a monumental, and pervasive problem. Sometimes, I tag (like you just did), and then I bide my time, and then come back and start slashing and burning, like for example in these 25 edits at Pseudo-anglicism. These edits stuck, because I had laid the groundwork, and stuck strictly to policy-based removals.

In order not to be seen as too exclusionist, I'll add a Talk page paragraph describing the problem, linking or quoting WP:V on either my initial tagging run, or on a second visit after no improvement. Later on, sometimes I reply to myself (because nobody ever responds) with a formal WP:CHALLENGE. And *then* after another decent pause, I come back and slash and burn. I don't feel like it's my problem to rebuild what others failed to, but sometimes I'll balance the s&b with some well-cited, elementary additions, trying to model good practice. And show some plus-signs in the revision history, along with all the minus signs. I usually have to head back there from time to time, because the uncited stuff seems to grow like kudzu; but since the Talk page stuff preceded the newer edits, I can s&b immediately, and don't have to wait.

So stick to your guns, be patient but implacable, and if you need to slash and burn after setting the stage, then go for it. Mathglot (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I do know why language articles tend to be some worst poorly sourced articles on Wikipedia, namely, language is our primary means of communication. It's what we need to even be able to write in the first place. Consequently, everyone knows at least a bit about it (or rather, they think they do), and like adding it here and there when passing along. I've got a hunch that the vast majority of these edits are done by IP addresses or inexperienced users.

It's the same reason why there are so many language and dialect versions of Wikipedia, where the smallest language/dialect communities have the fewest and least-sourced articles, most of which are about language, because that Wikipedia version's raison d'être is the significance of that particular language/dialect's existence.

Especially people who tie a great deal of their sense of identity to their native language, dialect or language family, tend to be the ones writing or editing articles about them (I myself used to be such a person), without necessarily being experts about the topic. They just use their language every day, and so believe they know what they're (literally) talking about, but are not really familiar with linguistics, and don't refer to scholarly sources. Unfortunately, we're Wikipedia, here you should always refer to RS, even if you believe you know a thing or two about the language you've spoken your entire life. So yes, I've become accustomed to tagging poorly sourced articles (often accumulations of amateurs passing by and adding bits amd pieces they think they know about something they're interested in), and after some time if nobody has fixed it, I do slash and burn, at least the most egregious parts. Other times someone has taken care to provide sources, or I've looked up some stuff myself, which is usually a better but more time-consuming solution.

Incidentally, I've just nominated West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs for deletion because they seem to have no added value as separate articles from West Slavic languages, East Slavic languages and South Slavic languages (and the Yugoslavs article). I've already AfD'd several other Slavic-themed articles that were usually based on connecting people speaking a Slavic language with an arbitrary other trait such as religion or geography, and then implying that all people who share both traits constitute an ethnic group. Such articles are then filled with OR, SYNTH, unsourced, generalised, oversimplified statements, and the most dubious claims and calculations are made about the total number of people who "belong" to this or that supposed ethnic group. I've cleaned up a lot of nonsense that way, but Slavic languages-related articles are not the only ones with this pattern of poor sourcing and dubious claims. I found similar issues in articles about Germanic-speaking world and Celtic nations, and then I ended up at Languages of Europe. There is so much unsourced stuff. We're in 2022, but these pages often look like they were written in Wikipedia's early days when we didn't much care about verification. (Indeed, I'm not so much an "exclusionist" as I am a "verificationist"). As a community we've got a duty to bring them up to standard. Thanks again for your message, I appreciate it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk)

