User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Arab people

Hi, please excuse me using rollback to revert your removals of some people categories from Arab people.[1] There was no consensus for those removals in the recent CFDs to delete or rename. The removals at the top level left inconsistencies, as you had not removed the occupational subcats. To do so would be a substantial exercise, and I suggest that a CFD discussion on the structure should be held before any further removals of the national hierarchies from Arab people. – Fayenatic London 03:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london Oh. Sorry. I had been under the impression that the Arabs and Arab people CfR had resulted in a consensus to purge the nationality-based categories from the ethnicity-based tree.

How do I start a discussion on something which is not a deletion, renaming, merger or splitting? There's nothing to tag, is there? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:CFD#HOWTO has a format for sundry nominations ("other options"). I suggest waiting until Category:Arabs by occupation has been renamed, and then tagging a selecfion of parent and child categories e.g. Category:Iraqi artists to draw attention to the discussion. – Fayenatic London 01:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case workshop

Not sure if you've seen Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop § Where to put principles. You can also see the "Purpose of the workshop" section on the workshop page. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaacl Oh, I hadn't! Apparently I missed the ping somehow, thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Archaeological cultures by ethnic group

Damn I'm too late for this one: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_2#Category:Archaeological_cultures_by_ethnic_group. Fair enough, @Krakkos pinged me fully aware that I reject the very premises on which these categories are built. But then, I have been terribly busy and almost have forgotten about it.

Everything is flawed (I guess I don't have to tell you): the term "ethnic group" when it's about hypothesized linguistic affiliation and the non-defining character of these categories for most articles. Only a very few archaeological cultural complexes allow for a solid linguistic idenficiation of their carriers based on epigraphical material; otherwise, it is mere speculation with a range of confidence from highly likely (like the Austronesian affiliation of the Lapita culture: far from the playground of Krakkos 😂) to tenuous - often triggered more by ideology than by actual evidence, cf. the Central Asian battleground for "ownership" over ancient non-literate civilizations. Kossinna's smile must be directed at WP now.

Any chance to resubmit to give a lower mid-tier historical linguist a chance for a rant? ;) Austronesier (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier Hi! Always nice to see you in action. :) I agree with pretty much everything you say. As I said to Marcocapelle, I thought it would be a better idea to go for 1 test case first, because people tend to get emotional about things they associate with their own ethnolinguistic identity, even if they might be mistaken (scholarly speaking). But Marco persuaded me to have the courage to bundle it all anyway, so I did, and that led to a bit of opposition and the failure of the bundle.

If you are asking me to reopen that bundled nomination, I think that's probably not a good idea. I have just re-nominated 4 of the subcategories individually because I believe them to be easier to agree on than the rest, let alone all of them combined. Just search for "Turkic", "Baltic", "Italic", and "Germanic" in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 10. I will admit that something like the Jastorf culture culture arguably be called "Germanic", but it would be one of very few, and one will need to concede numerous influences from Hallstat / La Tène etc. So it will always remain somewhat arguable, arbitrary and subjective. Just not a good idea to be categorising around. Anyway, hope to see you rant over there what you think. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh that's lovely to hear :) You might not have noticed that I had somehow depleted the Finno-Ugric and Turkic categories (check my edits on 1 Aug) in preparation for my (planned) comment in the now closed first round of discussions (to the point that the Turkic category is down to one article). The funny thing is, I certainly find "linguistic archeology" interesting as an exercise in weighing plausibilites; the very creation of my article Netted Ware culture was mainly triggered by my readings of papers by Asko Parpola who is very much into identifying archaeological cultures with proto-languages. But it never crossed my mind that Category:Finno-Ugric archaeological cultures even could and should exist. –Austronesier (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier Hah, that's interesting! To be honest, I have previously also been very interested in this... exercise of linking archaeological "cultures" with language families. When I first wrote nl:Geschiedenis van Oekraïne, the article on the history of Ukraine on Dutch Wikipedia, back in November 2008 (long before the whole world was interested; in fact, it was the only country in Europe which didn't have a "history of" article on Dutch Wikipedia yet, so I decided to write it), I also tried to do this. I wrote (translated):

The history of Ukraine began in the Neolithic period. The only indications from this time are archaeological finds. The first inhabitants of Ukraine lived mainly on the coast of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, especially in Crimea, and on the banks of major rivers. Excavations have proven the existence of Trypillia culture between 4500 BCE and 3000 BCE. The most important finds were made in Trypillia, and Cucuteni (Romania). The origin of these first inhabitants is unknown; it is possible that they had an Indo-European background.

Did I have evidence of that? Did I cite that evidence? No. I just read it somewhere and just wrote it down, so that at least I had a plausible link between the earliest times and something we still recognise today, namely, a language family which just so happens to include my own native language (how nice and convenient). It wasn't until years later when I discovered just how flawed such an approach to prehistoric archaeology is. In my defence, I wrote the early version of this article just a few months after I created my Wikipedia account, and 1 year before I would go on to study history in college, and learnt to be a lot more critical in finding and using reliable sources, and summarising them properly. Instead of.... well, letting my reading, thinking and writing be guided too much by confirmation bias.

Anyway, look forward to your contributions to the discussions! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:Indo-European archaeological sites this is a discussion you will probably want to participate in. It is closely related to the subject. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey

In case you'd be inclined to provide explicit support for my latest proposed principle: I don't expect it will have any weight because you are also an involved party. So you might as well spend your time differently. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Categories on Turkic men and women by century

Hi Nederlandse Leeuw, I appreciate the effort you are putting into Wikipedia. I have noticed that you have nominated some of the “people by nationality” categories. My concern with one of your nominations is that you’ve described “Turkic” as only a language family, but on the other hand, we have the article Turkic peoples, and I am pretty sure there are many articles for people which have sources mentioning them being “Turkic” independent from what language they spoke. But again Turkic is a very broad categorization, and the language family is nevertheless the most tangible aspect connecting these people. I don’t know about your plans on the remaining nationality/ethnicity-based categories, but in order to make up for the deletion of the aforementioned categories, I could create categories for Turkoman men and women and any other designation that is more specific than just “Turkic” and is used frequently by sources. What do you think? Aintabli (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Aintabli, thanks for your question! My categorisation efforts around "Turkic" people are not new, they follow a long series of decisions, dating back to 2006, that language families are Wp:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, and individual people. Many other language family-based categories, articles, lists and templates have recently also been deleted, merged, or renamed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries.

