Talk:List of regicides

Table
What do you think about creating a table with the following columns?
 * year
 * monarch
 * country
 * place
 * type (coup, murder, execution, battle)
 * assassin
 * notes

I propose removing the current sections, inserting a single table for all the centuries. Grillofrances (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "all" or "each"? Because a single massive table would be awkward to navigate; better to have a separate table for each section. Additionally, "assassin" is only appropriate if the "type" is "assassination", so doesn't really work as a column title for every entry. "Perpetrator(s)" could work instead. It might be better to have only 1 location column, rather than both "country" and "place"; the list doesn't get that specific, and too many columns would stop the table fitting on 1 page. To be honest, I'm not sure what advantage a table would have over the current list. A table could be sorted, but I can't really see how sorting by columns other than "year" would be helpful. Lists are much easier to edit than tables and moving everything into a table would take a lot of work. – Scyrme (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean a single table as this article doesn't contain too many items as far. Besides sorting, IMO a table is more readable. Moreover, it would promote adding the missing info which is likely to be forgotten in the case of a list. As a country, I mean a given monarchy - it's totally separate from location as the location may be either within the given monarchy or outside it or possibly in some disputed area. I'm ok with "Perpetrator(s)". Grillofrances (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree at all. This list is several pages long; it's massive. A table would pad it out with column separators and such, which would make it even longer. It would have no subheadings and no TOC; it would just be a massive wall of data. I sincerely don't understand how that could be more readable than the list as it is now. The list is very readable and easy to navigate in its current format.
 * As a country, I mean a given monarchy - it's totally separate from location as the location may be either within the given monarchy or outside it or possibly in some disputed area.
 * Do you mean "monarch of..." vs "was killed in..."? Fair enough, in that case; I can see how two column headings might be warranted for that. – Scyrme (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean "monarch of..." and "was killed in...". Grillofrances (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that such a list would be massive. It looks to be about 170 items which would be shorter than e.g. List of countries by GDP (nominal) with 216 items. Grillofrances (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A massive list for me is e.g. this List of United States counties by per capita income with several thousand items. Grillofrances (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They're all long lists, the US counties one is just especially so. I don't think especially long lists should be the frame of reference for length; it should be the number of pages the list fills, as that has consequences for scrolling, sorting, pasting into spreadsheets, and printing.
 * A major difference between this list and those examples you've provided is that the data are numerical, so readers might plausibly get something out of reordering the whole thing for each column. Since the table is largely all just numbers, individual entries are less important than the data set as a whole, so putting everything in 1 table makes more sense.
 * However, with List of regicides the only numerical data are the years, and each entry is unique and is of interest by itself. The most important thing is to make it easy to navigate to particular entries. Breaking the list up into short sublists that fit on a single page with chronological subheadings which can be selected from a table of contents makes navigation particularly easy. – Scyrme (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can agree with multiple tables but IMO a separate table for each century isn't a good idea as sometimes, it'd mean only one or two items.
 * Maybe something like that:
 * BC
 * Between 1 and 1000
 * Between 1001 and 1900
 * Since 1901
 * Grillofrances (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Four tables for these periods seems a much better solution than the current setup. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How about?:
 * 5th century BCE and earlier (400+)
 * 1st to 4th centuries BCE (1-399)
 * 1st to 4th centuries (1-399)
 * 5th to 9th centuries (400-899)
 * 10th to 14th centuries (900-1399)
 * 15th to 19th century (1400-1900)
 * 20th century onwards (1900+)
 * It would be more regular and consistent (5th, 10th, 15th, ...), while ensuring each table has many entries. – Scyrme (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why units of 400 years? If anything, we should stick to units of 500, as the historical timeframes, at least for Western history and to a lesser degree elsewhere, are generally accepted as Antiquity c. 3000 BCE – 500 CE, Early Middle Ages 500–1000, High & Late Middle Ages 1000–1500, and Early Modern & Modern Period 1500–present. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those timeframes aren't "generally accepted", as far as I know. Early modern period, for example, gives 1400-1800 for the "early modern period". (If anything, that fits my suggestion better.) It also doesn't seem appropriate to use a Western periodisation of history for a list that is very clearly global.