Hugo Krabbe

Hello Nederlandse Leeuw, we just met at Talk:Izium mass graves, where you agreed with my point that "Massacre" is not (or not yet) a WP:COMMONNAME. However, I'm writing to you for an entirely different matter. I've read on your user page that you are Dutch and collaborate with nl.wiki. A few months ago I published an article on a Dutch jurist, Hugo Krabbe. As you can see, I spent a lot of time working on it and I also nominated it for WP:GA. Unfortunately it's been some time now and I couldn't find a reviewer yet, possibly because few editors speak Dutch (I myself don't). So if you'd like to help me with that, either as a reviewer (you'll find it here Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Law) or just having a quick check on the article, I'd most grateful, but if you're too busy or simply not interested, that's not at all a problem: really, don't worry, and thank you anyway. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Gitz, that is quite an interesting article. To be honest, I have never done a GA review, and I have never heard of this person, but as a Dutch historian with quite some experience with writing about international law, I might be able to help you. I'll think about it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
More than anything, if you could correct, improve and expand the article, that would be amazing. I'm a legal philosopher with some interests for legal history, but have no particular knowledge about Dutch legal culture and no access to some of the relevant sources, such as Zoethout, Carla M. (2004). "H. Krabbe (1857-1936)". In Jansen, C.J.H.; Smits, J.M.; Winkel, L.C. (eds.). 16 juristen en hun filosofische inspiratie. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri. pp. 17–27. ISBN 9789069165127. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hah, well, I do. I'll take a look, but no promises. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Cat

Thanks for adding the cat on SafeSport. I don't think I myself can do this, but don't you think it might make sense for someone to create a SafeSport cat? That could be used to tie in articles on wp that relate to SafeSport? Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:5:3841:8566:845E (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. It depends which articles you would like to put into this category. If I search for 'SafeSport and' on English Wikipedia, I mostly find articles of people (suspects/perpetrators and complainants/victims), but do they belong in a category about this organisation? I don't think so. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that's interesting. I think it pops up with those, certainly, as well as (at least it should) certain organizations (think - the women's soccer scandal this month), and certain Olympic gymnastics people/organizations, and some senators and other politicians, and the law leading to its creation. I would also think including such people would be consistent with our approach in other cats, such as Category:People accused of witchcraft. What's your thinking? --2603:7000:2143:8500:48BA:1048:F3AB:14EC (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vetus Latina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Codex Ottobonianus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Broken ref

Hello. Nice job at Vetus Latina manuscripts. However, I have noticed a mistake. On this article, the ref "Brooke, McLean & Thackeray 1911, p. v." refers to nothing. Veverve (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thanks for pointing it out, I don't know how it happened but I must have made a mistake. I changed one ref and deleted the other two; there's no ref for the contents of the Munich Palimpsest stretching from Exodus to Deuteronomy for now, but we'll probably find it. I thought it was in Fischer page 11 (perhaps that's why I changed the publication date to '1911'), but I couldn't find it there. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I found it, it was Brooke, McLean & Thackeray 1911 but I had forgotten to quote the entire source below, so the ref didn't work. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Liberation of Kherson

Write a new section on the talk page if you want to revert my changes. Be sure to put forward reasoned arguments. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your "challenge" on the Talk-page of Trial of Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius and Hogerbeets

You introduced a number of very interesting criticisms and questions in the section "Improvements needed" on the talk-page of the article Trial of Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius and Hogerbeets, dated 30 July 2022. Unfortunately, I have more or less "retired" as a contributor to Wikipedia, and have consequently not visited my own talk-page much, let alone the talk-pages of the articles to which I contributed. I only visited the talk-page of the fore-mentioned article today, coincidentally after I had skimmed your excellent article on the Historiography of the Eighty Years' War. So I could not react earlier. I certainly intend to reply seriously to the points you made (some of which I readily concede may be correct) on the talk-page of the article. But at the moment I lack the time, so please be patient for a bit longer. Meanwhile, you are of course free to edit the article as you see fit. All improvements are welcome. In that respect: I noticed that three assessors kindly conferred a "B-class" rating. Maybe we could ask their advice about in what respect the article could be improved. What do you think?--Ereunetes (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ereunetes, thanks for these kind remarks. Your great work on Dutch early modern history has been invaluable, and it is indeed unfortunate if you have more or less "retired", as Wikipedia could use elaborate contributions such as yours very well. I left a ping on the talk page to increase the likelihood that you'd see it, but I didn't know you had sort of "retired" (there is no message to that effect on your user or talk pages, might that be a good idea?). I've got great respect for those who decide to (semi-)retire from Wikipedia after doing it a great service. I'm glad you nevertheless left me this nice response to what amounts to quite some criticisms of the article in question, and even gladder you are welcoming them as constructive and "interesting", that you may readily concede some of my points, and that "all improvements are welcome" in the meantime. There is no need to worry about my patience, you can take your time in answering the points I've made. :) Asking the assessors what points of improvement they found, in addition to asking help at the WikiProject Law for expertise in the relevant legal fields, seems like a good idea. They may have seen or be able to see potential places of improvement that you and I have so far missed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I see you "pinged" me, but the ping did not reach me. In any case, I have made a number of edits in the article as per your suggestions and replied to your remarks on the talk-page between your lines. Feel free to make further edits as you see fit. Thanks. --Ereunetes (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Nederlandse Leeuw!

