User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw

Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Your technical move request

Hello Nederlandse Leeuw, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

People from Nueva Vizcaya, New Spain

For what it is worth the category is now up to 12 people. The last one I just added the article had incorrectly linked the reference to Nueva Vizcaya to the place in the Phillippinea, even though that place did not get that name until over a century after the subject died. So there may well be other articles that go in the Nueva Vizcaya, New Spain Category. It may take quite some time to find them though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Soeaking-country cats

Another point I'd that the language spoken in an area changes over time. Schleswig was not German speaking until the early 20th-century. At lower levels I can find lots more changes. Today in many places in the Bromx I might struggle to find any but Spanish speakers. In 1650 people there mainly spoke Dutch, rmtoday few do. Since categories always apply this could lead to lots of messes. Not to mention whether something is a different language or a disalect in a language often is debatable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? NLeeuw (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding lists for AfD

Hello, I hope you're doing good. I noticed that you were involved in the AfD process for the lists of dynasties and states for Turkic (AfD discussion) and Iranian (AfD discussion) origin, citing how they failed WP:LISTCRITERIA.

I wanted to know your opinion on List of Pashtun dynasties, as "this list also includes rulers and dynasties who are of disputed origin, possibly originating from Afghan or other origins." Would this qualify as too poorly defined?

What would be an example of a good type of list for this topic? Are lists like those for the Kurds fine? Or caste-groups like Rajputs or Jats? I've edited the Jat one quite a lot, so I want to know if it is better to avoid these lists altogether?

Sorry for dumping so many questions on you. Feel free to delete this message. Thanks. Ironborn392 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Ironborn392, it's a good question. When creating or reviewing such lists, we try to look for objective WP:LISTCRITERIA that are WP:DEFINING for said list. Usually, language family is WP:NONDEFINING or WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. But just language can be defining. THe Pashto language is arguably central to the identity of Pashtuns. One important issue with this contention, however, is that there is no agreement on the existence of a Standard Pashto, see Pashto#Literary Pashto. Yet, the varieties are widely described as "dialects", not "languages", and there is no suggestion that Pashto itself is a language family rather than a language. To me, it seems that this is a sufficient criterion to base a list on.

The fact that This list also includes rulers and dynasties who are of disputed origin, possibly originating from Afghan or other origins. does risk it becoming a catch-all for vaguely Pashtun or Afghan stuff. I would start by placing Template:Citation needed after every single WP:UNSOURCED sentence in the list. If nobody has bothered or been able to provide those reliable sources in a year or so, you can remove those sentences. If I were you, I would start there. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, will do. Have a good day. Ironborn392 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

By the way, would you permit another attempt at a list for Turkic or Persian states if the lists were better defined? For example, not by language group or culture (i.e. Persianate states don't count for Persians), but solely by origin? Ironborn392 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not in the business of "permitting" or prohibiting anything; I'm just a regular editor like you. But I would discourage the creation of all such lists based on language group, culture or origin, as these traits tend to be inherently subjective and contentious. If anything, I would try to focus on agreed geographical boundaries wherever possible. See for example List of tribes and states in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. All items in this list must be situated on the territories of contemporary Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. That way, disputes regarding ethnic, linguistic, national, cultural or 'original' identity may be kept to a minimum. So a list of tribes and states in Afghanistan (within its internationally recognised borders) would be the appropriate scope. It should be easier to identify, geographically, where a group of people or a state existed, rather than what their ethnic, linguistic, national, cultural or 'original' identity may have been. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Why are you adding unsourced material AND a cn tag?

If you know it's unsourced you simply should not add it. So why did you do it? Doug Weller talk 14:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Good question. I sometimes do that when I intend to add a source later, or expect that it would be easy for anyone else to find and add a source. Sometimes I do that when I've rewritten an unsourced sentence that I think is inaccurate to a sentence that is more accurate, but that people still shouldn't take my word for it, and that a source is still warranted. I do this especially when I'm editing Wikipedia on my phone and finding and citing sources is a lot more complicated than from a desktop or laptop. It is an admittedly lazy/sloppy practice. Is it prohibited? NLeeuw (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See WP:VERIFY, specifically WP:BURDEN Doug Weller talk 15:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so. WP:BURDEN says If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it. I take that to mean that I'm encouraged to provide an inline citation to material that I think is verifiable before tagging (or removing), but I'm not required to. It does not say whether the person who added the material in the first place must be someone other than myself, so I think it can be me. The only thing I'm not allowed to do is to restore[ material] without an inline citation to a reliable source once it has been removed by anyone.

Plus, Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In my view, when I'm (a) adding or (b) rewriting an unsourced sentence, and add a cn tag, I'm leaving the article in a better state than I found it, especially in scenario (b). For scenario (a), you could make a case that it's not necessarily better than before, but that might depend on the circumstances as well.

Nevertheless, other editors may – depending on circumstances – always remove such a sentence (tag or no tag), and I may not restore it until I've provided a source (as I intended to do, or considered easy for others to do). I'm not sure if this is a valid interpretation of WP:BURDEN, but I think it is. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)