Jump to content

User talk:Marcocapelle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recolutionaries from the Russian Empire[edit]

I am going to make the Russian Revolution and Revolution of 1905 sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional homeless people[edit]

Do we really want to limit this to homeless people? In some fantast ans science fiction settings you can have homeless characters who are not Human. In parts of both of these genres, as well as some children's stories, you have non-human characters who fit under basically any ethnic, occupational or any other subdivision of characters one could dream of. I would go so far as to say in most fiction hamaness is assumed, and in the genres where it is not, it is often a work by work difference in what humanness means. The extreme is Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Who are animal characters but most logically fit into the general hierarchy for human characters, while Mickey Mouse has a dog named Pluto who fits into the general hierarchy for animals. People too often seem to want to match fiction and reality categories. The problem is that what is defining for a real person is not always defining for a fictional character. A real person who is a prince that is defining, not always in fiction. On the other hand some occupations like pawn shop owner are more likely to connect to a notable character in fiction than a notable person in real life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10th-century novelists and 11th-century novelists[edit]

Up merging will still result in these 2 caregories having 1 article between them. The article is already in Japanese novelists, and in ither by century xategories related tk writing. I think just deleting these categories would ve best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11th-century Venetian writers[edit]

Should not this categories contents also go to Republic of Venice writers. I think we should rename that to Writers from the Republic of Venice, and we should make it clear in the sub-cats that we are referring to the Republic of Venice, not the city of Venice. This is a common problem, we have similar lack of clarity Lower down in Genoese and Neopolitan categories, that are referring to the Republic of Genoa and the Kingdom of Naples, not the cities if the same name. This has lead to 19th-century Neopolitan prleople not only having articles on people born after the Kingdom of Naples ceased to exist in 1816, but some articles on people born after 1861 when it became part of the Kingdom of Italy. I get it, calling people from Naples "Neopolitan" is standard. I think the assumption is that "we do not use demonyms for people from areas that are not independent states", but if that was actually universally known we could use Georgian for those from the Republic of Georgia because people would know there was no way Georgian referred to the US state. The reality is that people use demonyms in reliable sources at times for cities, various sub-nationsl units, and countries. They also use the same terms for ethnicities, groupings of nationals of various countries, and other things. On the other hand Wikipedia categories are not by shared name, but by unified thing. The clearest exam is that Turkish, Turkic and Turk have been used interchangeably, and that reliable sources in the 19th and early 20th century called the Ottoman Empire "Turkey". However the modern nation state of Turkey is so fundamentally different from the Ottoman Empire that we, following the conventions in current reliable sources, refer to things before 1923 as the Ottoman Empire, and place people in "People from the Ottoman Empire" and its sub-cats. Turkish is reserved as a demonym for nationals of Turkey. We need to ensure categories group thinks that are alike, not just things that have the same name. At the same time in the cases of several countries they changed a name, but in ways that did not lead to fundamental changes to the country. So Thailand and Siam are one unit for nationslity purposes, the same with Benin and Dahomey, although colonial and pre-colonial Dahomey is distinct, Rhodesia is not Zimbabwe, and people who were from East Pakistan would not go in a Bangladeshi Category if they died or emigrated before Bangladesh was formed, and if they were a notable sport player from 1957-1969 and then vanished totally from the public sphere they would not. Some of these issues are tricky and end up being contradictory. We for example seem to treat all nationals of Yugoslavia from 1918-1992 as one group, even though the name is actually different pre-1927, the country collapses in a way in World War II, and there is totally government change with World War II, and minor boundary changes, yet the 1992 changes are deemed so great that we treat post-1992 Yugoslavia as a distinct country, even though the same people ran it in 1990 and 1995. That decision was much debated. One closing thought, it is not just the demonyms connected with former counties in what is now Italy (although the Republic of Venice controlled areas outside I'm what is today Italy, as did the Republic of Genoa). I also suspect any Category that has Hessian, Bavarian, Prussian, Wallachian or Moldavian in the name is too ambiguous, and in some cases assuming this was a clear identity in ways it may not have been. There may well be others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers from the Province of Canada[edit]

This attempt to destroy this category in favor of the very odd categories that merge Upper Canada and Canada West / Lower Canada and Canada East seems to go against the actual article structure we have. We have a category Province of Canada people, we do not have categories for Canada East or Canada West categories. We do not even have an article on Canada West, just a brief paragraph that mentions it without really saying anything about it in Province of Canada. However, if this category is not kept it should be upmerged back to Province of Canada people since its contents are currently diffused out of that category. I also think that if we are going to categorize lawyers by things like Upper Canada and Lower Canada, and insist that Canada East and Canada West lawyers are distinct, that we should not have one category covering both Upper Canada and Canada West, but have 2 sperate categories. We have other categories that categorize lawyers in a political unit as a unit, even when there are distinct political systems. For some places, like Ancient Greece and Al-Andalus we have lots of categories that group people together where there was no political unity, the Province of Canada had actual political unity. If Canada West was more than just a common use designation of the former Upper Canada, we really should have an article on the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Canada[edit]

Thank you for the suggestion of allowing me to express an opinion on this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triplets[edit]

I think you are right that individual biographies should not be categorized as triplets. I think the same applies for twins. We have way too many individual biographies in twin categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Films about x in y[edit]

I am beginning to wonder for this is a coherent way to organize films. Too often fictional works are set in places that the creators know little to nothing about, and so the works say little about anything in their purported setting. I am thinking it might be better to name categories to things like Fooian films about x, so we do noylt have to worry about where the films are set. Some films have unclear settings as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the current contents of Kazakh aviators would fit in a category named Soviet Kazakh people, patterned after Soviet Kurdish people and under Soviet people by ethnicity. These people were aviators in the Soviet Union, so they were often living and working outside the Kazakh Soviet Republic. There seems to be in sources pointing out these people are Kazakh by ethnicity, not that they come from areas part of the Kazakh Soviet Republic. Many people in that Reoublic were non-Kazakhs, and people living in other areas of the Soviet Union do not losses Kazakhness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Kazakhz[edit]

Kazakhstan only has existed in any meaningful way since 1936 at the earliest when the Kazakh Soviet Repylublic was formed. Before that there is no Kazakstan. So people who were Kazakh who lived in the Russian Empire can only be described as ethnic Kazakh, since there is no geographical unit of Kazakhstan. We probably xould have a Category named Ethnic Kazakh people from the Russian Empire or Kazakh people from the Russian Empire as a subcat of People from the Russian Empire by ethnicity. Both in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union you will have people of various ethnic groups move to areas where there are few people of their ethnic group, especially major Metropolitan cities, and live there, but still identify with a particular ethnic group. More so under the ethnicity obsessed Soviet authorities than under the old Russian Empire, but some under both. The Kazakh Soviet Republic was also less than half ethnically Kazakh from at least 1945, and Kazakhs do not become a majority in Kazakhstan until at least 1995. So the Kazakh people do not map well on the population of Kazakhstan. Because of the ease of movement back and not crossing borders, it is hard to say someone is "of Kazakh descent" and not Kazakh, even if they are born in Moscow or St. Petersburg in 1905 or in Moscow or Leningrad in 1950. It is really only after 1991 that it becomes reasonable to say that we can call anyone in areas beyond Kazkastan "of Kazakh descent", at least if thry are in the same country as the base main area of Kazakh population. Kazakhs in Europe, the Americas, and India might be "of Kazakh descent", but what if someone is the child of Ukraininans moved to the Kazakh Soviet Republic by Stalin, who then emigrated to Argentina? Does Kazakh/Kazakhstan descent mean ancestors in the area of the Kazakh Soviet Republic, at least after its birth, ancestors who self -identified as ethnic Kazakh or would be so identified in reliable sources, or maybe both? And if it means both, are we actually categorizing by shared name and not shared character?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to place my statement above, here. Sorry I misplaced it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'm not sure which discussion this refers to, but you must be aware that Kazakh refers to people of Kazakh ethnicity, while Kazakhstani refers to people from Kazakhstan. See e.g. the introduction of Demographics of Kazakhstan. Place Clichy (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of New South Wales people[edit]

There are now mass nominations against the subcats of Colony of New South Wales people. None of these even include upmerging to Colony of New South Wales people. There is no reason given to remove them from that tree. In the case of Lawyers from the Colony of New South Wales there is not even an attempt to explain why there is an objection to the categorizing of lawyers by the political unit thry operated in. Also if the proposal were to go through the attorneys General and judges sub-cats would be removed from the Colony of New South Wales tree. I am positive that virtually every single article in this whole tree involves someone for whom being a resident of the Colony of New South Wales is defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English-language television shows[edit]

With the Englush language writers cat, we only apply it to people from countries where English language writing is not dominant. The analogy to television shows is imperfect. Even with writers it gets tricky. Do we have a Category English language books, and what are it's inclusion rules. With TV shows, books and any other thing one makes can be in multiple languages, most works have a dominant language. Most writers write in one language, but some write in multiple languages. A few in the same work, but others in different works. So for example even a Spanish-language writer from the United States may have produced Emglish-language works. Victor Villasenor comes to mind in this regard, except I thing most of his Spanish material was stuff he wrote in Englush first and later published in Spanish. For what it is worth I am unconvinced that we should have the singers by language Category. It is possible to song well, sing in notable ways, and sing in ways that get you recognition in a language, while having no understanding of it, at one time such was done by lots of opera singers, and I am sure there are other examples. I believe there are a few people in half a dozen language singer cats, but almost no one in more than 2 language writer cats. I am also pretty sure the only actor by language categories we have relate to India where we have distinct language cinema traditions. We have resisted putting Gal Gadot in Israeli English language actresses, and we could come up with lots more examples. It sounds like a plan for lots more trivial categories. I am thinking the base assumption is a film of TV show has the dominant language of the country of production. Some works are connected to multiple countries, and some are not in the dominant language. So Soanish-language television shows from the US would be defining, and if they exist English language television shows from India, but a Spanish language Mexican or Argentine TV show is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Province of Canada category[edit]

Hi, thanks for the closing decision. How does the closing work? Does it happen automatically, or do I need to request it somehow? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Venice novelists[edit]

I am wondering why we could not just merge the one article to Writers from the Republic of Venice and Novelists. We do not need to put every single article in a by nationslity category for every dingle specified occupation. The odd view we need yo is why we have so many 1 article categories. I may have more comments shortly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one article in "Republic of Venice" novelists is actually on a writer who wrote what is evidently considered "the first Croatian novel". He lived all his life that we seem to know of in a city in the Republic of Venice, in an area that is now part of Croatia. His novel was published in Venice itself, but after his death. The article we have on him suggests dome things may indicate that studied law, so it appears we do not actually know all the details of his life. Calling this writer in particular "Italian" I think is hard. The border of Italy and the extent it covered parts of the Adratic were highly contested in the 20th century. However acting like all Territories of the Republic of Venice were part of "Italy" I think is at best a violation of NPOV rules, and at worst just plain unworkable. The same occurs in the west. Was everything in Savoy and the Republic of Genoa part of Italy? Is all territory under the Republic of Venice the Republic of Venice, and all territory under the Reoublic of Genia the Republic of Genoa, or is there some distinction between the home region of the Republic and its Territories? Another issue here is do we need to categorize writers by every work they created, or does that at times venture off into performer by performance Category? Here in this case calling the subject and novelists seems to work, but the number of Wikipedia articles in over 50 categories and occasionally over 100 tells me we are missing something about the need to have categories be defining. Winston Churchill is in over 100 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional professors[edit]

Someone here said "a British professor is a higher rank than an American professor". I know what thry mean, but I am not sure that is the right way to put it. In the US there are full professors, assistant professors, and associate professors, and some will even call adjunct faculty professors. At least in common usage professor means any academic staff member at a tertiary institution of higher education. In the 19th century the term was also used for academic staff at the secondary level, especially those teaching music. The two fictional professors I can think up the fastest are Professir Haralf Hill, who is a conman, but he is presenting h8mself as a credentialed teacher of maybe what we would now consider middle school boys in music. The others I can think of are Professor Dumbledore, who is headmaster of a British secondary school teaching children ages 11-18. The next person I can think of is Indiana Jones. He is an actual instructor at a university in his fictional settings, and we do on occasion see him in a classroom setting, but just as much we see him doing Academic research, although most of what he does does not really fit in normal academic activity at all. There is the issue that some fictional professors we will only ever see in the setting doing the teaching side of their job, and not the research side, some we might not even know their specialty, but those will tend to not in general be characters that have articles. We are much more likely to gave a character who is the topic specialist appearing in a court room or otherwise showing up to lend his or her expert knowledge, who we are told is a professor at Harvard, Princeton, UC Berkley, Medfield or anywhere else, but who we do not see teach. There is Edward Brainerd, the "Absent Minded Professor" of the film of the same name, who we actually do see teaching a class, but the film mainly revolves around his work as a experimental research scientists, so he clearly fits in the academics Category. I think the upshot her is that professor borders on shared mame, bring used to group many different educators, broadly defined, at different levels, who are not really a cohesive group of those called professors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Category:Comedy film directors?[edit]