Happy New Year!

Nederlandse Leeuw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

How about the acknowledgment of the contributions of previous editors in the revision-history of the articles you recently merged?

I noticed only now that you have been quite busy restructuring what once was the article Eighty Years' War, which I started off back in 2009. I did not know what was going on, but even if I had known, I probably would not have intervened, because I am heartily sick of the whole matter. Anyway, I have no wish to start off the whole discussion again. So I have decided to acquiesce to what has been done. However, it is a whole other matter that in all the splitting and merging that has been going on, the previous edit-history appears to have been lost! It was always good practice to acknowledge the unpaid labor of Wikipedia contributors by preserving the revision-history on the "View history" page. That is the responsibility of the editor who takes on the merging/splitting task. You appear to be that person. So I would respectfully urge you to take the appropriate steps to restore the revision-history pages that appear to have been lost.(the page Help:Page history may be useful; see "moved and deleted pages") I have put an edit to that effect on Talk:Eighty Years' War, 1621–1648.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Ereunetes, I see that Elizium23 has already mostly answered your question on the talk page. Theoretically you are correct that the Template:Split article could be added for a more easily findable overview of page histories, but it would be a great effort in order to solve an issue that I have already solved in a different way. As Elizium23 said, WP:Copying within Wikipedia applies. It is important to note that the first revision of this new article includes a hyperlink to the original Eighty Years' War, and that explanation seems enough (to me) to count for the attribution which is required when copying. Each of these includes a link to Talk:Eighty Years' War#Merger_proposal for proposal, explanation, discussion, agreement, overview, and result of the entire process. I've taken the same approach with each of the mergers/splits in every single edit summary, stating where the merged material came from, or where the split material went to. E.g. Eighty Years' War Revision as of 21:51, 10 July 2022, where I stated Split off into a new separate article also containing material from Dutch Revolt, Eighty Years' War (1566–1609), and new material. I have always indicated which parts of which pages that have now become redirects (and whose edit-histories have all been preserved) have been used in the new articles; in fact, I copypasted that material to the new pages before merging all the content, removing duplicates and unsourced material, adding new sourced material that was missing etc. The entire process is open and can be reviewed by everyone in every step of the way. It's still possible to see how these articles have been created and have evolved over the course of 2 decades, as well as how I split or merged them. In fact, you can still find the data of who wrote what. For example, at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Eighty%20Years%27%20War, it is clear that you are the main contributor to the main article:
  • You are no. #1 by added text: Ereunetes · 364,140 (86.4%). I just got 5,916 (1.4%)
  • You are no. #1 by edits: Ereunetes · 128 (40.9%)). I just got 45 (14.4%)
At the now-redirected article Eighty Years' War (1566–1609), it can still be seen that you were the second contributor:
  • You are no. #2 by added text: Ereunetes · 13,046 (15.1%)
  • You are no. #2 by edits: Ereunetes · 24 (22.2%)
And so on and so forth. So there is no need to worry. No edit-history has been lost, no pages have been deleted. It is all still there for everyone to see that, for the rearrangement of all Eighty Years' War contents, I have stood on the shoulders of giants such as you. :) Incidentally, happy New Year! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Best wishes for 2023 also. Thanks for the explanation. As I explained on Talk:Eighty Years' War, 1621–1648 where I replied to Elizium 23 (who reacted within half an hour to my initial edit on that page, remarkably quick; was he keeping a little eye in the sail for you on all relevant talkpages? by the way, indulge me in my apparent habit of what are properly called "batavisms") I had extraordinarily much difficulty following the path I was supposed to follow. I therefore left a request on that talkpage (which you possibly have not read yet) to put a box/template at the top of that talkpage, like the box at the top of Talk:Eighty Years' War. It seems a simple solution. I haven't done so myself, as I explain in said edit, that I am unfamiliar with the syntax of that template, and I don't want to break anything.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw. Thank you for your work on Miss Monique. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi, can you please explain why you are using names inconsistent with the article titles and the rest of the article? In this edit, you pipe the link to Oleg of Novgorod with "Oleh the Wise", use "Volodymyr" instead of "Vladimir", use "Olha of Kyiv" when the article is Olga of Kiev, and in this edit you write "Kyivan Rus'" within the article Kievan Rus' (!). This does not follow the guidelines, now it's created inconsistencies within the article and makes it hard to read. You are also aware of WP:KYIV? Mellk (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mellk. Yes, I am aware of WP:KYIV. In the case of that article's subject, the opening sentence makes clear that the spellings Kievan Rus' and Kyivan Rus' are both used in historical contexts in reliable sources. I tend not to change existing spelling in texts written by others (in places where I might have done that, you can restore it to the original spelling per do not change existing content); I only apply modern spelling in texts that I add myself. In some cases these are quotes from the sources that I cite, such as Katchanovski et al. 2013, which use modern spelling for historical subjects; e.g. 