I would not be opposed in theory to a category about Turkoman people, but I would like to advise you to think carefully.

What is your goal?

1. Would you like to create a category about a group of people who shared the same legal nationality, because they were subjects/citizens of the same state? Y Ok, then it belongs in the Category:People by nationality tree.
2. Would you like to create a category about people who spoke 1 language? Y Ok, then it belongs in the Category:People by ethnicity tree. (I think this is what you're looking for).
3. Would you like to create a category about people who spoke a group of related languages? N Please don't. That is what has caused problems in the past, and will probably lead to the category being deleted.

I think what you're talking about is option no. #2, right? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. “Turkoman” is not directly a linguistic category according to its article, but it would most likely fall under the “people by ethnicity” tree. Aintabli (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli is it really necessary though? There is already a Category:Oghuz Turks. Is that not exactly what you are talking about? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm… Yes, it would be under that category. I would be simply distributing some of these articles to appropriate centuries and other subcategories. Aintabli (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay good luck! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you destroying all the trees?

What's your purpose exactly? Belarusian culture isn't the same as culture of Belarus, hence there can be plenty of Belarusian writers outside of Belarus. What is your goal really? Marcelus (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Hi, this is a follow-up to a previously reached consensus, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Fooian culture to Culture of Fooland. I mentioned this in my rationale. Good evening, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer me my question, what's your goal? Marcelus (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus My goal is to bring the category names in line with the main article names. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't you think you should be naming categories according to their content? If you are renaming said category to the Culture of Belarus but it still contatin Belarusian culture outside of Belarus what are your next steps? You just don't care about it? Don't you think that every case is different, and not every culture in the world can be described and categorised in the same way? What is your actual relation with @Marcocapelle? Why you are always voting the same way? Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus The new names are compatible with their contents. Culture of Belarus can also be experienced outside of Belarus, of course; it's just that it finds its origins in Belarus.

Marcocapelle is just someone I met a few months ago here on English Wikipedia. We live in the same country and have similar ideas, but have never met in real life. We also frequently disagree, see for example Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 9#Medieval Low Countries. We don't always vote the same way. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

But Culture of Belarus and Belarusian culture isn't the same. That's the whole point. Marcelus (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Alright, let's move to a full CfR discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 21#Fooian culture to Culture of Fooland part 2. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Why August 2? Marcelus (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops! I meant 21, thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

hypothetical discussion

Regarding this comment on a hypothetical situation and your subsequent response: I'm responding here because it's not clear to me that discussion of a hypothetical situation is relevant to the arbitration case in question. I don't think a clearcut algorithm can be defined that covers all scenarios. It's sort of like if you were having a discussion with a group of people and your best friend nudged you and quietly said, hey, try to make sure other people get to weigh in. There's no hard-and-fast rule that you should only respond to being asked direct questions, or that every single direct question regardless of context needs to be answered. In general, I think deciding to be less involved in a Wikipedia discussion means allowing others to take the initiative in debating the different viewpoints. If someone asks you a question that only you can answer (such as your personal motivation for doing something), and you haven't addressed this previously, then it might be reasonable to respond succinctly. But this isn't necessarily always the case; context makes a difference. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Isaacl That's a good point, thanks for saying this. My primary reason for the comments was that I thought one can hardly be citing someone not doing A as "evidence" against them, when A was never required of them. It is indeed more about what is common practice at the ANI than anything else, exactly because context makes all the difference, and I had never been in this context before. At any rate, I'll try to keep my involvement limited. I've already said a lot, maybe enough for now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest not focussing on one specific behaviour: it's the overall set of actions that people will take into consideration. As volunteers, no editor can be compelled to reply to anyone else. Also, just because someone thinks they should get a reply doesn't mean one is necessary. On the whole, though, if an editor repeats their arguments and doesn't engage in the points made by others, it's likely they will be seen as uncollaborative. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The following is unsolicited advice, so please feel free to ignore it. I'm offering it only because you've shown some concern about overcontributing to the case discussion. I suggest trying harder at being concise in your statements for the case. Considering your recent submission: I feel it's not necessary to repeat evidence posted by others, or repeat your conclusions multiple times. You don't have to say whether or not someone has posted evidence of their claims, or discuss the implications of this further. The absence of any posting is apparent, and the arbitrators know the relevant policies. I don't think it's wise to speculate without evidence on the effects of a certain type of notification. Personally, I feel publicly speculating on what may cause someone's behaviour doesn't foster finding a collaborative path forward. I think it's better to let editors express their thoughts directly, rather than having them react to someone else's interpretation. isaacl (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaacl Thanks. Part of me knows you are right. Another part of me feels like I should make these submissions, not just to re-state what others have already said, but to connect them together through analysis, plus new things nobody has said yet. I think I am the first person in the process who has looked at all these claims of a tag team together, and how the accused have responded to it, and also what prompted the accusations in the first place. During the ANI, I really tried to understand why the accuser made such statements; what I should have done more is diff-sifting myself, and see what might have caused this, and I think I have now found it. The accuser received a notif for every single tag in a category tree on two consecutive days, just 4 days after a previous dispute. I think it makes sense this gave rise to the "tag team" idea, and that the diffs I have provided for this are sufficient evidence to make this claim (which I don't do lightly). But I have said it is My current, tentative, humble conclusion, so I am not certain, but if I'm right, then it was probably a human mistake which all of us could have made if we had been in her position, myself included. I think I am thereby being quite charitable (and even somewhat supportive) to the accuser, whose feelings and concerns over hounding I still seek to take very seriously, and who I believe could have made a mistake while acting in good faith.