Hi there! As a frequent contributor to WP:CFD whose opinions I respect, I was wondering what you thought of Category:Comedy film directors? To me it seems dubious for reasons similar to those outlined at WP:PERFCAT, and I guess I wonder whether it's really a WP:DEFCAT, but I didn't want to initiate a CfD without getting some support first, as it could become rather sprawling. See also Category:Film directors by genre. Thanks for letting me know what you think! DonIago (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Doniago: I do not have a firm opinion about it right now. Probably you will get the question: why would you single out comedy film directors and not nominate any sibling categories in Category:Film directors by genre? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was a little unclear there. Comedy film directors was just the first one I noticed, after someone added Bryan Singer to it (I've since reverted that, as I didn't see any comedy films listed in his filmography). I guess the question rather is whether the entire Film directors by genre tree is problematic, whether only some of the subcategories such as Comedy film directors may be problematic, or whether none of them are problematic, but ultimately I'm left questioning why it would be okay to categorize directors by genre but not actors by genre; as you're probably aware, I don't think it's okay to categorize actors by genre, but am leery of a directors by genre CfD getting more pushback. Thanks again! DonIago (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports expatriates overcat[edit]

I just noticed that a lot of people are in 4 or more different categories as Fooian expatriate sportspeople in boo. This seems excessive. Especially since some of these cases were less than 1 year. It gets worse though. In some cases these people are then in Expatriate football players cats for each of these boos. So we end up with 8 articles (plus in some cases more for specific teams). In at least cases with 3 or more countries of being expatriate sports players it would seem much better to just have the article in fooian expatriate sportspeople and then maybe expatriate sportsmen in x cats. The current system creates excessive categories that are also very small.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American military sports coaches Category Talk[edit]

This is a Category with 62 sub-categories. 31 of them have 1 article. Most are also said to be sub-cats of "college football coaches in the US". I am skeptical that football teams at a military base are "college football" teams. Yes, there is overlap, but it seems at least some is a function of World War II era mobilization. There is also overlap between college and high school coaches, and between college and professional coaches. Coaches switch level in their careers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Friedlund is an interesting illustration of this. The article is weak, and weaker on dates. It hides most information in a table. Per the table he was a coach in 1943 of an army base team. In 1946 he was a player at Michigan State. He then went to the NFL, was downgraded to the lower AFL team after a season, and then a few years later became an assistant College coach. He was later assistant coach at 2 or 3 other colleges. Just because his players at the military base level are adults does not make this college coaching.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Privateers College football coaches[edit]

I have created another layer of categories under College football coaches in the United States. We already have one for junior colleges with 250 or do direct articles and a few sub-cats. I have now created a NCAA Division III college football coaches in the United States. Both the coaches in this category were coaching well after the 1973 creation of Division III so they can clear go in the direct Category. This category as such is too small to be helpful for navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC San Diego[edit]

I think on the UC San Diego related discussion you meant to say football, not soccer. It is about a gridiron football coaches category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American English-language television shows has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:American English-language television shows has been nominated for deletion. 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College track and field coaches in the United States[edit]

This category has about 250 articles in it directly, so it is not a conrltainer category. It has 163 sub-cats. 63 of them have 1 article each. A bunch more have only 2 or 3 articles. In some cases the college in question has multiple categories of coach by deport with just 1 article. This tree seems to hinder rather than help navigation as currently organized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American college football players in the United States[edit]

There are 226 sub-cats of this category with less than 5 articles. A few of these are for players on military base teams. Most are just at colleges that have not turned out many notable players. The parent has only one direct cat, but there is no particular reason to not directly populate it. I am also not sure that in all cases playing college football is defining. We once in a while have a politician or otherwise notable person who was on a college team but not at all remarkable for it. Some may not have played in any games. Most of these articles are on people who were at least known as college players in their time, but not all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 6 § Category:Years in the Kingdom of Naples by year[edit]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 6 § Category:Years in the Kingdom of Naples by year on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Canadian English-language television shows[edit]

I'm assuming the script you're running is basing it off filming location categories, but most of the categories you've changed (adding "Canadian") have been incorrect. I've fixed the ones on my watchlist from Canadian to American, but you're currently running AWB. Filming location does not mean "country of origin", but who the production companies are, as tons of American series are filmed in Canada. You just have to take a look at the lede, infobox and other categories, and most of them will all say "American" or United States as country of origin. Just a heads-up. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of extant organisations[edit]

Hi, I just came across Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_15#Category:Establishments_in_the_Kingdom_of_Dahomey_by_century, where you stated that "the articles are already appropriately in Category:1843 establishments in Africa and Category:1889 establishments in Africa and we do not usually put articles about still existing organizations directly in a year or century category."

That's a new one on me – can you point to precedents for that approach, please?

It also appears contradictory, as 1843 establishments is a year category! – Fayenatic London 18:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fayenatic london: apparently I wasn't clear enough. I meant to say, we normally do not have (dis)establishment articles directly in a year, decade or century category because we always have them in a (dis)establishment subcategory of year, decade or century. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see, thank you. Well, if I had spotted the nomination before it was closed, I would have voted to keep a C19 category in the Benin establishments tree, even for just two current articles. – Fayenatic London 22:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic categories and Austria-Hungary/Austrian Empire[edit]

I know I have seen some people who were both in German Bohemian categories, and in various Czech by occupation categories, who died before 1918. I figure while we may allow Czech categories for ethnic Czechs before 1918, we should not place people who were ethnically German in these categories, and we need to have reliable sourcing on it. Basically all Czech cats applied before 1918 need to meet standard ERGS rules. I did create a categoriy for Czechs in Austria-Hungary, I forget what it is named, and do not dare guess at it because an editor might try to take me to ANI for accidentally misspelling it here. Part of me wonders if it really makes sense to have Czech categories cover both nationals of the Czech republic, regardless of ethnicity, and people of Czech ethnicity, regardless of what country they lived in. I do sort of see how there is a large overlap, at least from Czechoslovakia to the Czech Republic, and in many cases it is just more convenient. However pre-1945 there were lots of non-Czechs in the Czech Republic, and pre-1918 even more so. In the 1840s many Germans considered Bohemia just as much a part of Germany as Silesia, Saxony or anywhere else. Considering that parts of Saxony were Sorbian speaking, and other issues of langauge and ethnicity, they were not right or wrong, it is just later events caused a different course. Right now we have some People from Bohemia categories as well. Those are less developed. At least in the 19th-century, many of the notable people in arts, sciences, education and related fields who lived parts of their life in Bohemia also lived in other parts of the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary, often moving from Prague to Vienna, but there are lots of other movements as well. So for many people in these fields categorizing them by a particular part of the Empire would only lead to us needing to put them in many categorizes. While we could say they were an artists from Bohemia if born there, if they produced most of their paintings in Vienna that seems less than accurate. The fact that I am building these categories while moving backwards through birth categories also means I do not know what the total size of the categories will be when I am done. I have for the last several months tried to ensure any category I start can have at least 5 articles, I backed off on I think Diarists from Austria-Hungary when I realized that it was not going to get to 5 articles, but I do not know how big some may eventually grow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secularists[edit]

Hi. I oppose to renaming of "Category:Turkish secularists" to "Category:Turkish critics of religions". (It's about this topic.) In Turkey, "secularist" is largely used to refer to people who stand for the separation of religious matters or ideas and state, and oppose to Islamization of society and state. This is quite different to being a "critic of religion". There are Turkish secularists who believe in Islam or other religions. Aybeg (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: if you have no objection, I'll reverse the renaming of that one on the same grounds as Israeli. May I document this as an addition to your closure? – Fayenatic London 22:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to express an opinion in general: It is completely erroneous to rename the categories of "secularists" as "critics of religion" for all nations. For defending secularism and criticising a religion or the concept of religion itself are two different actions. There should be two separate categories for these two subjects. Aybeg (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic london, I have no objection. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A favour? Disestablishments in Canada East 1860s[edit]

Hi Marcocapelle, can I ask a favour? I'm trying to establish a new category for disestablishments in Canada East in the 1860s. There already is a category for disestablishments in Canada East in the 1850s: "Category:1850s disestablishments in Canada East". However, I don't understand the syntax to establish the category, which would be a sub-cat of "Disestablishments in Canada East by decade". I've started by creating a category for "1861 disestablishments in Canada East", which I added to the article I want to include in the category: Montreal (Province of Canada electoral district). But I don't know how to link that category to a category for "1860s disestablishments in Canada East", and then linked further up. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College men's soccer coaches in the United States[edit]

We have 296 categories and 69 articles. I am wondering if this is enough to divide at least some by state. With 50 states, it seems you need at least 250 articles to be able to get 5 per state. However with huge variations in US state size, population and number of colleges, it is really unreasonable to demand all states. California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and a few other states though have enough colleges that subdivision to them works. I did a subdivision of the College track and field coaches in the United States to several states. All the subcats have at least 5 articles either in them or in sub-cats, I did I think 18 States. I have to admit I though track and field coaches would mainly be notable as Olympic competitors. The reality is most areainly football coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

half or more of the colleges that have categories for men's soccer coaches have 4 or fewer articles in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1860ish Italy[edit]

Does pre-1860 Italy get built on the borders of Itsly in 1863, 1875, 1925 or 1955? Each one is different. We already have the odity thst Savoy is often being treated as French, yet it was a Savoy based royal family who united Italy, and Savoy was most definately not part of Fremance until around 1860. Trento is most definately not Italian until after World War I, but Trieste I belive in teikier. In 1710 is domething hsppening in Corsica occuring in Italy? I havd to admit that I have to wonder if we cannot build a large enough category around an actually existing political until pre-1860 if we should just upmerge the articles to Europe categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Josh Brecheen[edit]

I just wanted to point out, that you reverted the category back in by accident (at least I assume so, seeing as your initial edit was removing it). – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People of the Michigan Territory[edit]

I just realized we still have a category named tgis because it was missed when the other people by territory cats were renamed to using from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated.[1] – Fayenatic London 22:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT people by identity categories[edit]

Despite this recent CfD closing with a consensus in favour of the upmerging you set out, Giovanni 0331 has gone ahead and implemented their proposal instead. That is, today they created Category:LGBT people by nationality and identity and its 44 subcategories, then moved all the categories like Category:American gay men into the new "by identity" categories.

Because this was done in direct rejection of the CfD outcome, I am assuming it can be undone without a fresh CfD. Do you know if there is any way to automate undoing it? It involves hundreds of edits.

They also created Category:LGBT people by identity and nationality, which is contrary to the outcome of another recent CfD, though less egregiously so.--Trystan (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Republic of Geneva has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:People from the Republic of Geneva 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. Mason (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese ethnic groups[edit]

Should we call these ethnic groups Burmese when the country took the name Myanmar. Maybe we should call the Mon people from Myanmar, Karen people from Myanmar, etc? My understanding is that one reason for the rename is that Burmese is simetimes taken to refer to the Burman, which none of these people are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Hurticanes track and field athletes[edit]

This category only has 3 articles. Ot would seem to make more sense to upmerge it to College men's track and field athletes in the United States and Miami Hurricanes athletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories to Lists[edit]

I have a request, if you can assist me. You already know I hope to transcribe the baby farming category to the page. There’s one list I was hoping to retrieve. Can you by any chance reach the users who initiated the removal of the “murderers for life insurance money” category so I may know the list of articles under it? It’s extremely crucial to me I know which articles, not just for Wikipedia organization, but for Fandom activities involving real crime articles. Please mention my username again so I may get an alert. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────┘
ContributingHelperOnTheSide, add
mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
to this page. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl, would doing both simultaneously cause problems or just conduct the same function regardless? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ContributingHelperOnTheSide, both what? You seem to have correctly added the script. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also gone to the “gadgets” menu mentioned in the same article. I don’t know if both those things conflict with each other. Even so, I didn’t find the history of the category. Am I doing something wrong? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Identical triplets for cases where all three triples have wiki articles, but there is no article for the group[edit]

Hi, I noticed you made the comment on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 4#Triplets suggesting removing triplet categories on individual people. But what to do of the case of Leila Luik‎, Liina Luik‎, and Lily Luik, where each subject has their own article and most of the coverage for each person is in the context of them being identical triplets; i.e. it is a defining part of their identity? I tried re-adding them to the category, but it was reverted. --Habst (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People with type 1 diabetes[edit]

It is not just that type 1 diabetes is super common. It is that it develops at some point normally well after birth. Often in adulthood. Maybe in over half of cases after age 50. A huge number of people will develop it after they become notable. A significant number of people will develop it after thry leave public life. So I think it will be non-defining to the public life of most who have it. Even those who have it the whole time they are in public life, I am thinking in some cases it would be non-defining. I have to admit I am also not sure it is actually defining as a cause of death. I also think the same is true of cancer in general, but specific types of cancer as a cause of death may be defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not "super common" and it's a 24/7 disease. No, not often in adulthood: often during puberty, and not in old age. We have an article on it, Johnpacklambert, Type 1 diabetes; you should read it. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above was a typo on my part. I meant to say Type 2 diabetes. My point is I do not think type 2 diabetes is defining. I think at a more fundamental level Type 2 and type 1 diabetes really are totally different things. So much so I think we need to end "deaths from diabetes" as a Category because it is grouping unlike things. Deaths from type 1 diabetes are so different from deaths from type 2 diabetes, because the diseases are not at all the same, thry just have a shared name, that we are violating the not categorizing by shared name rule when we put deaths from these two different diseases in one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neural circuits has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Neural circuits 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. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critics[edit]