'no adequate system of succession to the Kyivan throne was developed' is a direct quote. I do not change spelling in existing content (unless the entire sentence is malformed/incorrect and unsourced, and I have to reformulate it based on a reliable source, then I might change it based on the spelling used in the reliable source). You'll notice I didn't remove "Vladimir", I just added "Volodymyr" in certain places when I added Katchanovski et al. 2013 as a source. In other cases I have added "Kievan" for practical reasons, such as a Main article template link from the redirect Mongol invasion of Rus' to Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus', because that is the current article title. Although this is somewhat inconsistent, it is an allowable variety and diversity in article content when there is no clear universal standard (e.g. per WP:STRONGNAT Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian spelling could each lay claim to primacy), except that spelling of existing text should generally not be changed. If anything, I think this helps the reader understand that there is this linguistic, historic and cultural diversity that has in some sense always existed (e.g. not only between Old Norse, Old East Slavic, Finnic, Khazar, Greek etc., but also within the Slavic dialectal continuum). As an example (which may well sum up the reasoning behind my recent edits), I saw the unsourced sentence Russian historians consider Kievan Rus' the first period of Russian history. This is true, but it goes for all three countries. So with a reference to Katchanovski et al. 2013, I changed it to Modern historians from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alike consider Kievan Rus' the first period of their modern countries' histories. In this case I left the historical spelling, because it was a well-formed and accurate sentence that just needed some additional information to make it even more accurate. In an article like this, Russian historiographical, linguistic or cultural perspectives are relevant, but it would be wrong to only take them into account, let alone posit them as the only standard, when there are also Ukrainian and Belarusian historiographical, linguistic and cultural perspectives to consider that we can also find in reliable sources. I hope you understand. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Of course quotes should not be altered, though probably it should be attributed. Though in this case I do not see why a quote is necessary.
WP:PLACE for example states that: The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historical English name for a specific historical context. So it does not make sense to have "Kievan Rus'" (as in the title) used throughout the article while a few random sentences use "Kyivan Rus'" instead. The alternative name can be mentioned in the lead and explained in a name/etymology section but that is about it here. I don't see an issue with the content you added, it is just that the inconsistencies in the names that is an issue.
MOS:STRONGNAT refers to national varieties of English e.g. London should use British English not American English.
Same thing with names of persons. It does not make sense to use one name throughout the article while a few sentences use something else which will only confuse a reader especially if there is no explanation. In any case, the common name in English should be used ("Olga" rather than "Olha" etc). So please change this. Mellk (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
In the case of the succession system, that is a complicated issue on which scholars disagree (I've mentioned it a few times in war of succession). Some say the state had no succession system at all, and attempts to find some sort of pattern of succession in the maelstrom that was early Rurikid politics have failed (I think Snyder is one of these scholars). Other scholars say that it applied agnatic seniority (as argued by Kokkonen & Sundell 2014), or a version of it, the so-called rota system, and that it worked pretty well at first, but fell apart later when various princes were not content with what they received (Janet Martin has argued this position). Katchanovski et al. 2013 stating that it was 'no adequate system of succession' is, I think, a good summary of the points which all or most scholars could reasonably agree: if there was any system at all, it was not adequately developed, and therefore the state gradually fell apart upon Yaroslav's death. I intend to expand upon the system a bit more later on, but I just wanted to improve that sentence up front and move on to other things first.
Well, there is a widely accepted historical English name for a specific historical context, so I don't see an objection to using it, especially not if the source material I'm working with is also using it.