Sigh... I want to do what I can to help this process to a good conclusion, but perhaps I am again trying to take on too much responsibility, am I not? I'm worried that if nobody makes the points that I want to make, sees the patterns that I see, takes the nuances and balances into account etc. that it will get lost and not be taken into consideration before a decision is made. But I also don't want to overcontribute, so I collapse many of my comments so that they don't take up too much space, and only people really interested in them can read them. What should I do? Just not say anything anymore? I really appreciate your advice, but I have difficulty knowing what to do with it. (And that is more my fault than it is yours). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The following is my opinion, and so others may disagree: personally, I don't think it's necessary for the arbitrators to hear your speculation on why someone else behaved as they did. I do think it can be a useful exercise for you (and others) to consider privately, in order to figure out better ways of interacting. But I think case remedies should be based on what people have said and did, and analyses directly derived from this. If I were an arbitrator, I'd rather the parties of the case spend time on explaining their reactions and lines of reasoning, and not be distracted with discussing someone else's speculation about their reaction.

Collapsing is not a great solution regarding the workload for the arbitrators, since they will have to read it anyway. Nor does it really alter the possibility of appearing to be overly invested in highlighting your conclusions. I'm loathe to say not to contribute any more, as what arbitrators are looking for may not align with my views. But I do think it's possible to make your points more concisely. (For example, it was repetitive for you to re-explain your analysis and why you did it.) isaacl (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try even harder. Some things I should just write down offline for my own understanding rather than thinking out loud then, even if I think other people may benefit from being able to sort of "read my thoughts". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course people differ, and some may like to see the pathway laid out again, even if they've just traveled it. It's just an example of an opportunity. isaacl (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this comment, a lot of this comment is speculation—how you think you would feel in RevelationDirect's position, speculation on why no evidence was posted, speculation on how the community perceives RevelationDirect, and so forth. Again, the following is just unsolicited advice, so I understand it's just one suggestion for you to consider: I suggest your comment is more suitable on RevelationDirect's talk page, as it mostly doesn't comment on the proposed decision. I'm not sure why you're asking RevelationDirect if they want you to make a request to the Arbitration Committee: the arbitrators have read the comments from both of you and are thus aware of the situation. RevelationDirect's concerns have already been extensively discussed during the earlier phases of the case. To keep discussing them feels like picking at wounds. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case

Hi Nederlandse Leeuw, in the open SmallCat dispute arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I admittedly put a pretty rambling long-form essay on the Proposed Decision talk page, but I wasn't just warned about my editing in discussions so I (think) I have some leeway. I don't disagree with your recent points and appreciate some of your support for me! Tactically for yourself, it might be wise to keep it to short replies going forward though. (I honestly don't know if bludgeoning is even possible on a page where all of your comments are in you own section, so I could be totally off base here.) This is just friendly advice and not any templated notice; feel free to follow or not without owing me an explanation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Hi, thanks for coming to my talk page! It might indeed be best to continue the conversation here. (I even considered emailing you privately. That could still be an option depending on how the conversation goes, as I need to be extra aware of bludgeoning now. We'll see, but I will ask your consent first.)

I don't mind your "rambling long-form essay". ;) As you know quite well by now, I am a Wikipedian of many words rather than few. Concision has its value, but so does nuance. Even if you felt your comment was long, I didn't get what more "holistic outcome(s)" you were thinking of. When I asked clarification, you gave me an answer that I still didn't really get. ;)

I believed that I had to write it out for you, because you didn't feel like you were in a position to demand a formal exoneration. It's perhaps not appropriate for the accused to take that initiative, but up to the community to realise that you are still upset and would like to be rehabilitated without having to ask explicitly. My latest response thus had 4 intentions: writing out what I thought you were thinking about so that you didn't have to do it yourself; saying that I understood why you would feel that way and expressing my empathy; trying to reassure you that the community has already de facto cleared your name; and finally, offering to help you to formalise that if you wanted to, but didn't deem it appropriate to request that yourself. I gave it a lot of thought, including whether to post it there, to post it on your talk page or to email it to you privately, but in the end I decided to post it there so it would be part of the process and thus hopefully already make the outcome more "holistic" for you in the way that I thought you were seeking. Given that you have just said I moved on from trying to get a formal exoneration, at least I wasn't wrong that at an earlier stage you were trying. I really wanted to do that sentiment justice, and I'm glad you appreciate it!

As for what turns out to be the thing What frustrates me (because I think she could have potentially gotten a better outcome if...), I understand. I spent all day on 7 July trying to help her understand that her current strategy would end up with her being banned, and that I wanted a better outcome for her. What was the result? She started attacking me, and I got so upset about that - after all that I tried to do all day to enable a better outcome for her - that I briefly lost my patience, lowered myself to her level of incivility and ended up with a formal warning for it... :/

This was just beyond our control. We all tried in our own ways, not least the Arbitrators. What I read time and again in the Proposed decision is that there was just no other option left. All realistic alternatives had been exhausted. Her case has been one massive train wreck which we observed for almost 2 months in real time, but there was nothing we could do. (Similarly, a fellow editor said LL seemed to be "digging his own grave", which I initially also tried to prevent before I gave up). I think we shouldn't feel responsible for something we couldn't prevent.

Lastly, I look forward to working together with you again in the future. May I ask what your interests in women's history are? :) Good day, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

PS: I'm afraid I still didn't get it. You said you wanted to be raising the standards for my own editing, and would appreciate the guidance on how to be better going forward. Had it been your desire to receive helpful feedback on that point on the /Evidence or the Proposed decision page? I did notice that you (and Oculi and all other parties involved) were almost completely forgotten about on the latter. I gotta say I was very grateful for the advice CaptainEek gave me (I sent them a thank you note), so I can imagine you were seeking something like that? This seems to be why you found the "XfD editors reminded" decision helpful for you while not named there. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I really don’t mind longer worded discussions which is why I prefer talk pages sometimes. For me, I really only see it as bludgeoning if the person is repeatedly copying the same argument (either verbatim or rephrased) over and over.