I just came upon this category. It is an example of shared name. The Wikipedia article Critic defines these as people who analyze something, like literary critics, theatre critics, film critics, music critics etc. However these is another meaning of critics, which is someone who seeks to disprove, or undermine domething, someone who focuses excessively on flaws, etc. Thus we have critics of Arab Nationalism, critics of feminism, critics of conspiracy theories and a whole slew of others. These are basically shared name issues. I first thought to remove these critics of categories, but it is not clear where thry go. I think in many cases they border on opinion categories. They also at times present undue weight and BLP concerns. The Ines that could survive the rules against opinion categories probably need reviews to ensure that the current contents are reasonably defined by that category. Some of the child categories are even more questionable. Such as critics of multiculturalism including black nationalists. The first black nationalist who comes to mind is Marcus Garvey, and I am not convinced there was enough multiculturalism thought in his time for him to have been a critic of it period. Even within the term critic, as applied to those who review, I am not sure literary, music and film critics are like enough groups that they all would logically go together. I am also wondering if thry are a subset of writers, scholars or both. My first impression is that music and film critics are often journalists employed by newspapers, but literary critics are often professors in literature departments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Manz and Protestantism[edit]

Hi, I thought of reverting the change you made to Felix Manz page but decided to see what you think. Anabaptism is not really Protestantism, but considered part of the Radical Reformation. Perhaps a different category is available for "People of the Radical Reformation in the 16th Century"?? Mikeatnip (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mikeatnip: it may be a fringe sort of Protestantism but never considered as a separate denominational family next to Protestantism and Catholicism. Radical Reformation still is in Category:Protestant Reformation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An inconsistency exists across Wikipedia (and literature in general) about whether to include Anabaptists and other Radical Reformation groups in with Protestantism. Within Anabaptists, most consider themselves a distinct movement (after all, their martyr book Martyrs Mirror includes hundreds or thousands of people killed by Protestants!) even if parts of the Radical Reformation germinated within Protestantism. Terms like "the third wing of the Reformation" are used by some people. So, I guess to get everyone on the same page, so to speak, would require a thorough purging of Wikipedia, something that I certainly do not have time to do at the moment. And, others would disagree, as well. So I will just let it ride for now. Thanks for the response. Mikeatnip (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly poorly named categories[edit]

We have a Category, Californios, which is evidently meant to cover ethnically Spanish and or Mexican people whose familiarly lived in Alta California, from its inception as part of New Spain in 1790 or maybe a little earlier through 1848. It is not clear if people born after 1848 count, but those born in 1847 seem to. It is an ethnicity/location I am not sure what Category. Keep in mind pre-1821 "Mexico" was not used as a synonym for a very large portion of New Spain. There are two very specific Mexicos in 1820, although one is several things. One is New Mexico which included also in theory parts of modern Colorado and Texas, but effectively was only a limited part of that area, those in the Camancheria were not actually under Spanish colonial governance. The other was the Valley of Mexico centered on Mexico City. When the Mexican Empire is formed in 1821 it is called Mexican because it's capital is the city Mexico,on the pattern of the Roman Empire. We have a Category People of Mexican California. However our article is named Alta California. I actually created a category People from Mexican Alta California. I think that would be a better name but I moved the contents once I realized we had the other Category. In the process I noticed this is under the category Independent Mexico which says

I am still asking why, I do not think this is a very good name for this period. Is Mexico at present not independent? I do not think this is a good category name at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the preceding Spanish colonial

John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell we have no article named Independent Mexico. The period is covered in 3 sections in our article on Mexico's history. We do have articles on things like the First Mexican Republic. The name itself is even more odd because some of Mexico was ruled by outside forces during that time during the French intervention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We probably should rename people of Mexican Texas to people from Mexican Texas, since we renamed categories related to former US territories. Mexican Texas was much smaller than modern Texas. A large chuck was effectively in the Comancheria, El Paso and much of the far west was in Chihuahua, Coahuila went to the Nueces and I believe had its capital at Laredo, and everything South of the Nueces just a bit east of there was in Tamalipas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British local historians has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:British local historians 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. Mason (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional university or college people[edit]

I am partly to blame for this mess, in that of I did not create the Harvard Category I majorly expanded it. I have sonce come to realize this is not really a good way to categorize people. I did notice Reed Richards is in 4 categories. This makes me think wsmay need a special "guard against over categorizing comics characters". Comics characters exist in multiple story lines, some have essentially had new comic books turned out for 50 or even 80 years, sometimes appearing in multiple series, plus multiple live action and TV series, plus multiple animated and live action films. I do not know Reed Richards and the fantastic 4 to know if there is one incarnation where he was a student, post-doc research fellow or professor at all 4 places, but I would not be surprised if we are meshing multiple time line histories that would make it less defining. On the other hand I can speak to MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe) being in the MIT cat. This is actually debatable. If we had an article on the rare high school graduating senior who is notable and placed her in a category based on where she had enrolled for the fall I would hope it would be shot down as too soon. At least as I remember Spiderman: No Way Home MJ had not actually enrolled in MIT yet at the end, just been accepted as a student. It is anyway a minor plot point not defining to the work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I see your helpful edit summary on an old Redirect like Prussian Gold Coast and wonder how you even came across this page. Your work ethic is above and beyond. I can see why you have acquired a record of almost half a million (!) edits and am grateful for all of your contributions, most especially to the niche area of categories. Your work is appreciated and we, and the project, have all benefitted from it. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemists categories[edit]

There are about a dozen or more sub-categories of chemists by nationality that only have 3 or fewer articles. In a few of these cases there 3 or fewer articles are in more than one total category. This is a case of excessively splitting of a category. It would work much better if we upmerged all categories with under 6 articles to the respective Fooian scientists category and the Chemists category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

** A further note, there is one category at least with 2 people in Fooian women chemists and 0 in Fooian chemists. I am not sure that Fooian women chemists should exist at all, because for most cases chemists is the last rung, and one of the ERGS rules says that we should not have ERGS categories on a last rung.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geriatricians[edit]

Assuming no person in the tree is in multiple nationality subcategories, there are only 66 articles. With that number I think we should just merge all to geriatricians. The Category has no direct contents. I also think then we should upsurge women geratriciasns, since ERGS should never be last rung, Amy Category divided by ERGS should divide also in a non-ERGS way. While we are at it taking a stab at setting minimum diffusion guidelines that will stop messes like this in the future might help. I think 100 is the bare minimum that we should demand as a global number before we start subdividing s profession by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geriatricists are a tertiary sub-cat below scientists, since it goes scientists then physicians than geriatricists. Other than surgeons, most medical doctor/physician sun-cats for most countries are very small, in many cases containing 1 article. I am not sure why we are insistent on making it so when one comes to a Fooian physician Category one will find no articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leprologists[edit]

Leprologists only have at most 70 articles worldwide. I do not think we should have any by nationality sub-categories. Of the 7 Americans, 3 seem to have done all their leprology work while in other countries, and a 4th was a native of Span, who later worked in Spanish Cuba, and then I believe was a physician in the US but did not do leprology work until he went to an Independent Hawaii. He seems to have continued such in Hawaii as an unincorporated territory of the US. If we need to treat Puerto Ricans and separate from Americans because of their current political status we should do the same for those in pre-1959 Hawaii, so the American Category really only has at most 3 good fits, the other 4 based on their careers really would be better in a Category without nationality. The only Category that maybe should stand is the Japanese once, but I think the while thing being the size it is all leprologists can at present easily be in 1 category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post–World War II synagogue architecture[edit]

Hello, Marco,

I was wondering what you thought of this category. The majority of subcategories are all PRIOR to World War II, some as far back as the 16th century, I think either the category title isn't accurate, the categorization isn't accurate or I'm misunderstanding something here. Thanks for any insight you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lapinjärvi article[edit]

  • There ARE other municipilities with added ”, Finland” in Category:Cities and towns in Finland, such as Nokia, Finland or Rauma, Finland or Outokumpu, Finland. Only Lapinjärvi is ”(municipality)”.

Peltimikko (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths by stabbing in Rome[edit]

we may need to 3 way split this category to also have a "deaths by stabbing in the Papal States". Calling 1860-1870 Rome "Italy" is one of the most problematic uses of the term. There is scope for this category, but it might take a lot of work to develop. It also looks like for about a century or a little less before the 756 establishment of the Papal States stabbing deaths in Rome would fall under deaths in the Byzantine Empire. Italy has no clear boundaries pre-1860 and there is no legal state that is close to being equivalent. In 1855 the Austrian Empire includes a big chunk of Italy, much of it in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venice, but other parts that do not become Italian until after World War I. There are areas that pass to France shortly after that. Some of our categories really are messy because we have categories using Venician, Genoese and Neopulolitan in connection with those Republics/Kingdoms but especially in the case of 19th-century Neopolitan people it has been misapplied to people connected with the city. Since the Kingdom of Naples ends in 1816, I really do not see why we have a 19th-century category for it. The Russian Empire last until 1917 but we do not have a 20th-century people from the Russian Empire category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican luthiers[edit]

whether we should categorize Puerto Ricans luthiers as a group as American luthiers I am uncertain. However one actual article in Puerto Rican luthiers is on a person who has only ever worked as a luthier in Massachusetts, and who lived various places in New England and maybe New York for several years before he became a luthier. I am not actually convinced that he counts as a Puerto Rican luthier at all. It at least makes no sense to have a Category for a nationality/place (I am not sure Puerto Rican nationality exists) and intersecting it with occupation or other status where all members only fit after thry left the country. The other thing we need to avoid is Puerto Rican categories being turned into ethnic categories. This is not the case here since the subject lived the first 18 or so years of his life in Puerto Rico, however a person who lived their entire life in New York City, Cleveland, Chicago, Houston or Orlando (or any combination or those cities, or those cities with ither places in the US mainland, Hawaii or Alaska) and has never been a resident in Puerto Rico, should only at most be in a Puerto Rican descent Category. A few brief visit home will not count, but if they lived in New York City from birth in 1968 until 1978, then lived in Puerto Rico from 1978 until 1986, then went to college in Massachusetts until 1990, and then settled in Orlando, we can call them Puerto Rican. I also have to say our People from Colonial Puerto Rico Category is misnamed. There is no coherent definition of colonial other than "controlled by a nation based in Europe, but not a nation run by European based elsewhere even if culturally remote from the place in question" that covers Puerto Rico in 1895 but not in 1905. Modern Puerto Rico now has a locally elected leadership, despite the technical rules of incorporated and unincorporated territory, Utah in 1865 was more a Colony than Puerto Rico is today, but to the extent that PuertoRico is no longer a Colony that end does not come in 1898, but much after US takeover. However it is the US takeover,not the various changes in how the local government is set up that is defining, and so we really should call it People from Spanish Puerto Rico as we have People from Spanish Cuba.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think tank v research institute[edit]

Is there really a clear enough distinction between these two to have separate trees. Or are they basically 2 words used for things that are part of Academia but do not directly engage in enrolling and teaching students. I think I am at least partly responsible for the trees for both these things being established by year. I am not sure we really have enough of either to justify the establishment by year tree, it might be better to upsurge both to the educatuonsk institutions by year of establishment tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the duplicative post below. It does look like at least from about 1998 until 2014 we have over 10 articles per year in both establishment trees. Think tanks look to ve in general fewer than research institutes. There are things called research institute that in their articles thry say thry are think tanks. I think think tanks tend towards issues of public policy in their research, while other research institutes focus on research without necessarily trying to influence public policy, but the lines are at times fuzzy. I am thinking there is no consistent well recognized way to define them as distict, at least for categorizing by year of establishment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research institutes and think tanks[edit]

Is there a clear difference between these 2. Africa Research Institute is evidently a think tank. It however is also in at least one research institute Category. Is there any think tank that does not in part conduct research? I am thinking that at least the whole tree of think tanks by year established should be merged into the research institutes by year established tree, and maybe before about 1950 or a little later both should be upmerged to the educational institutions established by year tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up. Our article on think tanks says they are research institutes. I will thus make all think tank establishment cats by tear subcats of the research institute establishments by tear categories. I think merging would be good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-confederation Canada is a horrible name[edit]

I still think pre-confedeeation Canada should be abandoned as a Category name. We are best off not categorizing things by what thry later would be. British North America is a better name. The name is even worse when applied to things in 1869 that were British North America but not yet Canada. Does it make sense to use the term after the dominion is formed for areas not part of it? It is also a bad name because in 1857 Canada is the Province of Canada, and so Nova Scotia, Rypert's Land, the Colony of British Colombia, etc. Are clearly not Cabada. The argument about no central government us immaterial. There was no central government if the 13 colonies, but we have 13 Colony cats. The Aamer is true of Al-Andalus, Ancient Greece, and Medieval Italy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page[edit]

I previously left a comment about something on my talk page here. On further review I decided it was not really wotlrth bringing up. If you really care to see it you can go to my talk page, but I am not sure it means very much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hello, colleague. How can I make pie charts in Forced assimilation in Azerbaijan be together, and not one from below the other? With respect, Smpad (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upscale areas of Dhaka[edit]