You're right that MOS:STRONGNAT only refers to national varities of English (I hadn't seen that: I thought it also applied to topics with strong national ties in other languages, but apparently not). There don't seem to be distinct patterns of spelling it as either Kyivan or Kievan Rus' that can be associated with any of the national varieties. In the case of Katchanovski et al. 2013, it was published in Toronto by historians who apparently seem to have Ukrainian roots; not surprising given the large diaspora in Canada (much larger than the Russian diaspora), but that's very weak evidence to argue Kyivan should be considered a 'Canadian English variety'. The choice for one spelling or another in English seems to be made on a personal rather than 'national' level, especially if the author doesn't have East Slavic roots; but that both are widely used in English-language RS has been established.
Hmmm I rather doubt there is much risk of confusion in cases like Olha/Olga or Igor/Ihor, especially because they are wikilinked. The links provide the explanation. In the case of Vladimir, I added /Volodymyr in some places because that is indeed quite a significant difference, and the average reader might not see the similarities unless they are explained, hence the juxtaposition. Here, too, 'Vladimir' was already linked to Vladimir the Great, I just added '/Volodymyr' into the link. If anything, I've enlarged people's understanding of the existing diversity without removing the spelling already in place. To me, it is similar to the other additions I have done, such as writing "Halych (Galicia)" and "Volhynia (Volodymyr)", as both names for these principalities are commonly known in English literature, and the difference between them in this case is not Russian versus Ukrainian, but rather a Ukrainian endonym versus an English exonym and vice versa.
To make a more general point: I see that apparently there have been some discussions on the talk page of switching the entire article over to one spelling or another. I am not in favour of such a radical decision at all. Articles like this should grow and evolve organically, and varieties in spelling that may arise could simply be part of that process depending on the historiographic literature that is available to support it. Eliminating either one spelling wouldn't do justice to the diversity in good sources. E.g. Magocsi 2010 is another good source I have used, and he uses 'Kiev' and 'Kievan', which is fine; if I quote him, I'll follow his spelling. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
"Kyivan Rus'" is not a widely accepted historical English name for a specific historical context. What is the historical context for this random use of "Kyivan Rus'" and not "Kievan Rus'"? This means using Stalingrad in WWII topics etc while in later Soviet topics it should be referred to as Volgograd, for example. If the article title is "Kievan Rus'", then this should be consistently used throughout the article, it is very clear about it. Why do you think when you edited the article it consistently used "Kievan Rus'"? You are interpreting this guideline incorrectly. Mellk (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
It is. It says so in the first sentence of the article, and in the Name section. There was a discussion about this on the talk page some months ago, which concluded that Kyivan Rus' was widely accepted in English-language literature as an alternative. That doesn't mean we should go and change every mention of Kievan to Kyivan in the existing text (because of the do not change existing content rule), just that it could be used as an alternative. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
It is an WP:ALTNAME, yes, but the guideline WP:PLACE says to use same name as the title throughout the article. Mellk (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:ALTNAME says alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. I think that is the case when citing a source that uses the alternative name. We must follow the sources. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
In full it says: Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called "Gdańsk" can be referred to as "Danzig" in suitable historical contexts. So how can it be more appropriate? Mellk (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
When the source says so. If the source says Kyivan Rus', but one writes Kievan Rus' in a direct quote, that would be WP:SYNTH/WP:FAIL. Otherwise it would be acceptable to follow the title, but more appropriate to follow the source. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes but you did not write it in direct quotes. Also it would not fail verification to use a different spelling (the common name, hence the title). What about non-English sources? If I use a source that writes "Kievan Russia" instead,[1] would you would find that acceptable to use instead of "Kievan Rus'"? Mellk (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I did in cases like the succession system quote. If I had written 'no adequate system of succession to the Kievan throne was developed' it would WP:FAIL (also MOS:QUOTE). Non-English reliable sources cannot determine English spelling, they can only be used for supporting the factual accuracy of statements. Yes, I would find it acceptable to use "Kievan Rus'", unless it was a direct quote, in which case it should be "Kievan Russia" (although I should add that the works of Vernadsky are often outdated). But unlike "Kyivan Rus'", "Kievan Russia" is currently not recognised as an WP:ALTNAME in the opening sentence, so if you'd like to use it as more appropriate in indirect quotes, you should propose that on the talk page in the same way as "Kyivan Rus'" was proposed (and accepted) as an altname. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk)

