User talk:Aciram/Archives/2022/August

Emptying categories out of process

Hello, Aciram,

I realize that you are an experienced editor but it is completely inappropriate to empty a category "out of process" and then blank the page so that it is deleted via speedy deletion, CSD C1. It can result in all of your edits to be mass reverted.

If you believe a category should be deleted, renamed or merged, please propose this at WP:CFD so that interested editors can weigh in on your proposal. Emptying categories "out of process" is considered to be a rather sneaky behavior that I hope that an editor who has been around as long as you have would try to avoid. I won't reverting all of your edits but the category creators might do so which is huge demand on their time. Please never do this in the future and use the standard deletion processes that we regularly use. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. In this case, I was following Wikipedia policy by being bold, because the category was simply incorrectly named - I assumed by mistake. It was used to categorize the consorts of the Ottoman sultans. However, when reading the articles which were placed in the categories, you will find, that almost not a single one of them were actually the legal wives of the sultan: it was not the custom of the sultans to marry: instead, they simply used slave concubines for this. This is very easily verifiable. Just read the articles. While some of them - it is true - incorrectly use the name "wife", it is clear that they were in fact concubines, which was also in accordance with Ottoman custom. Because this is so easily verifable by reading the articles, I assumed it would be very uncontroversial to remove them, and rename the categories. This was the reason. Since the women in question were almost all not wives at all, they could not be in that category, so they had to be removed, because they simply did not answer to the description of the category. To remove articles from a category they did not answer to, must surely be uncontroversial? I assumed so. I compared it to categorizing flowers as fishes or tables as chairs. The consequence was, of course, that the categories were emptied. I assumed that this was not controversial, because an article should not be placed in a category, when it does not answer to the name of the category in which it is placed. Surely, it can not be controversial to remove articles from categories they do not belong to? Naturally, I took for granted that it was not. If it was, I appologize, but I really could not imagine that it was anything but uncontroversial. I very much urge you to read the articles. It would be a shame if the edits were reverted, because to do so would simply be to put these women in the wrong category: they were not wives. In that case, is it correct to put them in a wife-category? Should articles not be put in the correct category? Thank you very much. --Aciram (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Nicopolis

Hi, regarding your page move here, you said "a title less degrading, she was not just a part of a man's history", but she really is only known as the mistress of Sulla in the sources. I'm not even sure she passes the notability threshold. Any chance you change it back? T8612 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

She may be notable as the benefactor of Sulla (she is notable as such), but that's no reason to have that in her title rather than her profession. And is so, she is more relevant as his benefactor than as his mistress. I see no harm at all to classify her in her title by her profession. Its more respectful and harms no one and is a good principle. That she is relevant for her connection to Sulla, is mentioned in the article anyway, and there. This is a small matter for me, though. --Aciram (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Tandu Khatun

Hi! You undid my edits for Tandu Khatun, just simply because 'this was a Muslim country, there was no such thing as a queen consort since the man could have many wives, that's a western concept'? Jalayirids were Mongol dynasty and as such they followed Mongol customs, which include the concept of 'Principal Wife' among others. It is also adopted in academia as such. This custom wasn't a Western concept, as even Ancient Egyptians and Persians had titles like Great Royal Wife and Shahbanu. And I am not even talking about Chinese (East Asian) consort system. My undoing this edit, you didn't just remove the reference to consortship, but whole other details I added. Therefore, I am reverting it to my version. Please consult sources before taking such bold actions such reverting whole article instead of a part. Cavidaga (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to lay it on that thick, this isn't war, chill out (people really treat each other aggressively in wikipedia don't they). I know about Ancient Egypt etc, I am a (Western) historian and I wrote that article once upon a time. In Wikipedia, people often introduce concepts such as queen and empress in Muslim countries were this did not apply, and I am a little tired of it. I won't cry if you introduce it, but refrain from using titles such as "queen" in cultures were it did not apply: use her actual title, not a Western translation, or at least write "principal Wife". That would be best. Peace. --Aciram (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)