Not only is this category subjective, it has other problems. I doubt we can come up with a way to say spmeylthing is or is not upscale. However it gets worse. Once a category applies, it always applies. If Juan Garcia is a Mexican basketball player, then moves to Germany, becomes a citizen, quits basketball, and becomes a chemist. We add him to Gwrman chemists but leave him in the Old category. So if a neighborhood is upscale, and then changes to become not upscale, it still remains in the upscale category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15th-century Indian politicians[edit]

Was the category depopulated before the Cfm discussion was closed? You mentioned monarchs aren't politicians; two days later Liz said it's empty. 83.229.61.201 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suppose there would have been some articles about 15th-century monarchs in the category before the category was depopulated. 83.229.61.201 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: It contained a category called Category:15th-century Indian monarchs Mason (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defining characteristics[edit]

Do you think the following makes sense. If something does not make enough difference to someone's life that we bother having text about it in the article on the person, we should not have a category on it. If it is so minor that it is buried in a table and not mentioned in the normal text of the article, I do not believe we can say it is defining enough to matter enough to have a category, and we would be best off not categorizing by it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive categories[edit]

Right now we have a category Babson Beavers, which contains a total of 3 articles and 1 redirect, with a total of 4 categories to contain all of them. This seems truly excessive. Some of these are the 2 articles in Babson Beaver's men's baketball coaches, which is a subcat of the category American men's college basketball coaches, which has lots of categories with under 5 articles. In the specific Babson case, 1 article makes no mention of coaching at Babson in the text, the other person was also a coach at about half a dozen colleges and universities. I am beginning to think that A-by state is a perfectly legitimate way to subdivide a larger US category, 2-various rules suggest we should not subdivide with lots of small categories just to do it, 3-I think we should create by state sub-categories, split the coaches by the state in which they coached, and only leave the large categories that remain. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back in February I created sub-categories of Category:College track and field coaches in the United States for 18 states. I moved both the by team coaches categories there, and moved any coaches who coached in that state to that particular category. The categories have now existed for nearly 2 months. There are lots of categories with just 1 article. In California alone, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton, Humbolt State, and Pacific have 1 article, 6 have 2 articles, 2 have 3 articles, 1 has 4 articles, 1 has 5 articles and 2 have 9 articles. So 13 out of 16 categories have less than 5 articles. There are another 9 articles directly in the category. So it is not that we actually see this category as one that cannot have direct contents. We also in many cases have coaches directly categorized by the university they coached at, there is no reason we have to subdivde all such articles by specific sport, and since some coaches coached a lot of sports at one university or college, I am less than convinced all the specific sports he or she coached is always defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • UCLA Bruins coaches has 16 sub-cats, 4 direct articles. 2 of those sub-cats have 1 article and 2 have 2 articles. I see no reason why those 6 additional articles could not all be placed in the top level category. The amount of 1 article categories in Wikipedia is staggering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Category:UC Merced Golden Bobcats with its 3 sub-cats is a case of 4 categories that between all of them only have 1 article. This seems truly excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1622 establishments in China[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1622 establishments in China indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, 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. ✗plicit 14:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request new article[edit]

Will handle this page. You can help us in adding this page to Wikipedia.Draft:Ramkripalyadavge 2409:408A:2D8B:726F:0:0:D44B:EB13 (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 4 § Assassinated people by year[edit]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 4 § Assassinated people by year on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dialdirect for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dialdirect is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dialdirect until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13th-century actors[edit]

The answer to your question at CfD: The 13th-century male actor. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries. There's only been one state which is known by Jurchen empire (the other one three centuries later renamed themselves Manchu). While the Manchu one took over what we now know as China the Jurchen one ruled alongside a Chinese dynasty (the southern Sung). ...a Chinese dynasty of Jurchen descent Whether they were a Chinese dynasty probably remains a matter of various perspectives. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LISTGAP[edit]

Hi Marcocapelle! Hope you are doing well. A friendly note that at WP:CFDWM (and in general), entries in lists should not have "gaps" between them per MOS:LISTGAP (an accessibility issue; the software treats them as separate lists of a single item each). Therefore, 

; [[Link to CfD 1]]
: Instructions. --[[User:Example]]
; [[Link to CfD 2]]
: Instructions 2. --[[User:Example2]]

instead of 

; [[Link to CfD 1]]
: Instructions. --[[User:Example]]

; [[Link to CfD 2]]
: Instructions 2. --[[User:Example2]]

Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American slave owners[edit]

We have a separate Slave owners from the 13 Colonies. So American slaveowners only covers people from at most 1775 (at the absolute earliest) to 1865. This is less than a century. I do not think dividing this group by century makes any sense at all. We are dealing with too short a period of time to subdivide people by century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Hello, Marcocapelle,

I correct category redirects when a category is moved but I'm not understanding what is happening with some categories like Category:Nobility of the Spanish Netherlands, Category:Nobility of the Austrian Netherlands and Category:Nobility of the Habsburg Netherlands which have been moved several times over the past few days. This is occurring with a few of these nobility categories. Who okays these page moves that get posted at speedy renames? I'm reluctant to change these category redirects if the category is only going to get moved again tomorrow. Thanks for any insight you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey User:Liz, nominations at WP:CFDS are meant to be for technical moves only, so they aren't explicitly "okayed" but instead they are implemented after 48 hours unless someone opposes. Very very occasionally someone opposes after implementation, then the move is reverted, and that is exactly what happened here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Euphoria42. An edit that you recently made to Bracero Program seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! -Euphoria42 (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 11#Writers and broadcasters[edit]

Doesn't Category:Golf writers and broadcasters still need to be split? It's still tagged as such. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Ecuador[edit]

We have decided that only cemeteries and other very specific locations of burial are defining. Not city and not state. In the case of Burials in Ecuador, all it consists of at present is Burials in Quito, which consists of one article on a person who was buried in Quito. It looks like those 2 categories ought to go. This categories have been massively misapplied. I know there was a CfD discussion recently to containerize which was approved but also the wording on these categories makes it clear we should not have biographical articles directly in them above the cemetery level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • On further review there is a whole slew of categories that do not have any articles that fit there. Several cities have burial categories, about 5-6 countries have ones with only articles content. This is one of the worst cases of over categorization in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large number of US cities have the category named Burial by place in city x, which once in a while does have a direct article. However some counties in New York and California, some cities in Delaware, and probably some other categories have all or lots of direct articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are biographers split by gender?[edit]

I can tell you. It is partly my fault, and I think it was a mistake. Back in 2013 I decided to expand American women novelists. This caused a huge brouhaha because I did not fully comply with ERGS rules while doing so, and someone wrote a nasty editorial in the New York Times about it, and Jimbo Wales flippant said I should be banned. However at CfD the Category survived, and the net result is we have had balkrnization are proliferation of categories since, with tens of thousands of one article categories, and way too many articles in 100+ categories. The idea has spung up we can show that women writers are distinct, so any field of writing we can separate out women, and then we do men for good measure, and to avoid last rung we separate out by century, and get lots of 1 article categories, and huge numbers of people in categories for 2 centuries. Looking back, I wish we had not allowed century to get the last rung. Now we have inertia propelling this. I really wish we had much firmer rules on Category size. Either that or at least made people show that the specific type of writing thry can make a substantial, non-list aeticle on. I sm sure you can on women novelists. I am less sure you can on women biographers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More burials[edit]

Right now we have Burials in Dover, Delaware, burials in Sussex County, Delaware and burials in Kent County, Delaware that only contain biographical articles. Burials in New Castle County Delaware has some cemetery or other specific location of burial categories as well. Most of the time we do not subdivide cemeteries by county, I see no reason to subdivide by county in a state with 3 counties. This whole burials tree is a total mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Warren County, New York suffers the same issues. Other sub-categories under New York all at least contain actually cemeteries (broadly defined to include other specific locations where people are buried that are multi-functional). I am not sure the depth of sub-categories is needed though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Angola[edit]

Category:Burials in Angola, has no direct articles, just a sub-category, with just 1 more sub-category. The only article in that subcategory, cemeteries in Angola, is Alto das Cruzes cemetery . So the whole tree of 3 categories exists to support just the article on the cemetery. I am not sure it even makes sense to have cemetery articles themselves as sub-categories of categories named burials in X, but I do not think it makes sense to have a whole tree for one article. This is also the only article in the category monuments and memorials in Angola. Which places it under the tree of Buildings and structures in Angola. I am wondering if instead of being under Buildings and Structures the article really should be under maybe Society of Angola, or Culture of Angola. Or is "structure" larger enough to include a cemetery, since the grave stones or markers themselves are a sort of structure? There are only 19 by country sub-cats of African cemeteries, there are 54 countries in Africa, so we do not have cemeteries categories for most of them. We have 2 articles on cemeteries directly in Cemeteries in Africa. Of the 20 or so articles directly in cemeteries, only 1 is on a specific cemetery. However then are probably 7 specific cemeteries at the contient level. There are lots of 1 article cemeteries by country categories, or at least a few others. I am less than convinced roganizing cemeteries by continent really makes sense, I think it might make sense to just sub-divide by county and put the rest in a universal category. I think we have more categories in the tree than our current contents justifies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Tasmania[edit]

The category Burials in Tasmania is all biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Haiti[edit]

Burials in Haiti has only as a sub-cat Burials in Port-au-Prince. That category in turn contains only 3 biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Honduras[edit]

Burials in Honduras, Guinea, Antigua and Baruda, The Federated States of Micronesia, Iceland, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Sierra Leone and Yemen are all categories with only biogrpahical articles in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Macau[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Macau indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, 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! 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian regions[edit]

I am not sure Asian sub-regions have clear boundaries. Assam and even more so Manipur are at times heavily tied to Burma. Their placement with India is because of political events in the 1820s.


What part of Asia is Afghanistan? I think the boundaries tend to be arbitrary and change over time. There are parts if China that in the past would have been considered in Central Asia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3 § Film controversies in India[edit]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3 § Film controversies in India on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disease-relatee deaths by plave[edit]

I am pretty sure we only want these as container categories. We do not place people directly in deaths in Detroit, deaths in Minnesota, deaths in Nigeria etc. We place them in deaths by cause. Yet that is specific cause, not a mass catch disease-related deaths. So I am thinking if someone would not go directly in disease-rwlated deaths, they should only go in a category for a specific disease and a location. The underlying fact is the only death Category we expect all people to be in is death by year. All other death categories are driven by being by a defining cause. Disease-related is not a defining cause, it is just a way we group defining cause, although I am not sure why. Wikipedia has lots of intermediate container categories that do not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we categorize alumni by secondary school[edit]

I think we should go to a resounding no. I can see arguments for a few schools, but in most cases I think it is trivia. I think the few cases where it might be notable would in cases where it can be sourced better be served by lists than categories. I think it works for tertiary institutions, but I think secondary is going fown the path of non-defining Category. We have a lot of non-defining categories. However I think there are case by case arguments that apply to only some secondary schools. Not every detail mentioned in a bio needs yo get a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of films by year and language & Category:Lists of films by year and country[edit]

Hello, Marcocapelle,

I gather from your notes that you'll be working soon to fill these empty categories? They pop up on our Empty Category lists when we run queries. Just wanted to check to see the timetable for this.