I’ll give you a substantive reply about ArbComm but it may be tomorrow. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

For me, there were several threads to this saga:

1. There was, or I thought there was, an existing working relationship between me and BrownHairedGirl. I’ve always respected her work and been treated fine, so when this all came loose I initially internalized it. Keep in mind I did know anything about the community sanction for incivility or the Portals case. That’s why I never opposed any of her many procedural suggestions about the case naming, word limits, informal evidence, or extensions.
2. I was really frustrated that so many 1 article categories were being created en masse with no immediate intention to populate them which seemed bad for the encyclopedia. This was an extreme issue of WP:BUILDER.
3. And yes, as you surmised, I wanted to clear my name. There was an editor with vastly more edits than me, vastly more people that they interacted with than me, who was making claims about me that were flat out false. I didn’t understand at the time why tying me to Laurel Lodged would be particularly damaging, but I did know that I was being accused of being related to a tag team and knew that was false. Some of this is admittedly ego, but these accusations also limited my ability to continue because Wikipedia runs on trust and reputation. This concern faded halfway through the case though when I realized none of the members were looking at my motion that I be investigated as a meatpuppet because no one was taking this claim seriously.
4. The venues were also key here. ANI was kind of a morass. The other cases I looked at were much less complex so this was probably too large of a claim for them. I also wondered what that case would have looked like if the roles were reversed and BrownHairedGirl brought those same diffs about me. There were a lot of editors who assumed she was right on the merits based on her word. When I went to ArbComm, I had no expectation that it would be a level playing field. That’s why I spent a lot of time on a tight Diff list: "you may not believe this but this long term editor has a clear pattern and here’s definitive proof." I had no idea what I was doing in either ANI or ArbComm and expected some negotiated settlement, not a ban.
5. The scope seemed to evolve over time. I initially raised it as being about one editor at CFD. With no objection it was expanded to all of us in the SMALLCAT dispute. A lot of information came out about Laurel Lodged of which I was entirely unaware. And, in the end, it was really a holistic concern about uncivil behavior in multiple venues. I expected my evidence to be cited heavily and for a lot of specific CFD/SmallCat findings in the decision. That’s all OK, but it was different than I expected.
6. The underlying content dispute was largely unrelated to the above issues. The notion that I was LL’s mascot was ludicrous. But I’ve had long standing concerns about SMALLCAT wording and I take the point from ArbComm that I may have been a little casual when I invoked it. I am definitely not looking for editing pointers from ArbComm, I felt pretty stressed there.

These different threads ebbed and flowed in importance for me. I originally wrote these notes for my own reflection but there's no harm in sharing it since you asked.
Oh, I’m really interested in colonial women’s history, mid 1800s to early 1900s women’s clubs and auxiliaries, women’s awards, and retail history (main street historic buildings, abandoned malls) that served as public space for women. I’m also interested in those topics more broadly. Maybe I should branch out and start editing more in the article side again. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Thanks for explaining this, I really appreciate it. I've had much of the same experiences as you did. I knew nothing of the troubled incivility past of either BHG or LL, initially wanting both to accept limited sanctions and continue working with us, but then finding that there was no other way but a ban for both. I've been stressed and confused at many times throughout the process as well, but I'm glad we had each other and Marcocapelle and others such as Isaacl (Oculi mostly acted alone). At times, I even found myself in agreement with nominal opponents such as Valereee, MJL, Robert, DIYeditor etc. Generally reasonable people who could teach me a thing or two. It gradually felt no longer like two major opposing sides, but the community finding out that there were two troublemakers at the core of this dispute with whom we unfortunately could no longer work with, while everything else could probably be solved without them.

I'm glad we can do that now, that Marcocapelle, jc37, you and me are developing solutions. I really think we should take your observations on board, particularly There are a lot of smaller sized categories that should be deleted because they don’t aid reader navigation but some of those don’t meet the technical requirements of WP:SMALLCAT. If I could do things over, I would not have !voted any differently, but in a couple of nominations I would have instead cited WP:NARROWCAT, WP:WTAF, WP:BUILDER, and WP:OC generally. I’ll work on being more precise going forward with citing essays and editing guidelines. Elements of that should probably go into the new criterion "Merge for now" we're working on.

Lastly, that's fascinating! I've been working on women's history and colonial history separately, but never really about colonial women's history as such. My focus has been more on women's rights, women's interests and gender roles, especially where it relates to sexual and reproductive health and rights, (countering) violence against women, the cultural representation of women and their place in society in books, films, games, art etc. Colonial history has so far been a separate topic in my editing, and apart from things like Street name controversy (which is can be about any historical controversy), focused mostly on the recognition of, and apologies for, various wrongs committed by authorities and agents of former colonisers, as there have been quite massive political developments on that topic in various European countries in the past several years (e.g. Belgian apologies to the Congo). But I did see women's perspective kind of missing in those statements. Your mention of colonial women reminds me this is something I probably should read and write about at some point next. I do realise I'm specialising in cultural, political and military history of women, while you seem to write more about the history of everyday socio-economic life of women. Nevertheless, if you see areas of overlapping interests, then we might work together on them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Early Germanic warriors follow-up

Hi, so for better or worse this category still exists, but I hope there will be a new look soon at some of the worst sub-categorie such as Category:Medieval Austrian knights, Category:Teutonic Knights, Category:Medieval German knights, Category:Norman warriors, and most of the people in Category:Frankish warriors. Just wanted to post a quick note so it won't be forgotten. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed

The SmallCat dispute arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedies has been enacted:

• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Laurel Lodged is indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories. In addition to discussing categories and their maintenance, this includes – but is not limited to – directly adding or removing categories from pages, and moving or renaming categories.
• Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) is warned about their behavior during conduct discussions.
• Editors participating in XfD, especially those forums with a small number of regular participants, are reminded to be careful about forming a local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers at an XfD forum may also want to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute closed

I didn't want to stick my nose in at Barkeep's usertalk, but as a neutral party who followed the case I don't think it would be appropriate to hide the past revisions of BHG's draft evidence. I'm sorry you're feeling your reputation has been damaged – although there were no significant findings of fact against you – and I don't wish ill upon anyone involved in the case. BHG's draft evidence is a piece of Wikipedia history now. If she had summarised it – or allowed another to – it would have been entered into evidence and not even courtesy blanked.