 * 500 creates a table with only 1 entry at the 21st century, which is contrary to the aim of minimising 1-entry tables. 500 also breaks the 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 pattern, although it would create a different pattern of 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, but I don't really see how that's any better than using centuries; it's still multiples of 5.
 * Of the alternatives that minimise 1-entry tables, I think 400 works best. Both 400 and 500 require some irregularity at far end of BCE, but 400 avoids the same problem in CE. We could just tack the 21st century onto 1500-2000 as "1500-present", if you both really prefer 500 year intervals to using centuries. I'm not going to be stubborn about this. So long as the tables aren't too large and limit irregularity (over which editors might argue), it's fine. – Scyrme (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, outside of Europe (especially the Americas, sub-Sahara Africa, East Asia and Australasia), these timeframes are only accepted to a lesser degree. For comparison, in List of wars of succession, I did apply them to Europe and Asia at the subsections and timelines, but not the rest of the world. In the case of the timelines, I also used units of 1000 years as the standard, with some pragmatic deviations, simply because of layout, so it's not a must. Units of 500 aren't necessarily the best option in all cases.
 * If 400 years would work better, that's fine. But I must admit I didn't see until now that no. #4, #5, #6 and #7 that you proposed aren't units of 400 years at all. I see that your proposal is based on an attempt to evenly divide the current items on this list, which is good for now, but that assumes the list won't change in the future. I don't think that's a safe assumption to make, especially because very very few entries are sourced and can be disputed/removed, while a dynamic list like this could also be easily massively expanded in the future. We're trying to cover all of human history here, and until about 100 years ago, monarchy was the overwhelmingly most common form of government, so this list is probably not even close to exhaustive. What units, then, would be sustainable in the long term? I think 500 years is then the better option because it is a better division of millennia than 400, and even though the Antiquity - Middle Ages - Modern Period timeframe scheme is still quite West-centric, it's widely supported in literature. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Outside comment: you seem to be arguing over 400 vs 500 years which is quite a trivial difference. Maybe better if you move the discussion on to what columns you want in the table. Afterwards when you see what the tables look like, it will be easy to rearrange them into different groupings. Just a suggestion! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, any disagreements about which columns to have were already settled. (Essentially the same as your table below, with addition of a column for perpetrator(s), which you did not include.) Regarding 500 vs 400, that was also basically settled: as I said, I'm not going to be stubborn about this. So long as the tables aren't too large and limit irregularity (over which editors might argue), it's fine. Just waiting for Grillofrances to voice a preference, since they suggested tables in the first place. – Scyrme (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perpetrator can certainly be included. I didn't at first because I think the actual perpetrator is not known in most cases so the column would be quite empty. You can always include in the notes column. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Most entries in this list mention the perpetrators, even if not by name (eg. "his own bodyguard", "members of his own army"). – Scyrme (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of 500-year periods more than 400-year ones. Grillofrances (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Example
Just to let you know that you can use Wikidata to partially generate your list. Something like this: That would leave the notes column to be written. Let me know if I can help &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That looks great! I think we should ask Martin to do this for us, do you agree @Scyrme? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Using Wikidate to autofill the tables seems like a good idea to me. What do you think? – Scyrme (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with Wikidata if we have enough data in this topic there. For me, it's more logical to use Wikidata for stuff such like area/ population/ GDP (countries/ regions/ cities), sport results, mass/ diameter/ orbit (celestial bodies) than for stuff like biographies. Grillofrances (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Plenty of data on people too! I'll bow out of this discussion now, but the example above should serve well if you choose to use it &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Whiffs
How was Julius Caesar (murdered 44 BCE by Senate, etc.) left out? How many others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:195:C47F:AAF0:A44C:9697:EEDD:45E0 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is just the language. Julius Caesar was named 'dictator for life' by the Roman senate, but not as 'king' or 'emperor'. ‘Regicide' in English only refers to the killing of a monarch, but not to a life-long dictator. I'd argue that the key difference between a monarch and a dictator is that the former is relying on some kind of long-established tradition within the country for his or her legitimacy and authority, while the latter isn't necessarily. In Julius Caesar's case, I think he was the only person in the history of Rome to hold his particular title. The first Roman Emperor was Augustus Caesar, not Julius Caesar. Reesorville (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)