I hope you are having a good week. Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colonial United States (Mexican)[edit]

Category:Colonial United States (Mexican) I cam upon this category. It is a mess, and one of the extremes of presentism and esentializing that I have seen. It is premised on A-the notion that the post-1848 US/Mexico border is essentially the right border, so we can retroactively call things as part of the US before they were made so. I do not think it is a coherent way to divide pre-1848 Mexico. B-Even if this was a coherent way to divide Mexico, the name is non-sensical. This is not a colonial era, it is by definition connected with post-independence Mexico. It is bad enough we call Puerto Rico under the Spanish "Colonial Puerto Rico", and imply there is no colonialness once the US takes over, which is an odd use of colonial as code for "ruled by a government based in Europe, but an outsider government based anywhere else is not colonial". However this does not work at all. Whether the outsider government is in Mexico City or Washington DC, it is either the same amount outsider and the same level of colonialism, or maybe Mexico City is less outsider and colonial. The whole premise of this is imposing the post-1848 order on pre-1848 things which makes no sense, especially since pre-1848 some Mexican states, including Sanora, transcended the post-1848 border.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British North America[edit]

In general we have Category names follow article names. I just realized something. We have an article entitled British North America that gives it a very clear definition. We do not have an article entitled pre-Confederation Canada.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Johnpacklambert: that is interesting. Still, based on earlier discussion, there is serious opposition to a rename proposal to be expected. What might advocates of pre-Confederation Canada argue against the point that you are making? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really think that we should follow the precedent of articles. Articles are built on actual sources. The people who have argued on this matter seem to have done so based on how they feel while ignoring sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people seem to think it is OK to use Canadian in 1860 to refer to those from the Province of Canada, and after 1867 to refer to b
    People from the more expansive Dominion of Canada.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another argument seems to be that people were identified by the specific Colony. This does not stop us from having pre-Confederation Canadian businesspeople, or however olit is named. One category this really does not apply to. Canadian fur traders is almost exclusively pre-1867, and the people there often moved between colonies in British North America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that the Confederation spreads unevenly. In so from 1867-1873 you have people in both British North America and Canada. Calling these people "pre-Confederation" is odd. After 1873 Newfoundland continually in BNA and then as its own dominion, but Newdound Colony and Dominion categories can cover those people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another problem with the current scheme is that it mergers people from British North America and those from New France. I think that is the worst possible outcome, sine these are clearly distinct political units.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab American and Hispanic/Latino[edit]

I have to admit I personally think that the Hispanic/Latino categories need to go. That terminology really only exists from the 1970s on. The big problem with it is that many people in Mexico and other Latin American countries fully identify as people of Indigenous ancestry, some even know no Spanish only Mixtec, Nahuatl or another indigenous language. On the other hand, How long do immigrants from Italy or the United Kingdom have to be in Argentina before they become Hispanic/Latino. In a lot of ways despite claims otherwise "Hispanic/Latino" is a quasi-racial category. In some ways these categories start feeling like categorizing people by race. However Hispanic/Latino is not as clear cut as "Arab", so I think the analogy that they are the same does not work. I think government literature says that anyone with ancestors in Mexico is Hispanic/Latino, regardless of where their ancestors lived earlier. The one borderline case is if their ancestors in Mexico were functional US expatriates. I work as a contractor for the City of Detroit, we record data on if people are "Hispanic/Latino" and "Middle Eastern", we do not try to say Middle Eastern = Arab. At one point Arab only refered to people from Arabia, and even though the Arab exodus happened over 1000 years ago, many people in Lebanon see their connection to Lebanon as pre-dating the influx of the Arabs and we should not oppose another understanding of their ethnic identify on them, especially when we have a less controversial way to identify them. To be fair I also think Middle East is horrible Eurocentric, just as is Far East, and so I think we should label them by the section of Asia they are from, not by how far east of Europe they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could get a split of ethnicity and nationality categories[edit]

I wish we could get a split of ethnicity and nationality categories. I do not think we should treat ethnic Czechs in the 1880s as if they are the same as nationals of the Czech Republic from 1992 on. All the more so because a huge number of people who lived in what is now the Czech Republic in 1880 would not have considered themselves to be Czech. Many of the people there were German

John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False unity of Austrianess[edit]

We have a rule that we categorize people by being in like groups, not just having like names. It seems to me this clearly applies to Austria. In modern usage "Austrian" means someone is a national of Austria, a state that was formed in 1918, and is German to the core. The term "Austrian" had very different meanings pre-1918. From 1867-1918 it could mean domeone from the Austrian crown lands of Austria-Hungary, but in dome contexts it meant someone from anywhere in Austria-Hungary. Because of free movement within the crownlands, people could be in Vienna freely. The modern Austrians are also a German or Germanic ethnic group. Pre-1918 Austrians are often not German, and thry are often German in areas not in post-1918 Austria. Before 1867 Austrian even more refers to everyone from the Austrian Empire. Before 1866 it includes even more of modern Italy. However many of these people would have called themselves German, Italian, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Romanian, Ukrsinian/Ruthenian, Polish or by other ethnic names. How some of these people are ethnically described is often contested. I think we should make primary the categories by nationality. To the extent we have categories by ethnic identity I think we should separate those from categories by nationality, and also make sure they actually conform to ERGS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a horribly difficult undertaking for multiple reasons. 1-out categories have been built with such a presentation view in mind that many articles that make it 100% clear that the subject was a German resident in Bohemia have been placed in Czech categories. I wish we could agree that no one should be in a Czech Category who died before 1992. And then make a whole separate ethnic Czech tree. That I think would have some support, but there are some editors who hold very different views. 2-when one decides to remove people to only be in categories based on nationality, one is often revertedbecause one did not try creating equivalent categories to all the old ones. I have been trying to ensure any categories I create have at least 5 articles. This is not always easy, and seems a thankless task. For example I tried to create actresses from the Principality of Wallachia. I think I found 3. Even a more broad Entertainers from the Principality of Wallachia did not look to be heading g for more than 5 at max. 5 articles is a bare minimum, but I think not a good one. I think one of the actresses was very borderline, most of her work after the effective end of the Principality, so I gave up and upmerged the articles to People from the Principality of Wallachia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this work the response of some editors seems to be to destroy whole cloth a category they disagree with. This means reverting away all sub-cats ofPeople from the Austrian Empire in favor of reverting fully to Austrian categories for someone who died in the 19th-century. Another case was the editor who decided that despite how categories are artanged,mineroligists are not geologists. Instead of just changing my categorizing someone as a Geologist from the Kingdom of Prussia to Scientists from the Kingdom of Prissia, the editor just removed the Kingdom of Prussia category.-John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to add back more precise categories, but you need to stop removing the people from the entire austrian tree. "Instead of just changing my categorizing someone as a Geologist from the Kingdom of Prussia to Scientists from the Kingdom of Prissia, the editor just removed the Kingdom of Prussia category." When you make unexplained removals, it is much easier to revert and do my best to keep your helpful changes. Mason (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me not to revert the entire edit, you can use edit summaries that explain your reasoning. Mason (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could get agreed upon earliest times for some nationality labels?[edit]

I am thinking we should create an agreed upon earliest times for fome labels. This might take some doing, and some compromise, but I think it is needed. We might functionally have some, but we have some violators.


Countries that we may have ones in place, but I am not sure we have a stated policy on:

Israel -I do not think we should call anyone an Israeli who flied before 14 May 1948. I think we would need strong evidence of real connection to Israel after that dare for someone who only lived in Mandatory Palestine before that date.

2-Pakistani - these categories should only have people alive, and connected clearly to Pakistan either by residence or if non-residence by very clear national affiliation, from 1947 on.

3. Bangladeshi - this should only be for people from 1971 on, under the above rules.


These we mainly enforce,but we have some odd categorizations of early 19th-century people in the Pakustan tree


4. Turkish -this is only for people alive from 1923 on. This we do fairly well at.


5. Austrian - I really think we should limit this to people alive and post-1918, and clearly nationals of the ooat-1918 country. We have Austria-Hungary, Austrian Empire, Habsburg Monarchy and Holy Roman Empire catehories for times before that. Not as developed as thry could be. We also may need to sort Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg Monarchy cats. I think for most professions and designations we only need Holy Roman Empire. However military personnel, diplomats and a few others Habsburrg Monarchy makes a lot of sense. This might be the hardest here.

6. Belgian- this should be limited to people from 1830 on. As a secondary result people active in careers in what is now Belgium from 1815-1830 should be categorized as from the Netherlands. Which is why I think we should rename the Dutch categories. In part. I aldo rhink that Frisians are subjects of the Netherlands but would not call themselves Dutch is anotger reason.

7. Nigerian- the earliest limit of this category is a bit hard to place. I think it is hard to extend it pre-1908. However extending it to before British colonial rule is very questionable.

8. South African -thos we should probably not use for anyone who died before 1910.


I think with the lone exceptions of Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Rwandan, Burundian, and maybe Libyan, we should not use any nationality designators for any modern nation state in Africa pre-1800, any should closely scrutinize pre-1900 uses of the terms. Central African Republic and arguably Zimbabwean are very hard to use post-colonial. Ghanian is also really problematic, and so to is the name of Benin. The one complicating issue is that state name changes alone do not require category changes. We should not treat people rrom the Kingdom of Kongo as connected with either modern state with that name, especially since that kingdom was mainly within the current boundaries of Angola.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on the above[edit]

I think some of our above issues are fueled by allowing too many small categories. We have 3 hyper small Burkinabe people Category (is this clear enough to most users as being People from Burkina Faso?).John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That those are 12th, 13th and 15th century seems odd. Why do we have no 19th-century Burkinabe people? Part of the answer is probably that Upper Volta is formed by the French colonial administrators in 1919. Per our hostory of Burkina Faso the central areas of the modern country were lo g part of the Mossi Kingdoms. However those are not close to coextensive with the modern country. France claums the area in 1896, and French rule is fully established in 1901. So UpperVlta is formed 18 years after the full establishment of French rule. It is formed from 2 French colonies, then split in 1936 into 3 French colinies (because one of the forming colonies was split), and then is recreated in the 1940s. These is no coherent reason to pretend it existed before 1919.since it is bately 100 years old at most, and we can only at present have 2 logicalcentury categories, I think it makes no sense to divide Burkinabe people by century. I also think we should givd up on the opague demonym, and call the categories People from Burkina Faso, Writers from Burkina Faso, etc. I think we should do the same for Niger, because the demonym there is too close to Nigeria's.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-nationak unit categorization[edit]

We also have huge issues with sub-nationsl unit cats. Several German states were formed in the 1940s. We should not categorize people from earlier as bring from those states. The same applies for states in India before thry existed. Such as West Bengal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why supper small cats lead to poor categorizatikn[edit]

By having tens of thousands of 1 article categories, we encourage people to try to place articles in a nationality + occupation category no matter what. This is not always the best solution. Although it might not be so bad if we did not have so many people placed anachronidticslly in nationality categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian numismastista[edit]

The majority of these people lived before the nation state of modern Austria was formed in 1918. Several, 3 or 4, lived and died as subjects of the Holy Roman Empire. I think this category is organizing people by happening to live in an area then called Austria without any unified location al history. I think this would better be served by upmerging to X County scholars based on if they lived in Austria, Austria-Hungary, the Austrian Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, and numismatists. We have already upmerged a lot of the numismatists Category contents to the parent category, so there is no actual argument we split this category fully by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pitcairn Islander people by descent[edit]

These categories I think largely fail ERGS rules. The Pitcairn Islands were settled by a group of British sailors who had matinee and taken wives from I believe Tahiti, and then settled on these islands. I do not think being either of Polynesian Islander descent or bring of any descent from the British islands is defining. This in many ways is classifying by race, and where it is not that per se, it is classifying by too large an overlap. We do not have an English-language writers from England Category. Where a polity basically has all its inhabitants as a given ancestry, classifying people as having that given ancestry is an unneeded overlap Category. At the same time the founding Pitcairn father ancestor being Cornish, English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish is not defining either. These were British seamen who mutinied, that is what is defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian shipbuilders[edit]

This category has 2 sub-cats. 1 Russian Empire, 1 naval architects. Between the 3 categories there are 4 articles. 1 was born and died in the Russian Empire. Another was born there, active in naval affairs, and then emigrated in the wake of the revolution. Another was born in 1889 and is described as a Soviet shipbuilder. Another was born in 1926, and did most of his work as a Soviet citizen. I think we should upsurge the 2 naval architects to the general naval architects cat, the 2 non-naval architects shipbuilders to the shipbuilders cat, and move the articles to the general people from the Russian Rmpire and Soviet people categories, unless they are already in more specific sub-cats in those trees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People from Colonial Puerto Rico[edit]

This category is poorly named, and has way too many sub-cats. 17th-century Puerto Rican people has 2 articles. Both are also in 18th-century Puerto Rico. That category only has 7 articles. Of those 3 are also in 19th-century Puerto Rican people, and the other 2 lived into the 19th-century. Since 20th and 21st century categories are not that useful, and the end of Colonial Puerto Rico was almost the same as the end of Spanish rule, I think we should 1-end the 17th and 19th century categories, 2-at a minimum make the 19th-century category a container category for only sub-cats, and I think 3-rename People from Colonial Puerto Rico to People from Spanish Puerto Rico. I do not think there is any coherent way to argue Puerto Rico in 1910, with an outsider appointed governor from a government the locals had no part in creating, was any less colonial than in 1880. The difference was Spanish v American rule. Present Puerto Rico with a locally elected leader is less colonial (although still in some ways colonial), but that change does not correspond to the end of Spanish rule, which is what the category is built around, so I think Spanish Puerto Rico would be a much better name for the category than Colonial Puerto Rico.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child activists and youth activists[edit]

I would not say every sub-cat by nationality needs to be split. What does need to happen, if we decide under 15 needs to be a separate Category, is we need to review the whole tree and make sure that people are only in the cats that apply. We do not need Ethiopian child activists if there is only 1, even if Ethiopian youth activists has 13 categories and so works. However the first question is, how many people notable as activists before age 15 were not at all notable from age 15-24? It needs to be a very high rate of non-overlal to justify this. Also, what definition are we using for child in child singers and child actors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child musicians says this is musicians who were notable before age 16. American Child actors says the same thing. Child actors though says "achieved success as actors" and "as children". Leaving children otherwise undefined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of child monarch says "This category is mainly a container for categories relating to child monarchs. A child monarch is someone holding an office of sovereign and temporal authority who has not yet reached the age of majority in their culture. Before modern times this generally seems to have been around age 15 or 16." I thought categories were suppose to clearly explain to us what is and is not included. That did not do that at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It gets better the lead for the children Category say "This category contains articles or subcategories primarily about individuals who became notable as children, either before age 18 or before the age of adulthood or majority in their respective societies. Additionally, some articles or subcategories are about people who became notable as adults, but whose childhood was retroactively notable or relevant, such as Army brats." I believe the Army brats cat is gone. Above we have 18 or so evidently you can use 18 regardless. This multiple set of cut off ages is a mess. The youth activists cat would create another unique cut off age. That does not even try to agree with the others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalized citizens vs. Acquired citizenship[edit]

