User talk:Aciram

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Agnolo Bronzino – ”Portrait of Lucrezia Panciatichi” (circa 1540). Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.
The Goddess Demeter.


I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Brurskanken samiske kvindeforening. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the page Jyeṣṭhāryā

[edit]

For this edit you did -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jye%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADh%C4%81ry%C4%81&diff=prev&oldid=1298753740

That book does not say that Jyeṣṭhāryā was overthrown. Rather, it says she continued to be queen.

A longer version of that source is:

"It may, however, be observed that the Vat Tasar Moroi inscription was issued by queen Jyeşthäryä in A.D. 803 i.e. one year after the assumption of sovereign status by Jayavarman II. The problem may be solved by supposing that the date 802 is given in revolved year whereas the date 803 refers to the current year, thus making both the events take place in the course of the same calender year. It may be that shortly after Jyesthäryä had issued her inscription, she was overthrown by Jayavar-man II. It is, however, more likely that to further legitimize his claim to the throne and to consolidate his position Jayavarman Il married Jyesthäryä, the rightful heir to Jayavarman IA and actually conferred upon her the title of chief queen, Jyeşthäryä or Kanhen Kamraten ta Cpon. It has been pointed out that the Vat Tasar Moroi inscription does not contain an ajñā or royal ordinance. So she could very well be regarded as a queen in her capacity of the wife of a reigning king. According to Claude Jacques queen Jyesthāryā might have been suffi-ciently aged in A.D. 803. He further thinks that she could have belonged in some way or other to the royal family of Sambhupura and been a rival of Jayavarman II, who could afford to ignore her because no danger was apprehended from her."

You can read the book. See -> https://www.scribd.com/document/173222065/Royal-Succession-in-Ancient-Cambodia-Adhir-Chakravarti

And you think Jyesthāryā was a queen consort of Jayavarman II? Acolex2 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Timurid empresses

[edit]

I understand your point but I think it would be better if this went to CfD first, since now we have an empty category. I am not sure if it is eligible for speedy deletion since it was created several years ago and was previously populated. Thoughts? Mellk (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. Though in this case, it is a category that is factually incorrect. In such a case it was created in error (I am sure with good intent, but in error nonetheless) and has remained inaccurate ever since. The reason it has been populated, was simply because of a cultural misunderstanding. In the case of factual inaccuracy, this should not demand a discussion; it is after all correct to remove articles from a category that does not apply to them. Therefore, although I did not consider it, it is merely a matter if accuracy that the category is now empty, since no articles applies to it.
But the articles should be given their own category. It is a matter of interest that the royal consorts of a dynasty have their own category. On this I agree. As a matter of fact, I was just about to create a category named "Timurid royal consorts". That is a neutral term which will solve the title issue, and many other non-European dynasties have the same category. --Aciram (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I will tag it for speedy deletion and see if it is eligible. Mellk (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good!--Aciram (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there are inconsistencies with Category:Royalty by nationality (which is itself a subcategory of Category:Nobility by country). Some nationalities (e.g. Category:German royalty) are subcategories of nobility but others (e.g. Category:Swedish royalty) are not. There is some disagreement on whether royalty should be a subcategory of nobility, but we do not have another suitable parent e.g. aristocracy by country/nationality or something equivalent. There is also Category:Noble titles which says: This category works on a broad definition of nobility, including ruling houses of true monarchies, peerage or equivalents and lower aristocracy or gentry. I was thinking of taking this to CfD but I am not sure what solution to propose there. Mellk (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have noted that royalty and nobility are often confused here. That may simply be because more categories should be created to separate them. I can not say if roytaly should be a subcategory of nobility: that may be a grey zone. But until that is settled, separate categories should be created whenever there is a need for them. They are not the same, and should not have the same category. A royal person should not be categorized under nobility: the solution should instead be to create new categories that could be used for royalty, as soon as you discover a nobility category used for a royal person. That is the solution in my view. Eventually, the nobility categories and the royalty categories will essentially be separate. --Aciram (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Do you think it makes more sense to have aristocracy by country/nationality as the parent for both nobility and royalty? The other issue is that aristocracy is not well-defined. For example, if we remove Category:German nobility as the parent of Category:German royalty, we also have the parent Category:European royalty but then it is also the child of Category:Nobility in Europe, so we have nobility/royalty all over the place and it is not clear how to separate this. Mellk (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that "Aristocracy" is not a well defined term. But that also makes it practical for this purpose. Essentially aristocracy refers to "the ruling class" in general. That fits both royalty and nobility. The logical step would be to make both royalty and nobility a subcategory of "Aristocracy". Now; I am not sure if 1) Royalty should be a subcategory of Nobility and Nobility a subcategory of Aristocracy; or 2) if both Royalty and Nobility should be placed in Aristocracy separately. But regardless: both Royalty and Nobility should be (and essentially already are, or should be) subcategories of Aristocracy. How you arranged them inside of Aristocracy is a different matter. But so much is at least clear, that logically, both Royalty and Nobility should be subcategories of the neutral Aristocracy. --Aciram (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for your input. Mellk (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century Salvadoran people by occupation

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:21st-century Salvadoran people by occupation indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Slavery in Hungary. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch Cape Colony people has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Dutch Cape Colony people has been nominated for renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Algerian slaves has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Algerian slaves has been nominated for renaming. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian landowners has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian landowners 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century courtiers

[edit]

please add sort keys when you make categories enmass. SMasonGarrison 04:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, make a template: Template:Courtiers by nationality and century category header. :) SMasonGarrison 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate

[edit]

You made an edit to the title of this topic (Slavery in the Abbasid Caliphate) on 5/21/2024 changing the starting sentence "slavery was a major part of society..." to "Chattel slavery was a major part of society..."

Can you provide reasoning for this change? Or reference, motivation, etc for this addition? Sendgik2 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The definition of the term Chattel slavery is a form of slavery in which a human can be legally sold, bought and owned as property. This was the case in the caliphate, which is described in the articles referenced text, hence the description chattel slavery in the article summary is correct. To pretend anything else would not be neutral point of view. So the answer to your question "Why did I change the term in the starting sentence?" is simply: "I realized I had neglected to be precise". Thank you, and have a nice day. Aciram (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Aciram. Thank you for your work on Primi Visconti. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 00:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-attributed translations

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from sv:Angelica Quadrelli to Angelica Quadrelli. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I translated my own article. --Aciram (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prussian courtiers has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:Prussian courtiers 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]