Any future Wikihistorian reading about this case is going to be interested in what this draft evidence was that was too big to be submitted and too tight to be summarised, if for no other reason than to verify Barkeep's claim that it wouldn't have ameliorated the sanctions against BHG. I don't think it's in the interest of public knowledge to make it visible to admins only, even if the editors named in it feel they've been done an injustice by it.

You're always free to respond to any specific allegations in your own userspace if it's something that feels right to do. Just my thoughts on the matter. I haven't read the draft evidence, but I do remember bumping into you and LL at CfD earlier this year and agreeing with you both. Blessings, Folly Mox (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox Thanks for your explanation, it makes sense. Primefac also gave me an explanation why this would be unusual, and I accepted it. It's just that I didn't know in which cases which action is taken, but I believe the present situation is okay and appropriate. Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study about Wikipedia discussions

Hello Nederlandse Leeuw,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We wanted to invite you to join the study because you are heavily involved in a number of prominent Wikipedia discussion sections, such as CFD and RFC. These pages tend to play host to policy debates involving a lot of back-and-forth between editors, which is exactly the type of environment that our study targets.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP. Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Note

I understand that you are looking forward to the proposal to replace small cat. But the RfC I started is only about marking smallcat historical. Whenever "merge for now" is ready for an rfc, that would be a separate, different RfC.

I think, if you add all that other info, you are likely to confuse people who are unfamiliar with categories.

It's still early, so if you wanted to remove that info and save it for the later RfC, that shouldn't be an issue. - jc37 10:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 Hi, I understand that too, and you may be right. The reason why I did that is because a concern I have (which others might be sharing), namely that in the absence of a replacement guideline (which MFN is shaping up to become, although this is yet uncertain), we might have a gap in our policy/guideline framework. That may create confusion and uncertainty until a new guideline has been adopted. Perhaps my concern is overblown, and we can deprecate SMALLCAT long before we adopt MFN? They are closely linked to each other, and my idea was to synchronise their fates, but perhaps there is no harm if the retirement of the former happens earlier than the introduction of the latter. What do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If you or others think there is, then let's talk about that. I think most of what smallcat does is covered by other extant policy. But I think it's worth talking out.

I think people are just used to pointing at smallcat and counting pages, rather than looking at the merits, and the other guidelines. - jc37 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 Fair enough. It is true, as RevelationDirect pointed out, that we can already point to other policies, guidelines and essays which serve part of the function SMALLCAT might serve, such as WP:NARROWCAT, WP:WTAF, WP:BUILDER, and WP:REALPROBLEM. In recent days, I've stopped invoking SMALLCAT entirely in my CFD !votes, instead invoking those, or things like "Upmerge for now with no prejudice against re-creation (NPAR)" (following established practice, and partially in anticipation of the new MFN guideline), or just "Redundant layer". So I guess there is no real risk of a gap in our policy/guideline framework between retiring SMALLCAT and adopting MFN. (Even if MFN isn't adopted at all ever, that might not create that much of a practical problem for CFD). I'll abridge some of my comments at the RfC then, because working out all the details of MFN is not necessary in order to agree that SMALLCAT can be retired. Thanks for helping me understand! NLeeuw (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries. And happy to help. And I do think we still could use a guidance concerning upmerging under certain circumstances. It all just takes time and effort - Wikipedia, the work in progress : ) - jc37 10:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice Board

FYI, your recent editing was mentioned on the Notice Board. I wasn't familiar with that IP editor, but it lools like they occasionally comment on ArbComm items. I really don't think a reply is needed but, since you were linked but not tagged, I don't want to make that decision for you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Thanks for your message and advice. I decided to reply, but keep it brief. If we do not counter the false claim that BHG was right (and that people who disagreed were "lazy") by quoting Arbcom's FoF that reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions (i.e. nobody was "right" or "wrong", the text was simply too ambiguous), this will stimulate the myth that BHG was always right, but just explained things uncivilly. We can't let that happen, because it will perpetuate disputes. I did acknowledge the IP's point about limiting my input. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

A short rebuttal with some self reflection was a good play there. I also briefly replied to an unexpected claim there but, honestly, this page doesn't seem to have much gravitas, especially that whole Typo section, so I don't know if any of that matters. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have long held a very high opinion of BrownHairedGirl which is why my recent interactions caught me so off guard. When I went through talk pages, I saw a few other editors who had similar shifts where incivility came up. But the vast majority of editors have had positive interactions with her, most have never heard of us, and reading through ArbComm takes forever.

So some editors are triangulating: they look at an editor they've had constructive interactions but who was unanimously site banned. They think "Well, she was great at editing so she must have been right on the merits but there must have clearly been a strong case of incivility there." That doesn't match our perspective, but it also doesn't match BHG's perspective that coordinated misconduct justified the incivility.

I'm not really focused on countering this middleground perception since the incivility was my focus, but, even if I wanted to, I don't think I could change that narrative anyway. And, if we're able to improve SMALLCAT, who cares? I've eased up on my participation a bit for now and may take a wikibreak because this has been exhausting; take care of yourself too! RevelationDirect (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Thanks for your advice and compliment!

Yes, I see constant confirmation of the pattern of many editors (including admins and arbs) who have had positive interactions with her and thus developed a high opinion of her, and therefore can hardly believe the indef ban was justified, unless they have been subjected to her incivility themselves, or carefully read the case. They don't want to believe it, and I can understand why, because initially I didn't either. While I haven't interacted with BHG for nearly as long as you have, her incivility also caught me off guard. I was repeatedly taken aback. Even after BHG had already thrown numerous insults at me, and called me names, and assumed bad faith, I kept on considering the possibility that it must all have been some misunderstanding that could be resolved, perhaps with some additional sanctions, but not yet a site ban. Eventually, I just realised I was naive in believing she could still turn around. Both BHG and LL were undermining their own cases repeatedly. The result was inevitable in hindsight, even though we had no idea of that in mid-June.