Hey there, Marco. I wanted to get your opinion on this. I came across Category:Naturalized citizens by country and noticed it was essentially a subcat for Category:People with acquired citizenship. I was about to start a rather large Cfd on it because I don't see a particular difference between the two but, since this would be a large Cfd, I just wanted to run it by you before I do so. Do you think I should go ahead with a Cfd or is there a reason these two are seperate? Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1592 establishments in the Habsburg monarchy[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1592 establishments in the Habsburg monarchy indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, 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! 18:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico[edit]

I just wrote a clear statement on my talk page explaining why calling people from before 1821 Mexican is anachronistic. It is not clear where to move from here. This is a very clear case. In 1821 the Mexican Empire is formed. It is called the Mexican Emoire because it is based in the city of Mexico, on the model of the Roman Empire which was based in the city of Rome. Prior to 1821 there is a Mexico, the state of Mexico which is the city of Mexico and area around it. Most of modern Mexico was not part of this area. New Spain was the Spanish viceroyalty. New Spain included Centrsl America, the Soanish Caribbean Colonies and the Philippines, and some smaller islans in Micronesia. It did not include South America, which in the Spanish Empire was divided between 3 viceroyalties. I am not sure where to bring thos up. It applies a little to any category explicitly about Mexican people pre-1821. We probably could find the term used, but it is for such a small area that it should not apply. I do not even know where to start on some of these discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need century categories at all[edit]

Do we really need century categories at all. The cast majority of people live in 2 centuries. Large numbers do work in 2 centuries, especially among artists, writers and those involved in acting. On the other hand with politicians we can often better represent them through categories for things that by default place thrm in 1 century. There may be some useful by century categories, but it seems we have come to have far too many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18th-century Greek people[edit]

Since the Greek categories are in the by nationality tree, I do not think this category makes sense. It might actually work with being plaved unfmder the ethnic Greek people tree, but it seems some editors want to fight that as well. There is no Greece until 1821 at the absolute earliest, and had not been since the fall of the Empire of Trebizon in the late 15th- century. Although the fall of the Byzantine Emoire in 1453 I believe is more often seen as the end of Greece. Most wmethnic Greeks in the 18th-century lived in the Ottoman Empire. However a good number live in the Republic of Venice, which includes the Ionian Islands and at times other places along the Adriarltic and Aegean Seas. This is why part of me really thinks renaming Greek categories to People from Greece. I think for the time being I will focus on making sure people are in categories for the actual country they were nationals of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in versus under the X dynasty[edit]

Hey, I just noticed your CfD regarding categories titled "Religion in the X dynasty", regarding historical dynasties in China. I would personally undo this move, as in English "X dynasty" is often used pars pro toto to refer to the state controlled by the dynasty as well. (To me, the alternatives don't really work in English—"X Empire" doesn't work, and while I'd personally prefer simply "X", it won't scan to many readers.) This is slightly unlike other such pairs I think, and it's in part a result from how the names are treated in Chinese. Remsense诉 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Remsense: while "X dynasty" may be used to refer to the state controlled by the dynasty as well, I have never seen that in combination with "in". Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly slightly awkward. For what it's worth: a few fulltext searches through my library of China books finds the string "in the X dynasty" popping up in all the places you'd expect for every "X" from "Shang" through "Qing". Remsense诉 04:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A project for you![edit]

Hello, Marcocapelle,

Just what you need, more work! User:Aldij was discovered to be the latest sockpuppet of Dolyn and they did a fair amount of work with categories, especially in the descent area. I rollbacked hundreds of their edits and managed to CSD G5 a number of categories they created that were emptied. But rollback is a very blunt tool.

If you find yourself in need of a project, you could revert some of their unnecessary edits in this part of the category tree. You probably have more than enough to keep you busy but I thought I'd ask. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artesian people[edit]

I think Artesian people illustrates top much love for demonyms. I think we need to use few demonyms even at the National level, but demonyms for the various regional units that were melded in the early modern period to form France, or for states that were subsumed into the German Empire are bad ideas. The one in theory exception might be Prussian. However with a Province of Prussia under the Kingdom of Prussia no one csn know what Prussia one means, so I think we should jettison all the Prilussian categories. For reasons I do not understand we still have Prussian women, Prussian physicians, Prussian musicians and Prussian diplomats. The last is probably the clearest, you only have diplomats from kingdoms not Provinces. I still think we should make it clear that these are for people who were diplomats on behalf of the country mentioned, not nationals of that country who served other countries or multi-national/international entities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies in the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index Page issues[edit]

I have another thought on the

Category:Companies in the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index.[edit]

Does this list change over time. It has evidently existed since 1990. Has it always had 400 Companies? I am sure thry have not all been on there. Yet Category rules say if it ever applied the article goes there. If Frank Martin was an American saxophone player, then decides to go to Germany and become a German citizen, and starts playing the piano, no longer performs as a saxophone player we add him to German pianists, but we do not remove him from American saxophonists. This is why it is not a good idea to categorize organizations and companies by list membership, even when it seems defining. Fortune 500 is spoken of a lot, but its a tusk membership changes. The Dow is seen as a key stock indicator, but the sticks that make it up changes. Some things may be defining enough to merit inclusion after change. We do want to make sure the resulting Category actually makes sense. For example I doubt we want to categorizechigh schools by placement on a top performing list, because the high schools could change and maybe now are among the worst. Organizations because they can run for much longer than people live need us to think more clearly about what categories really make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Casimir Benicken[edit]

The edit history here is frustrating. I made an edit in which I explained that during his lifetime Schleswig was not part of any German state. It was reverted on the grounds that German is still defining. How is he German though, especially a German judge. If the category was Judges in Denmark, I would very much considering placing him there, because Schleswig was basically part of Denmark. However calling people from Schleswig "Danish" seems to be imposing the wrong term as well. He did not become "German" by going to a university in Germany. He returned back to Schleswig after his studies. He died in 1837, out article on Schleswig suggests nationalist agitation really come to the fore there after 1840. Schleswig was never part of the Holy Roman Empire. It was not part of the German Confederation. I do not see any reasonable way to call people from there German and to categorize them as such. I can see equally strong reasons to not just label them "Danish", and I doubt that we have enough articles to justify occupational sub-cats, except maybe for judges. I am tempted to go back and at least remove calling him German from the opening line. I do not think such is justified. On the other hand I really want to avoid an edit War. I clearly explained why I was removing the German categories in my edit explanation, and it was just plain reverted. Even the People from the Duchy of Schleswig Category was reverted. I put that back. I am hesitant about anything else because I feel like I am just ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belizean male actors[edit]

Belizean male actors has a 2oth and a 21st century sub-cat. In these 3 categories there is only 1 article. As in the same 1 article is in both subcats. I wish I got say this was the worst creation of a category tree for one article I had seen, but it is not even remotely close to the worst case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of the American Revolutionary War in Delaware etc.[edit]

One of the arguments being put forth to keep this category is "In the US state boundaries are fixed, not like in Europe". It just crossed my mind that this is an absurd claim. It might work for later periods, it does not work for the Revolutionary War. Basically because the original colonial charters granted overlapping areas. Also due to the Proclamation line of 1763 and a lack of actually having surveyed the western areas. There are a few classic examples. At one point South Carolina renounced its claim to its western extents. Later people surveyed the Savannah River (I think that is the name of the River) and realized it went north of the theoretical line where South Carolina thought it stopped, so there was no actual territory involved.


Vermont was claimed by New York during the America Revolution, but was functionally a distinct place, in fact from 1777 there is the State of Vermont or Republic of Vermont that in some ways become a de facto independent place. Maine is not only part of Massachussetts, but its boundaries on the north will remain disputed for decades. In Western New York the extent to which the lands of the Iroquois Confederacy should be considered in the Province of New York is open to dispute. There is a possible argument that some battles with the Iroqouis do not belong in a New York category at all.

In Pennsyvania in the Wyoming Battle you have violent disputes as to whether the area should be part of Connecticut or part of Pennsylvania. I was prompted to think about this when I came across an article that said someone was born in 1771 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Yet in the article on the history of Pittsburgh we read "With the war still ongoing, in 1780 Virginia and Pennsylvania came to an agreement on their mutual borders, creating the state lines known today and determining finally that the jurisdiction of Pittsburgh region was Pennsylvanian." Both Virginia and Pennsylvania had sought to include that area in their territory before then.


In Virginia's case it also stretched all over what is now Kentucky and West Virginia. Although I believe the Kentucky/Tennessee which was the North Carolina/ Virginia line had not been fully defined at that point. The limits of Georgia were not just ill defined but in that case really the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee and Seminole territories. Florida I believe did functionally include Natchez, and the line may have been basically the current one somewhat inland from the coast.


So on the whole, no the boundaries during the American Revolution are different than modern boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1900 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1900 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1901 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1901 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1902 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1902 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1903 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1903 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1904 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1904 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1905 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1905 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1906 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1906 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1907 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1907 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1908 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1908 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1909 suicides has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1909 suicides 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American expatriate baseball players in Canada[edit]

I think this is a special case that we can consider independent of other expatriate sports players. If someone goes and plays baseball in Japan, they will be playing against other Japanese teams, and playing all the games in Japan. In the case of an American going to play baseball in Canada, there are factors that make this less of an expatriate case then other cases. If the person is playing for the Toronto Blue Jays, that is the only Canadian team in Major League Baseball. The rest of the teams are all in the US. Not only does this mean that '''all''' away games are in the US, which is half the games about, but there is more. Spring training is done in either Arizona or Florida, which involves publicly viewable games. So over half of all publicly viewable games will be in the US. Of te 5 minor league farm teams for the Blue Jays, 4 of them are in the US. As part of Major League baseball, many of these players will be switched to other teams, back to the US. It ends up being cases where we have people play on 6 to 10 teams, with 1 of them in Canada. In some cases they play publicly for 12 years, and only are part of a Canadian team for part of one of those years. In fact there are probably some players who never played for a Canadian based team who actually played more public games in Canada than some players who did play for a Canadian based team. This may be a defining trait for cases where we have a league based in a country, but when it is movement within a league where one of the teams happens to be in another country, but the rest of the leagues teams are all in one country, this seems to be trivial. Especially since we are already categorizing by team played on. So for an American who gets transferred to play for the Toronto Blue Jays this gives up 2 categories for that fact instead of just one. It might be different if we knew that some of these players actually bought a house in the Toronto area and established their permanent residence there. However the articles do not say anything about that in most cases. To pick a player at random Greg Bargar played 2 years with the Montreal Expos (they later moved to the US, there were 2 Canadian teams then, there are 29 American teams now, I am not sure what the exact numbers were in the 1980s, but I think it was at least 25 to 2). Bargar played high school, and college baseball in the US. He also evidently played on about half a dozen US minor league teams, as well as the 2 major league teams mentioned in the article. The article used to categorize him by that half dozen teams, but since it had no text, not even a chart, to support that content I removed it. This appears to be a huge issue with baseball articles. They seem to be in a lot of categories that there is absolutely nothing in the text to support. In fact this category may have lots of entries with nothing in the text to support. I think the main point is that this category is different from other expatriate sports player cats, and so we do not need to consider the whole body of such categories, just this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was right about unmentioned inclusion. Kurt Abbott was in this category. Evidently because he spent part of his time in the minors with a team based in Edmonton. How much time? I have no idea because the team was not mentioned in the text of the article at all. I had to remove around half a dozen unmentioned minor league teams. I have to wonder, do we really want to categorize players by every minor league team they play for? With some of these assginments to a team being well under 1 season long, are they actually in Canada longer than most people who vacation there? Is spending part of one season in play playing for a team in Canada, where you still play many of your games in the US, actually a sign of being an expatriate at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I removed Greg Bargar from the category since there was no mention of him being in Canada in the category. I also removed him from the categories of several teams not mentioned at all in the article text. This was reverted with a note that he played with all the teams. No text was added to the article to support this. So he is back in the American expatriate baseball players in Canada category with absolutely nothing in the article mentioning this at all. He is alive. This is a major problem. I would remove him again, but do not feel like getting dragged into an edit war with an editor who is just plain ignoring the fact that Wikipedia categories need to follow rules of definingness, and they need to be verrifiable not true. You need evidence for all categories, at least at the level of mentions in the text, preferrably mentions connected with sources. Is there someway we can get people to stop adding categories to articles on baseball players that are not supported by the text of the article at all, not even a chart. This is looking like it is a huge problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Franz von Lobkowitz[edit]

