User talk:Aciram/Archives/2016/July

Regnant vs regent
I've reverted your well intentioned edit to List of queens regnant. Despite the name the list is divided into a number of sections, which start off: "Section 1 lists Queens regnant: Queens who ruled in their own right. Section 2 lists Queens regent: Queens who have ruled on behalf of a monarch who was a minor, absent or incapacitated". Eleanor of Aquitaine was not a queen regnant, but was a queen regent during Richard's absence. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that. True enough. Perhaps the list should change name to "Female ruler". --Aciram (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the length I'm almost tempted to be a bit WP:BOLD and split the sections into their own pages. Hat notes could cross link and perhaps we could adopt a "Female rulers" disambig page.  What do you think?  I'd need to take it to the talk page to try to get consensus before being that radical. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Before I reply, I must say that I have not looked at the system of the list that closely, and simply trusted the name of the page, which is of course one reason to why the name should b changed: readers should be able to trust that a title of a page is descriptive of its content.
 * My personal preference is to include all female rulers, whether monarch, regents or other, in one single list for each country. This gives the best overview of how many ruling women every country had. Different lists of regents and monarchs does not have that advantage. It also have other problems: some countries, for example, had Salic law and no female monarch, but still had female regents. Therefore I favor a list system were each country have only one lists, which includes all female rulers of that country regardless of circumstance.
 * How it should be arranged, I am not so sure. But I think the same method used for List of the first female holders of political offices. Those articles are divided after region, with one list for Europe, on list for Asia, and so on. That is the simplest, most neutral and most practical solution in my opinion. And, after all, the list of female rulers can be regarded as a prequel to the lists of female political office holders, I think? So to arrange it the same way, would make it consistent with other articles of the same kind, which is also Wiki policy.
 * I am glad you wish to change the system of that page, because you are certainly correct: it is too long, no Wikipedia article should be that long. I support your suggestion to be bold and change it because it really needs to, but if you wish, you can give prior warning on the discussion page and give people some time to respond before you make it.--Aciram (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_queens_regnant. I've outlined my proposals there. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Aciram, I'm afraid I'm not happy about the changes made at all. And I think it's removing worthwhile information from the categories involved. A regent (female or otherwise) is not the same thing as a ruler. A regent acts for the actual ruler but is not him or herself the sovereign ruler. That is someone else. I think it is important that the difference between those two categories should remain to be expressed in them. Apart from the fact that a regent is not actually a ruler, but just rules by proxy. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the difference of which you speak. But the category is not named "monarch", it is named "ruler", and both regents and monarchs ruled. The category "Female regents" were of limited use, as it was enormous and did not differ between centuries, which would make it useful. Many of the articles adjusted, also had both categories of rulers and regents. I understand the difference between a monarch and a proxy regent.
 * I wonder if it is not the word "monarch" you mean, rather than "ruler"? A ruler is not the same thing as a monarch - both monarchs and regents are rulers, but regents are not necessarily monarchs. As you yourself point out, a regent rules as well, even if it was by proxy.
 * If the category of rulers is to be meant only for monarchs, then it would be better if it was called "monarch" instead of "ruler". A regent is a ruler as well, in fact both regents and monarchs are "rulers". Even though a regent is not a monarch, it is still a ruler. A ruler is a more general term.
 * As the term for the category is named "ruler" instead of "monarch", then it can be used for both regents as well as monarchs.
 * I also believe the category would be more useful for the users of Wikipedia in this way: in this way, the users will be able to see which women ruled under which epoch, regardless if the ruled as monarchs or regents. It would give a clearer view.
 * Of course: if some would find it useful to separate them, then "rulers" can in turn be divided in to "regents" and "monarchs", which would then be subcategories to the category "rulers", which is after all a more general term, as both regents and monarchs ruled. The category of rulers and regents are already used for both regents and monarchs.
 * I have no intention to cause any bad feelings for anyone, but I say with all possible courtesy, that rulers is a more general term; that both of the categories are already used for both regents and monarchs, which proves that the users do not see the difference; that the general term of ruler can be used for both regents and monarchs who both ruled; that I, as an user interested in history, find it useful to see all women who ruled under a certain century regardless of they ruled as regents or monarchs, and that I can not be the only one; and would my suggestion not the be best? Would it not benefit best if the category "rulers" could be continue to be used for both regents and monarchs, as it already is?
 * And, if any one should which to have separate categories, would it not be best to create a category "female monarchs" and used that as well as "female regents" as subcategories to "female rulers"?
 * I apologize if this does not come out right: I suffer from severe depression and anxiety, so I have difficulty expressing myself if I sense that a situation could lead to a heated argument; so please be assured, that I have the very best intentions at heart. Because of my mental health, I would not have the strength to speak for my view should you contest it, but please consider: it is so useful, for me and any one interested in history, to have a category were you can see all the female rulers of a certain century, regardless if they ruled as regents or monarchs.
 * Whatever you choose to do, I'm afraid I would not have the mentality to protest, but I hope I can have some influence on your decision by my appeal. Sincerely, --Aciram (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your elaborate answer. The work you did need not be challenged. One question however. Is it possible to keep some record in the edit history, or in a document perhaps of the contents of the "old" regents category? Perhaps that can be of use later if someone, perhaps even me, (I'm afraid I'm not that good with categories) would like to make a new separate category about Regencies? All the best to you and thanks.! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am glad my view and explanation made sense. I have experience from categorization, so I will find a solution to keep the category within the rulers-category. I think it can be done, as regents were rulers as well. As for now, though, there is no hurry, because there are no "20th-century female rulers", so the female regents of the 20th century will remain there for now anyway, so it will not be empty.--Aciram (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I succeeded in retrieving some of it in a document, and come to think of it.... I can always use your edit history to find more if I want to check. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am glad!--Aciram (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)