I might take a Wikibreak as well. I had high hopes of fixing the underlying issues, working with you MC, jc and others on proposals for MFN and marking Smallcat as historical. I don't look forward to this becoming another battleground if certain editors cannot accept Arbcom's FoF #1. On the other hand, if we don't nip the BHG-was-always-right myth in the bud, we may have more trouble countering it later on. I need to decide whether it's worth doing, or whether I should also take a step back for now, especially considering my warning. Thanks, you take care of yourself as well; you deserve a break. NLeeuw (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Good job on not replying a second time in that forum! I'm proud of you for your restraint. In fact... RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For knowing that sometimes the best reply is no reply at all. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I deserve this, but thank you! I did make the conscious decision to disengage from those discussions. I see you took a three-day break from Wikipedia, I hope you enjoyed it! I'm still considering an actual Wikibreak, or perhaps just a (semi-)break from CFD. CFD can seem so easy because it usually starts simple with a nomination or a !vote, and especially if you can get people to agree with you, it's satisfying. But if you get into disagreements with people, it can drag on for weeks, become frustrating and the opposite of easy and satisfying. I'd like to write and improve articles again, that has always been my strength. My offer to cooperate on women's history still stands, but it's okay if it turns out we may be interested in different aspects of women's history, and are editing in different content areas in practice. Lastly, I have received a lot of barnstars over the years, which I really appreciate, but I never really awarded any to anyone else. I'm sending people thank-you notes all the time, but I should probably start handing out some barnstars when I think they deserve more than just a "thank you" for their efforts. :) Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I just started giving out barnstars this year; I think I thought you had be be an admin or something official to issue them. Rather than taking a break, I'm going to try weekly check ins for now mostly because I'd like to see through improving SMALLCAT. I'm open to future collaboration though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

After seeing your words, I almost want to put the words "given by their fellow editors" in bold at WP:BARN lol. I'm sorry that that wasn't more clear in the text there. I think Barnstars and other awards, are a nice idea that I wish we saw more editors receive. - jc37 19:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Middle East vs West Asia

Hi, I just saw the splitting of some Arab world categories along the lines of the North Africa and Middle East. The merits of this aside, if this is to be done properly, it really does need to be North Africa and West Asia, not least because North Africa and Middle East both contain Egypt, so there is a direct overlap between the two. More generally, Wikipedia has moved determinedly away from "Middle East" and towards "West Asia", as a more strictly geographical term free from geopolitical and historically orientalist framing as well as the historical ambiguity of the Near East/Middle East quagmire. As the short descriptions of the two terms surmise, "Middle East" is a geopolitical term, whereas "West Asia" is a sub-region designated in the UN mapping framework. As it stands, it seems ironic to determinedly move away from "Arab world" as a term that is overlapping or arbitrary only to opt for another term that has the exact same issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Hi, thanks for your message. I would be in favour of it if Wikipedia has moved determinedly away from "Middle East" and towards "West Asia". Has there been a consensus on this in an RfC or something? Some time ago, I made lots of improvements to Middle East and North Africa#Definitions, and I concluded that programmes and organisations of the United Nations themselves employ lots of different definitions of "MENA" or "WANA", and they mostly still prefer "MENA" over "WANA", so I would not be too sure. The "Western Asia" 145 region you mention is indeed used by the United Nations Statistics Division, but the World Bank, the FAO, UNAIDS, UNICEF, UNHCR, and IMF all use different definitions. Besides, the UNSD uses "Western Asia", not "West Asia", as most others do. If you can show that English Wikipedia has established consensus on this point, I would happily follow it. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

PS: I notice that Category:Egypt is in Category:West Asian countries. Do you agree or disagree with that? More broadly speaking, we might have to have an RfC on this sooner or later if there hasn't been one already. I've been upmerging lots of regions of Europe categories in the past few months, because they were all arbitrary.

If we want our countries by continential region categories (in the Category:Regions by continent tree) to follow the UNSD, we should make that clear, explicit, and unambiguous. I am thinking about imitating the Category:Flora by distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions tree. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Flora of Central Europe, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 13#Category:Lichens of Central Europe. As long as nobody agrees on what "Central Europe" or "Middle Europe", or "West Asia", "Western Asia", or "Southwestern Asia" even means, these are all WP:ARBITRARYCATs. Taking the UN geoscheme as our enwiki-wide standard is one way in which to resolve it, but we'll need to establish consensus on that, and I haven't seen any. NLeeuw (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

German Empire categories

I have gotten the writers to category to 6 and the engineers category to 8. German Engineers look to be divided by the current states of Germany, but people are placed in such categories even when the states did not exist at the time. This looks to be headache causing to try to figure out, and so for now I am mainly just adding the Engineers from the German Empire category, and letting other categories stand, but some of them refer to states that only were formed after WWII, yet are on people who died before WWI, so I do not think it is defensible. Architects I have realized way too many of them designed a type of building that makes them fall under a broadly defined exit restriction I am under, and it takes a lot of knowing the German to be sure one is not dealing with someone who has such a building on their long list of creations, so I am going to leave that alone. There are about 500 people in 19th-century German writers, probably at least a third would fit in the Writers from the German Empire. I may try to populate it more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of Achaemenid satraps of Cappadocia

Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Achaemenid satraps of Cappadocia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Latest rulers nomination

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_6#Category:Rulers_by_century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to collaborate on Dutch history topics

Dear NLeeuw,

I hope that this message finds you well. I am AndrewPeterT, and I am a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones (WPTC) and WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. I am writing to inquire about potential collaboration on Dutch history-related topics.