Battle of Vicus Helena

Care to explain why? Can you prove that symbol was ever used as a flag? FranzXYZ (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Chi Rho: After Constantine, the Chi-Rho became part of the official imperial insignia. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence demonstrating that the Chi-Rho was emblazoned on the helmets of some Late Roman soldiers. Coins and medallions minted during Emperor Constantine's reign also bore the Chi-Rho. See also Labarum. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The text you quoted does not say that the chi-rho was ever used as an emblem of the Roman state or the Roman army, does it? FranzXYZ (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Whatever. Go and remove it if you don't like it. I don't care. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CICAP.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CICAP.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Old East Slavic stuff

(This is a note to self, I don't know where else to put it. I kinda want to keep track of the articles I've been editing recently to a greater or lesser degree, and make navigation between these somewhat related articles easier.)

Old East Slavic literature and history

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Article

Hi NL, I really appreciated the comment you made to a not-very-well-thought-out category proposal since deleted (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Category:Strong women (influencers)). In your clear summary, you mentioned writing about the topic - what would such an article(s) look like? Because it would be offering opinion about an identity group and opinion is inadmissable in Wikipedia. Geneus01 (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Geneus01: you're welcome. I could see that you meant well with the category, so my initial joke was also intended to help you think about why certain category names probably wouldn't work, and I'm glad you found it funny and then that you explained what you were trying to accomplish with it. It appears that we've got some similar interests in writing about women who are agents of change, disrupt our ways of saying and doing things. What I think you're still looking for is a topic or 'domain' of knowledge or behaviour in which certain women are doing that. I myself have written a lot about how certain women have challenged or changed ways of thinking/doing about religion, the environment, or sexuality. Given your background in geology and interest in humanism, the first and second topic might be something for you. To name one example, I translated Hanni Rützler to English. She was the first nutritutional scientist in the world to taste a cultured meat hamburger in 2013, which has really influenced public opinion about this emergent technology that has great potential for mitigating climate change (another topic you're interested in). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Echte leeuwin! Geneus01 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Heh. Well if you're looking for more inspiration, you could always ask me. There are many ways to write about someone or something. Adding a sentence with a reliable source to an existing article is the easiest way to make a contribution to Wikipedia. If you're reading a news article about, say, a female climatologist or environmentalist who has said or done something important, like invent a more sustainable solution to some practical problem, that doesn't mean you immediately need to write their whole biography. A sentence about what she has invented plus a reference to that news article on the Wikipedia page about that practical problem might suffice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)
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)

!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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@Smpad If you put "{{PD-old}}" after "Permission=" you should be fine. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
I already added it: "{{creator:Matrakçı Nasuh}}" Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thank you very much. Sincerely. Smpad (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)
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.[2] 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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

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)

@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)

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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

Thank you for notifying me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nederlandse_Leeuw/Archive_2&oldid=1169964846"