Joseph Franz von Lobkowitz is an article that only says this person was a noble from Bohemia. It never uses the word "Czech" to describe him. He died in 1816 and was born in 1772. In the article on the Czech national awakening we learn "Czech language had been more or less eradicated from state administration, literature, schools, Charles University, and among the upper classes." So he almost certainly did not speak Czech, and it is very unlikely he would have thought of himself as Czech. He was a noble. The first Czech grammar is only published in 1809, 7 years before he died, and it is the year after he died that medieval Czech use in manuscripts is first proclaimed. I am now being yelled at over removing him from the Czech patrons of the arts category because he was the only one, although there is no justification for placing him in that category at all. Giving wrongly placed articles mandates to hold them in categories where they clearly do not belong just because they are the only article in the category just seems wrong. Normal category editing based on clear implications of content policies should not be frozen just because an editor goes around and creates one article categories. This whole situation is very frustrating. It is very frustrating that reasonable following of reasonable use of categories gets one yelled at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although he died in Bohemia, he was born in Vienna, and seems to have lived a large part of his life there. Since during his whole life both these places (I know I am using a city and a region), were under Habsburg control, and they were either both in the Holy Roman Empire or both in the Austrian Empire, Lobkowitz would never really have had to even in his own mind decide if he was a national of Austria with land holdings in Bohemia, or a Bohemian expatriate in Austria, because that was not how any political division worked on the de facto level, yes when he was born Vienna was in the Archduchy of Austria, but real practical political issues outside of the minutia of government administration meant he was functional in one land. This is a key reason why trying to impose modern terms on the past makes a mess. However here we do not even have modern terms being used in the article, the article never calls him Czech or anything like that. That is only introduced through the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth I had no idea that this edit would empty the category. I came across the article in my regular course of going through 1772 births. Am I really expected to A-check to ensure that a category has more than 1 article and B-if it only has one article leave the article in that category no matter how bad it is. For example I have seen people born after 1800 in 18th-century x categories, which is clearly and unequivocably wrong. So if I find a person who lived 1805-1874 who is in 18th-century Swedish novelists, and that is the only person in 18th-century Swedish novelists, do I have to leave them in that category even though it is totally and completely wrong?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrons of music[edit]

Why are we subdividing patrons of music by nationality at all? There are only 91 articles in sub-cats by nationality, in a total of 17 categories. The largest, American patrons of music, only has 20 articles. Basically if we are under 200 articles they will all fit on one page, so we need good reasons to subdivide, I see no good reasons to subdivide by nationality. 5 of these categories have 1 article. Polish patrons of music has 1 person who actually lived her entire life in the Russian Empire. Spanish patrons of music has a lead that actually describes the subject as a "patron of the arts", so not just music. Spanish patrons of the music is directly under patrons of the arts by nationality, which even that only has 24 categories. Belgian patrons of music has 3 articles, but 2 of them are on people who lived centuries before Belgium was formed. Russian patrons of music has 3 articles on people who died while it was still that Russian Empire, and 1 article on a person who fled with her aristocratic family to the west in 1919, at age 4, and lived the rest of her life primarily in Germany. She is in German patrons of the arts, so I removed her from the Russian category, she was not a patron of the arts before she was 5 so this was silly, her name is [[Tatiana von Metternich-Winneburg]].John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • so now all 3 articles in Russian Patrons of Music died. yes died, before 1900, and so are without dispute belonging in the Russian Empire cat (none of them pre-date the empire either), and I have identified the Polish patrons of music as an article we could put there. Which would give us 4. However I do not think that is enough to justify creating Patrons of music from the Russian Empire, with 4 articles, but I think we could place them in patrons of the arts from the Russian Empire, along with maybe some other articles that would fit there. Art colectors are placed under patrons of art, so Russian patrons of art has a maybe 35 articles, but I do not know if any of the 4 in the parent are in the child category. Philanthropists from the Russian Empire has 68 articles. Patrons of music are a sub-cat of philanthrpists. 3 of the 4 people in Russian patrons of art are from the Russian Empire, so we could get at least 7 articles into Patrons of the arts from the Russian Empire. Do you think that is worth creating. I am not sure if art collectors really should be placed directly in patrons of art/patrons of the arts. What do you think?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the 4 people in Italian patrons of music, only 1 lived after Italy was unified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under American patrons of music we have Anne Evans (arts patron) who might be too narrowly defined by this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All 7 articles in the Austrian patrons of music category are on people who died before 1918. In fact all of them died before 1900. 2 of them were Holy Roman Emperors. If we categorized by country at time of death, 3 would be Holy Roman Empire, 3 would be Austrian Empire, and 1 would be Austria-Hungary. Although one of the Austrian Empire died in 1814, so he probably did some music patronage before 1805.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princesses[edit]

Tatiana von Metternich-Winneburg is also in the Princesses in Germany category. Her father held a title of prince, she was born in the Russian Empire. It looks like her family had a Russian princely title. Although this seems to be more a noble title, not showing the person is closely related to the Czar. I have a sense with the prince/princess titles we may be categorizing more by shared name than an actual coherent unity of anything else. However she did not have a title in the Weimar Republic, or in Nazi Germany, or in post-World War II Germany. She was a Princess from the Russian Empire, or more precisely the holder of a title of princess that was a title within the nobility/royalty of the Russian Empire. The fact that the Russian Empire fell when she was 2 may make this a trivial fact, and not worth categorizing on, but to call her a Princess in Germany is not correct, we might as well create Category:Princesses in the United States of America because if she was a "Princess in Germany", living in non-monarchical Germany, than she would just have much been in the Princess in the United States of America if she had moved to Boston or Los Angeles instead of Berlin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza is called an "Austrian princess". The problem is this is because she married a member of a royal family, but the title was abolished 40 years before she was born. I do not think we should be categorizing people as if they had a title when the title no longer existed decades before they were born. This seems categorization by a trivial category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Art collectors by nationality wrong placement[edit]

I just noticed that Norton Dodge is in the category Russian art collectors. He is not Russian, or Soviet. He was a collector of art from the Soviet Union, specifically art made by dissidents during the Stalin regime. He is in Soviet art, so I will remove him from the Russian art collectors cat. This cat is meant to categorize people who collected art by where they are from, not people by what type of art they collected. We might want to rename it to Art collectors from Russia. And also rename its sibbling categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kolodzei Art Foundation, which was mainly supported by Dodge, was also in the Russian art collectors cat. I removed it. It was already in Russian art directly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a Art collectors from the Russian Empire category. Which would be different from Collectors of art from the Russian Empire. It now has 27 articles, the Russian art collectors has 22. I am still not fully convinced that it makes sense to actually call art collectors either patrons of art or patrons of the arts or philanthropists. What do you think?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chinese art collectors was a sub-cat of "Collectors of Asian art". I removed it. This is a cateogry for people who are Chinese who collect art, the art they collect does not matter, what matters is that they are nationals of China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My attempt to fix the mis-categorization as Chinese art collectors as a sub-cat of Collectors of Asian art was reverted. I put a note arguing my view on the talk page, I do not know if it will actually actract any attention. This category may need to be renamed so that it is not misused or misparented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should likewise remove American art collectors from American art as a parent category, etc. We do not care what art they collect. If we have an American who funds the collection of Art to an Italian museum, that is Italian art, they are still an American art collector, and if they move to Italy and become Italian, but collect Spanish art that they move to a Spanish museum, they might now be both an American art collector (if they did it before they were no longer functionally an American national) and an Italian art collector, but they would not be a Spanish art collector. Unless of course they in some way become a national of Spain, but they are not Spanish just because they interact with Spanish art.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • American women art collectors is a category that violates the last rung rule. ERGS rules say that we should not have a category that its only sub-cat is an ERGS category. In fact they say we should not have such categories unless basically all the articles in a category can be dispersed, but if the only sub-cat of a category is an ERGS category we really have a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Armenian art collectors the category is not really clear what anyone was trying to categorize by. No one there was a national of Armenia, even of Armenia as a sub-state of the Soviet Union. The one person left "Hagop Kevorkian", seems to actually basically be an American of Armenian descent who collected Armenian art, but he was born in the Ottoman Empire, but there is nothing to indicate he was ever a national of any place that was Armenia, and so I do not think he should be in a category for nationals of Armenia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marie-Therese Guyon Cadillac is in "Canadian art collectors". She was a resident of New France, some of the time living in parts of New France now in the US. I do not think we should put people from New France in the Canadian tree at all. I think pre-1763 Canadian categories are very hard to justify, but I think at best we can use Canadian to cover the period when and the areas of Canada that were part of the British Empire/Commonwealth, I do not think there is any jusiticication for tacking on people in New France as Canadian at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not one of the art collectors under Cuban Art Collectors was collecting art while a national of Cuba. I left Marcos Pinedo, since I do not want to be yelled out for fully emptying a category out of process. He was maybe 13 when he left Cuba. He is an American art collector who was born in Cuba, not in any reasonable way a national of Cuba who collects art.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 1 of the 4 people in Czech art collectors was actually a nation of the Czech Republic. She was born in 1919, so for the first 63 years of her life was a national of the Czechoslovakia. 3 odf the 4 articles would go under Czechoslovak art collectors (art collectors from Czechoslovakia) the 4th was a subject of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary. There is no Slovak art collector cat. I suspect we should just upmerge there people to art collectors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 of the 60 articles in Art collectors by nationality have only 1 article. 15 more have less than 5 articles. So 21 of the 60 categories have less than 5 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some misplacements are just odd. George Eumorfopoulos was a British national, who collected Chinese and Near Eastern art. He was placed in "Greek art collectors" I think because he is ethnically Greek, but he was born in Britain, and the lead calls him "British".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several other people who are Greek (and at least 1 Danish) expatriates who seem to have done art collecting after leaving. However these are people who are still in many ways connected with their home country, the Cubans were emigrants who left as children or young adults and because of the political realities did not go back at all. So even though it takes some parsing, I think the rich Greek shipping magnates who primarily live in Paris, Swtizerland, the US or Britain (or in 1 case has houses in at least 3 of those locations), are still Greek national art collectors, but I do not think people whose parents fled Cuba with them when they were children and who have become US nationals are still in any way or ever were Cuban art collectors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Destroyed Greek temples[edit]

I can't see much point to this - only a handful of Greek temples are not completely destroyed, and the others are at least partially destroyed. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a 19th-century non-Portuguese Angola and Mozambique[edit]

I understand the analogy to India, but I do not think other editors are not. The issue is not that the is Portuguese and French India in the 19th-century. The issue is that there is the Sikh Empire, which for part of the 19th-century, I believe about 2 decades is fully outside British control but fully in the hard to define area of India. I believe Sindh is for a time as well. The Ahom Kingdom in modern Assam does not come under British domination until 1819. The key is India is an existing hard to pin down concept. It is not a country in the sense of having one government, but it is a place people talk of like Greece was in ancient times. It's less than clear boymundaries are including all or most of modern Pakistan, Bangladesh and maybe Nepal, but possibly not actually including Manipur until the British wrest it from Burmese overlordship in about 1820 makes things a little tricky. However there is clear an idea of India and a sense of IndianessJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am familiar enough with The language of the God's in the world of Men to know it gets really tricky because many Indian cultural issues exist in what is now Indonesia, Malaysia and Cambodia. The Durrani Empire takes in modern Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and stretches at times into modern India, and the Mughals start I believe in what is now Uzbikistan. I am pretty sure Nepal would be seen as part of India, especially before the birth of the modern Bepal state in the 1760s or so. There is merit to categorizing people as from the Mughal Empire, but there is a sense of bring Indian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Angola and Mozambique we have a different issue. Yes in Angola the modern boundaries are not fully imposed by Portugal until the early 20th-century. The issue is in 1700 the Kingdom of Kongo is not "non-Portuguese Angola". Angola is synonymous with the Portuguese Colony. I have read enough of John Thornton's history of West Central Africa yo know this. The areas not controlled by the Portuguese are not Angola. Anymore than the Republic of Grneva was Switzerland in 1700. The fact that the Kingdom of Congo did include not just its main area now in Angola, but areas in the DR Congo and maybe even the Rwoublic of Congo, and that inland politics at times also traversed modern boundaries means that while there are areas outside Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique these areas are not Angola or Mozambique,but something else. It is at times something that we can not very well call anything other than African, although the Kingdom of Kongo is for a Tome both defined and we have enough stuff that could get articles to justify categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneers[edit]

