User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw
Index
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
|
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)
- 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)
I am sorry but this is not a minor edit. These sort of unsourced blanket changes also completely disregard
- 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 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)]
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Just to keep you updated
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)
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
- @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)
New medieval genealogy source
I stumbled upon this website being used as a source in the Lambert, Count of Hesbaye article.
I was curious what your opinion was of this website. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @]
- Ok. Thanks, Nederlands Leeuw!--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Sfn/Harv no-target error in Boris of Tver
Hello, @
Translated articles
Hi there, Nederlandse Leeuw, and thank you for creating Tetyana Vilkul. I realized it was based on a translation of the Ukrainian article and marked it as such on the talk page. When you create articles from another Wikipedia language version, for attribution purposes you should mention this in your first edit comment (or in a later edit comment if you forget to do so). You can find more info under Help:Translation. If you intend to create more biographies of women, you might find it useful to become a member of WikProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve coverage of women on Wikipedia. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott You're welcome! Funny you think I translated that article from Ukrainian to English. In fact, I wrote the article in English first, and then translated it to Ukrainian myself, both yesterday, a few hours apart.
Since both articles are mine, no translation attribution is needed. (Don't worry, I've been translating cross-wiki for over 10 years, so I've done lots of attributions before). - I suppose I could join Women in Red; I'm practically already a member through my contributions over the years. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies. Unexpected amazing performance in two languages the same day! In future, if I come across similar issues with editors as experienced as you, I'll look more closely at the dates. With all your experience and interests, it certainly would be useful to have you as a member of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott Oh no need to apologise, I'll take it as a compliment that you thought my Ukrainian article seemed like it was written by a native speaker. (It was in fact the very first full article I've ever written on Ukrainian Wikipedia, though with a lot of machine translation and dictionary help; I'm still a beginner ).
- I've accepted your invitation and added Women in Red to my userboxes. That was probably gonna happen sooner or later. I'm available for working together if anyone in WIR could use my knowledge or expertise. NLeeuw (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott Oh no need to apologise, I'll take it as a compliment that you thought my Ukrainian article seemed like it was written by a native speaker. (It was in fact the very first full article I've ever written on Ukrainian Wikipedia, though with a lot of machine translation and dictionary help; I'm still a beginner
- That's great news. So welcome to Women in Red! If you would like others to see your interest in the project, you can also sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies. Unexpected amazing performance in two languages the same day! In future, if I come across similar issues with editors as experienced as you, I'll look more closely at the dates. With all your experience and interests, it certainly would be useful to have you as a member of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2024
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw. Thank you for your work on
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
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) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Latin books
Hi, you speedily renamed only 1 of the century subcats of Category:Latin books. Are you going to nominate the others? Otherwise I propose to revert the move under C2C. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london Hi, yes I am. Thanks for the reminder NLeeuw (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Volodimerovichi family has been nominated for merging
Category:Volodimerovichi family has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Renaming categories
Hi, when making nominations that change the word order, e.g. Category:French music to Category:Music of France, please would you also insert a {{DEFAULTSORT}} with the country name, so that the page will be correctly sorted after renaming? – Fayenatic London 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london Ok, where and how should I do that? Just manually in the category? Before or after renaming? NLeeuw (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