I became aware of you and your areas of expertise through some discussions I have read around Wikipedia. In addition, I have noticed that your posts convey deep knowledge and respect for the topics at hand. Although others may disagree, I find this passion healthy for building an encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

Returning back to the topic at hand, I have many personal interests that have motivated me to contribute to Wikipedia, including tropical cyclones and monarchies. Due to commitments outside of Wikipedia, I have not been able to edit much in these subject areas as I have hoped, aside from copyedits and minor disambiguation revisions.

However, I would especially be interested in collaborating with you on content related with the Netherlands. Specifically, the history of the House of Orange-Nassau since 1815 and its traditions, such as King’s Day, have interested me. I am especially fascinated by the biographies of Wilhelmina, Juliana, and Beatrix. To me, there is just something empowering about knowing that the Netherlands united during two global wars and prospered economically under 123 consecutive years of leadership under female heads of state (even if said leaders were hereditary).

On that note, I feel that the content of English Wikipedia articles on Dutch royal women leaves readers wanting for more. One of my editing goals is to eventually expand the content featured in the articles for not only Wilhelmina, Juliana, and Beatrix, but also Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont and the Princess of Orange (given that the latter two also either had or will likely have some sort of symbolic political power).

Unfortunately, I have little expertise in writing pages in general about history or royalty. Moreover, the fact that I have no knowledge of Dutch certainly does not help me locate quality sources for my goal. Given your academic expertise and experience translating Wikipedia content, would you please be able to point me to any sources that could help me expand on the information featured on Emma’s, Wilhelmina’s, Juliana’s, Beatrix’s, or the Princess of Orange’s article?

Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to respond if you have any questions or comments. I look forward to potentially working with you or at least receiving your insight.

P.S. I have read portions of your /Rulers project page, and I am intrigued by what I have read so far, especially the Emerging convention section. I may leave some comments there for you to consider. However, given your expertise in CfD, I defer to you on what such categorizations would ultimately look like. I also note that you cite WP:NCROY in your writing. Right now, the fine print of that guideline is being debated on by several Wikipedia editors, including myself in a request for comment. Regardless of what the community agrees to in that discussion, it will be interesting to see how any changes to WP:NCROY affect categorization processes.

Sincerely,

Hurricane Andrew (444) 15:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Jesus Passion chronology

In regard to the timeline of Template:Jesus Passion chronology, from t=1 to t=26, I saw your explanation at Template talk:Jesus Passion chronology, but it still appears that there is at least one error there, not to mention the lack of explanation of the 3-hour units. I see that t=7 represents Thursday at 6 pm, so t=15 must represent Friday at 6 pm. But then we get to t=21, which should be 18 hours later, but is instead used to represent Saturday at 6 pm -- "Yom Shabbat" is shown as a day of only 18 hours. Even if that were fixed, the timeline would still need a better explanation as part of the template, since no explanation of each tick representing 3 hours appears when the template is used on articles such as Life of Jesus. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting help

@Nederlandse Leeuw I came across this new article pertaining to sexual consent. Looking at sources, I think article may do more/better in covering topic of consent. Suggesting/Requesting your help in the article improvement in due course. Bookku (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Nederlandse Leeuw, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 01:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Science for the People podcast logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Science for the People podcast logo.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) 03:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Redlinked Women's Club Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places

Hey old friend! In a past life you mentioned to keep you updated on my article work and I'm trying here to find the historically significant Women's Club buildings in the US that are redlinks and hopefully create "start" class articles. This is a low-key effort of like an article a weekend. (I only occasionally stray back over to CFD.)

How have you been? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Hey RD, nice to hear from you! Good to see the work you're done on those Women's Club buildings. I've been quite busy with my new job since September, but I do try to write about women's history every now and then (my current focus is on Women in the Ukrainian military; Ukrainian Wikipedia has a lot more and different information than enwiki does). I've pretty much abandoned CFD, as I have found it not with the risk of stressful disagreements with fellow Wikipedians. Even though I still want to complete the phaseout of the Rulers category, particularly Category:Women rulers has been difficult to rearrange as it has 100+ biographies per century that all need to be recategorised. I'd love to talk more, but I need to prepare for work now. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Congrats on the new job! My participation in Wikipedia definitely reflects the amount of time I have IRL.

I don't think you meant it as a joke, but I found your reply funny: you left the contentious and conflict-ridden CFD area for the more friendly and cooperative topic area in--checks notes--Ukrainian military articles. That's pretty damning of your old haunt! RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Haha you're right, I didn't mean it as a joke, but I see the irony now. I have edited quite contentious articles about the Ukrainian military in the past 2 years, but so far nobody seems to think I'm doing anything wrong in this one. (That may still happen though; a lot of controversial topics openly discussed on ukwiki haven't yet been mentioned here, but that's part of the reason why I'm writing about it). I'm doing this as part of the #100WikiWomen challenge on Dutch Wikipedia, actually. I'm improving the English version first before I translate it to Dutch, and I plan to publish it on 24 February 2024 (the 2-year "anniversary" of the full-scale invasion). It seemed fitting to highlight the role women are playing as active participants in the conflict and not just victims/survivors, homefront civilians or refugees. It has been having a significant impact on their emancipation, but they also continue to face plenty of discrimination.

And thanks for the congrats! I love my new job, but it does constrain the time I can spend on Wikipedia. That also means I want to be productive as possible, and as little argumentative as possible. ;) NLeeuw (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to keep you updated

@Nederlandse Leeuw,

Hi, This is just to keep you informed I updated your Music-consent related sandbox article by adding further reading section.

Wish you happy editing. Bookku (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Undefined sfn reference in Kievan Rus'

Hi, In this edit to Kievan Rus' you introduced {{sfn|Martin|2007|p=155}}, however no such work "Martin 2007" is defined as a source. This means that nobody can look the reference up, and also adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@DuncanHill  Done, thanks for pointing it out! NLeeuw (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Battle on Pyana River

I am sorry but this is not a minor edit. These sort of unsourced blanket changes also completely disregard WP:V. Therefore, I will have to revert any more of these kind of edits. Mellk (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You agreed with me and Mjazac that it was proper to speak of Armies of the Rus' principalities. I'm just applying that consensus. NLeeuw (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agreed to split the article. That is not consensus to replace every instance of "Russian" to whatever you think is correct regardless of what the source cited says. Mellk (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll be more careful. By the way, now that you're here, have you got any good Russian-language literature on the Upper Oka Principalities (UOP)? I've been trying to find some in English sources, but the term isn't very common. A Ukrainian encyclopaedia was able to confirm at least some of the princely families, but not the geography. I tried to collect and crop all larger maps of the period (two ru, two pl) I could find of approximately the same area to get an indication of what region we're talking about, but it is still a bit vague. E.g. I'm not sure if Mozhaysk is part of the Upper Principalities or that I've misread Martin 2007. Ryazan doesn't seem to be part of it, even though it's also on the Oka. The 1462 ru map File:Upper Oka Principalities 1462 ru.png is the only one to explicitly name an area the Verkhovskie Knyazhestva, but it seems to be limited to only those parts controlled by Lithuania at the time, while Obolensk (then controlled by Muscovy) is also mentioned as an UOP (or at least the Obolensky family is). Do you know good sources on the region? NLeeuw (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your understanding. I used this before, but there are very few English-language sources available on this. Mellk (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, just after I wrote my previous message I saw you had just created the article Principality of Tarusa a week ago (thanks!), and cited Shekov 2012 a lot. I'm afraid this is a topic I can't contribute very much on. Although my Russian and Ukrainian are improving, I'll still need to use a lot of machine translations and dictionaries to understand it properly, so printed books are a major challenge. I'll leave this area to you for now. :) I hope that at least the maps I provided are helpful for locating the UOP. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the other improvements. I also do not think it makes sense to replace all instances of "Grand Duchy of Moscow" to "Principality of Moscow". For 15th and 16th centuries at least it would be correct to say "Grand Principality of Moscow". Mellk (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose I'll be more careful with that as well. In the earlier centuries the princes of Moscow just seemed to have called themselves "grand prince" only in reference to Vladimir, not to Moscow itself (in the early 14th century that would have been very undiplomatic). I have yet to see any scholar address the question since when they specifically started calling themselves "grand prince of Moscow", independent of the title of "grand prince of Vladimir". But until that time it's indeed good to be careful for the later period. On the other hand, sometimes it's better to speak of "Suzdalian" or "Muscovite" rather than "Russian" or even "Rus'", depending on context (e.g. pre-1240). NLeeuw (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

There was no separate Moscow "principality" co-existing with Vladimir at this point. Even in the titles of early Russian tsars, Moscow came after Vladimir. That does not mean they were simply princes as these changes imply. Whether to use "Russian" or not depends on the source. We are not doing WP:SYNTH. A few people will say that we are only allowed to use "Russian" after 1721; that does not mean that we should automatically follow this opinion and start making blanket changes. Mellk (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

At which point do you mean? If you are referring to 1377, then I would say there is still a separate Vladimir principality, but without a fixed reigning house. The khans of the Golden Horde still held the privilege of the jarlig. The problem is there were multiple Khan pretenders repeatedly switching favours between Tver, Moscow and Novgorod-Suzdal. Otherwise I agree with you. I plan on reading some more about Suzdalia's early history. NLeeuw (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes you are correct about 1377, I was just referring in general to other changes about 1400s/1500s where I noticed "Grand Duchy of Moscow" was changed to "Principality of Moscow", my apologies for not being clear there. Mellk (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right; for the 1400s/1500s I am going to be more careful because at the end of that period the princes of Moscow seem to be adding "grand" to their title of Moscow specifically, no longer just in reference to Vladimir(-Suzdal). Incidentally, do you know a good modern English translation of the Suzdal'–Vladimirian Chronicle (covering events from 1111 to 1305, part of the Laurentian Codex)? It's an important Suzdalian perspective on the 12th and 13th centuries, a northeastern account contrasting the southeastern Kievan Chronicle and Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (GVC) perspective. I'd like to examine and compare the source texts, just like for the Sack of Kiev (1169) and the death of Andrey Bogolyubsky. Especially for the Sack of Kiev (1240), Western European historiography and understanding has relied too heavily on the idiosyncratic Latin account by Carpine, which modern scholars regard as unreliable, even though he passed through the city 6 years after the events. I found that the GVC has a lot more to say, and I'd like to contrast that with other Rus' chronicles. NLeeuw (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories on women rulers

Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw,

I think the categories you tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4, will not be deleted for a long time, if at all, because generally only empty categories are deleted for speedy deletion criteria because it would leave red link categories which are not permitted via WP:REDNOT. Is there any way you could work on emptying their contents or sending them to WP:CFD? There might be an admin who is willing to handle this but not among the regular admins I know who patrol CSD categories. I'm not going to untag them in case an admin comes along who will spend the time on sorting this out but I thought I'd ask you if you could make this a little easier. Thanks for all of your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Hi, thanks for pointing that out, I was not aware of that. My thinking was that the re-creation of these categories has only led to new redundant layers:

• They all have 2 parents: Category:Xth-century women by occupation, and Category:Women rulers by century.
• They all have 2 children: Category:Xth-century women regents‎, and Category:Xth-century women monarchs. These are always already in Category:Xth-century women by occupation. (E.g. see Category:4th-century women rulers).

Thus, deleting the Xth-century women rulers layer in between will not create any gaps, and Category:Women rulers by century will become obsolete once the splitting process has been completed. (The process has been on hold since September, but it is not complete, nor abandoned. I was gonna see if I could pick it up again, but first I want to get these re-created categories that were previously split by consensus deleted again per G4, before I'd have to start everything all over again...).

But it will still leave redlinks in the child categories that would have to be manually removed (if it couldn't be automated), and in that sense you raise a good point. I'm not sure if it would somehow be "emptying out of process" if I were to do that beforehand (I wouldn't be removing articles, but I would be removing the women regents and women monarchs child cats). So, if it's necessary (or at least appropriate) to move to a full CFD discussion, I will do so. NLeeuw (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Moved to full: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 2#Re-created women rulers by century categories. Thanks again! NLeeuw (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)