I think we really should scrap the American pioneers and it's sub-cats. We either do not define them, or define them in pretty odd ways. Oregon pioneer starts off by saying it includes people up to a certain year, than says it probably excludes city dwellers and some others. I think it is more useful to categorize by political units. In Oregon we have people from the Oregon Country, People from Oregon Territory. We also have People who traveled the Oregon Trail. Are pioneers only the people who move to an area, or is it all of a certain group that lived there before x year. Is this a backhanded way to exclude Native American and mixed race people, even if they are a person like Sacagawea who is functioning in Euro-Akerican society? I think I saw one such Category, maybe Montana pioneers, that says it is actually for members of an organization. Which means it excludes some of the earliest Euro-American settlers who were dead when that organization formed. I do not think thus is a coherent or well defined Category. Especially when we over emphasize the railroad coming through. This often ignores that large parts of some territories were far from the railroad much after that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Society of Montana Pioneers was founded in Helena on September 11, 1884. James Fergus was elected the first president; George Irvine II, recording secretary; and Samuel T. Hauser, treasurer. Thirteen vice presidents represented the state's counties. Membership was open to "all persons who were residents within the Territory, on or before May 26, 1864." In 1901, the date of the residency requirement was changed to December 31, 1868." [1]". Really? So if someone lived until 1902 thry might be a member but if thry died in 1898 thry might not. How is this membership defining. Why would it be defining if being a pioneers in Oregon can last until 1890? Are we really saying 1880 Montana was not pioneer realm but 1880s Oregon was? Oregon was a state before Montana was a territory. This makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of put it gets better. Arizona pioneers says this "Category for non-Native American people who lived in Arizona by or before 1883, when the Second Transcontinental Railroad was completed, connecting Arizona with the rest of the United States." So here we reference living in Arizona by 1883. So we now have a 3rd or 4th date, here about 30 years before statehood. We now shift from saying those born there are excluded, from just excluding Native Americans. So an Iroquois former fur trader who comes to Arizona as a wgon company guide is excluded? Can Jean Baptiste Charboneu qualify since his Dad is white, or is he excluded since his mom is Sacagawea? Also since we include those born there, we include a child born in 1882 in Phoenix, but one born in 1882 in Utah who moves to Neaa in 1885, most likely most of the way by wagon, is excluded because when he movee at 3 there were railroads that did nor expedite the journey, and this should be used to tag businesspeople or politicians active in the 1930s why?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • California pioneers is defined thus "California pioneers — American pioneers in Mexican Alta California (1822-1848) and early U.S. California (1848−1870s)." So California pioneers exist later than Montana ones? Really?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky pioneers are called this "American pioneers, missionaries, trappers, and traders who arrived and settled in the region that is now the U.S. state of Kentucky prior to the American Revolutionary War." While I can see earlier cut offs for Kentucky, does 1775 Mae sense? If it does is this the best name?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Ohio definition is the same. Even though virtually none of Ohio (or maybe it is none of Ohio) has Native American claims relinquished before 1795. I am sure I can find lots of sources that will call people settling in what is now Ohio at least into the 1890s pioneers. In fact I think we can find sources basically at least through the war of 1812. I think many modern historians would wonder if pioneer is the best term. However at least in the Ohio context pioneering exists at least until statehood in 1803.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other states that use the heading are West Virginia (which repeats the sane wording as Kentucky) and then Virginia, which refers to settling in the "western region of Virginia". So we are using boundaries trawn by water in 1863, which involved fighting to impose those boundaries, to split people based on actions before 1775. I do not thinknthat makes sense. Are the western regions beyond the fall line, or a mountain ridge? I do not think it makes sense to split along the line of 1863. I also think it is odd how all these categories are defined. At least ones where we have territories I think we should use that, and not use merely being there, but asking it be defining. That is case by case, but just being born in 1886 does not qualify you for Territory connection in places that became States in 1889.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Guide to the Society of Montana Pioneers Records-1884-1956". Northwest Digital Archives. Retrieved 2013-02-04.

Savoyard state[edit]

I just came across the article on the Savoyard state. I have been coming across people who lived in areas under the Savoyard State called French because they lived in areas that were later made part of France, after thry died. I also came across someone born in 1759 in Navaria who was in a family from the Duchy of Savoy who was placed in the German people of French descent Category. I created People of Savoyard state descent, and hate the title, but People with ancestry from the Savoyard state seemed to irregular. From 1720 until 1861 the Savoyard state us called the Kingdom of Sardinia. Most of its inhabitants lived on the mainland, the capitol was in Turin. Although it uses the same name as the older Kingdom on the island it is not really connected to it. We have several Kingdom of Sardinia categories dominated by people who lived on the mainland. We do not appear to have any good categorization scheme for people from the Savoyard state from 1003 until 1720. I think a lot are in people from Savoy, which are then places under French people, even though Savoy was de jure part of the Holy Roman Empire until no later than 1648 and then de jure independent, not French at all. It was de facto independent before the de jure status. I see three possible solutions.

  1. Create People from the Savoyard state. This way we can ignore if it was a duchy or counry, and group those within the state even though there were various names. Include all in the Savoyard state from 1003 until 1848.
  2. Do the above but cut it off at 1720, use Kingdom of Sardinia post 1720.

3. Is like 2, but we would fix the issue a little more by splitting the post-1720 Kingdom of Sardinia population from pre-1720.

My current thought is the easiest is 2. Create the People from the Savoyard state, and define its contents only until 1720. Say all post 1720 people go under the Kingdom of Sardinia category. The biggest problem woth that is we will create a situation where a soldier, diplomat, judge or anyone else who spent rheir whole active life in or working for the Savoyard state will be in 2 categories for what really is just a name change. However it is the easiest way forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did create Category:People from the Savoyard state. It mainly consists of the by century People from Savoy categories from the 11th through the 17th centuries. The Savoyard emigrants to England Category, and the Dukes of Savoy. I am thinking Category names should follow article names. In cases where we lack a clear demonym we should use the name of the article. We want to link to the Savoyard state article, not the Savoy article. While Aavoyard is a usable demonym, I do not think it works. The problem is it onthe one hand is usable to this day for residents of the Savoy region. We do not want people from post-French annexation Savoy/Savoie in the category, well not if they only lived post-annexation of only are defined in that era. Maybe not at all if we let Kingdom of Sardinia superseded Savoyard State. On the other hand we want the article to encompasse all from the state, and it is not clear that Savoyard was consistently used as a demonym for all the state's residents, since Savoy was while the central title of the ruler also only a sub-state. Even if all could be called Savoyard, it was also a term used especially for those from Savoy proper. We have the same mess with Prussia, with the Province of Prussia in the state of Prussia. However the Savoy mess would be like Poland or Russia still calling an area under their control Prussia. Yes, I know Royal Prussia was part of Poland for much of the 18th-century, so an 18th-century person could be a Prussian from the Province of Prussia, the larger Kingdom of Prussia that included that province (although province might be a 19th-century wording), or from Royal Prussia. However no one in the 21st-century would claim to be a Prussian because thry are from Prussia because Prussia is gone. Savoy lives on, and adds to the headache. For similar reasons of confusion of a past independent state with a current city or other existing political unit we should not have Venetian, Bavarian, Genoese or Neopolitan as a demonym name intended for a past independent state of that name. We may have ended the Venetian categories, but we still have the other 3. We also still have some Prussian categoriea, I have no idea why.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 6 § Category:Historical geography[edit]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 6 § Category:Historical geography on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qing Empire[edit]

Qing Empire redirects to Qing dynasty. I know this is ghe normal convention in English, where we refer to a Ming dynasty vase. It is a horrible convention, because the dynasty is the ruling family not the state. I think we would be better off if we created a separate Qing Empure article, that discussed the state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transit authorities with natural gas busses[edit]

I think this runs into the once it applies it always applies problem. Also the problem that this opens us up to transit authorities with horse drawn busses, transit authorities with gasoline busses. Transit authorities with diesel busses, etc. As long as a transit Authority ever had a type of bus, it would belong. No matter if they no longer have them. This does not seem to be a good way to build categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People from the Savoyard state[edit]

so now this category is up for merger with the People from Savoy Category. This is a horrible plan. To start with it asserts thry are the same. If thry were the same we would have 1 article. We have two. Savoy, which is a cultural-historical region in France. Then we have Savoyard state which was a European state from 1003-1861. It was not part of France. For some of that time it was part of the Holy Roman Empire. People from Savoy is a sub-cat of French people. People from the Savoyard state are by definition not from France. A similar situation would be if Poland had retained the name of Prussia for the area of East Prussia it annexed in 1945. Then we would have a Category People from Prussia, and reject People from the Kingdom of Prussia and instead try to place all those under the Polish people tree. Even though the Kingdom of Prussia had its capital at Berlin. Well, the Savoyard State had its capital at Turin. It is the parent state of the Kingdom of Italy that existed from 1861-1945, like the Kingdom of Prussia is the parent of modern Germany. The Savoyard state also had boundaries that were much bigger than the Savoy that was annexed by France. Yes the whole area was often called Savoy, but our Savoy article does not really talk about that. We have two distinct topics, one a cultural area that exists in the present, one a historical independent state, and they are not the same. Probably a lot of the stuff currently under People from Savoy ought to be changed to People from the Savoyard state. They are clearly not the same topic though. The Savoyard state was an independent country, and we have an article on it showing that is the agreed upon best name for it. I have explained why Savoyard is not a workable name. A person living in Savoy in 1905 would be a person from Savoy, they would not be a person from the Savoyard state. A person living in Turin in 1650 would be a person from the Savoyard state, I am not actually certain it would make sense to call them a person from Savoy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably based on the articles we should probably limit People from Savoy to this who lived after 1860 and who were French. People from the Savoyard state would then be limited to those from 1003-1861, and living in the Savoyard state, with those from the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1720-1861 as a subcat. The Savoyard state was not part of France, its vmvapital Turin is not in France, they no more go in the French tree than people from the Prussia in Berlin or Konigsburg in 1825 go in the Polish tree. They might fit in the Italian tree though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking into this more. It appears that for much of the 15th-century Geneva was functionally part of the Savoyard state. If you go back to 1200 the County of Geneva consisted mainly of areas now in Savoy, the Frech cultural region. The County of Savoy itself included Aosta and other places now in Italy. Provance was also in the Holy Roman Empire, so these places were not then even on the border with France. The Savoyard Knights of I believe King Edward III would not have seen themselves or been perceived by others as French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jurists from Denmark–Norway[edit]

This has reached a point of frustration. I created this category to include a person from Denmark who was a lawyer for decades within the polity of Denmark-Norway. It has now been expanded to 14 articles, some from Denmark, some from Norwatmy, at least one born in Schleswig, some who operated in both the Danish and Norwegian parts of the real union.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there are other sub-categories of Jurists by nationality with just one article, including Kuwaiti Jurists,which between 2 categories has a total of 1 article, the earmarked of this category for deletion feels like it is an act designed to destroy my work. Which is all the more frustrating because Denmark-Norway is the best way to categorize many Jurists, especially those who operated in both areas when it was one country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denmark-Norway was a real union. The article on such says "Real union is a union of two or more states, which share some state institutions." At this level in would seem that politicians and jurists would have a close connection to the real union. This state existed from 1524-1814, so it outlasted many peoples lives. It is essentially the same type of political system as Austria-Hungary and the Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth. Since it included Schleswig and the Duchy of Holstein, as well as the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland and I guess the Danish Gold Coast and Danish West Indies, but most importantly Schleswig and Holstein, it had subjects who cannot easily be called Danish or Norwegian. There was also a large level of movement within the polity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Savoyard state[edit]

we have the Savoyard counter revolutionaries that seems about people from the Kingdom of Sardinia. However we have this statement on the Kingdom "Under Savoyard rule, the kingdom's government, ruling class, cultural models and center of population were entirely situated in the mainland." Sardinia had never been an independent country under that title. It seems to gave gone from the Crown of Aragon, to Spain, to being the Titular part of the structure of the Savoyard State. The current category structure incorporates people from early medieval times on Sardinia. I am starting to think we should split anything and snybody pre-1720 into a history of Sardinia category, and then for post-1720 people merge them into a People from the Savoyard state structure. This will allow us to have diplomats, soldiers and politicians who only operated within or as agents of the Savoyard state to be in one catehory, even if thry lived across the 1730 name change. For writers, scientists and other less political regime linked occupations it seems that a writer who lived and wrote his entire life in Turin, with his life lasting 1680-1750, that we would not want to split him in 2 categories just because the rulers of the Savoyard state adopted a new name, but remained for all intents and purposes the same stateJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently a small part of what is now Switzerland was in the Savoyard state until Genoa was annexed by Switzerland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your request[edit]

Doug Weller talk 08:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports overcategorization[edit]

I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be fair the word "professional" above means any level of paid baseball, even in this case A level minors. We have never even agreed that all these levels of playing baseball are notable, even when we were our most generous in granting notability to sportspeople. 18 different teams is just ludicrous. It comes very close to performer by performance level of teams. I am thinking at some point this violates the rule against categorizing performer by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Abbott article is 16 paragraphs plus tables and other things long. It still does not mention Winston-Salem Warthogs or several other teams that he is categorized by. I am not sure why all 18 teams cannot be expected to be mentioned in his article, but if we cannot expect them to be mentioned in the article, I am not sure at all why we should categorize by them.~~~~~


John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On further review Jim Abbott seems to have a very limited connection with the minor leagues, so I am not sure how in the world he would be definingly connected with say level A (below AA and AAA, which is below MLB, so the 4th tier of baseball) Hickory Crawdads. The article says "In 1989, he joined the Angels' starting rotation as a rookie without playing a single minor league game." So when did he play with the Crawdadas, and the other mentioned teams. How is he notable as an American expatriate baseball player in Canada when we do not even have text in the article mentioning or explaining his time in Canada? I have now more closely read the article. I am starting to be confused. The article says he was playing college baseball through the 1988 season. He also was involved in exhibition games at the 1988 olympics. Then the article details his MLB career, says he never played a minor league game, and follows him to his retirement. So I am not sure when he played with the 4 mentioned minor league teams. Although I am now thinking that revert mentioned above was for a different player. This Jim Abbott is just being said to have played for Calgary and Vancouver, but I am not seeing how that could have included any games, as the text says he played no minor league games, and I even less see why he is in the Hickory Crawdads category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the starting link was with Kurt Abbott. That article is 7 paragraphs long. This is the relevant portion about his minor league career. "He played collegiately at St. Petersburg Junior College.[1] Abbott was drafted by the Oakland Athletics in the 15th round of the 1989 Major League Baseball Draft.[2]

Abbott would break into the major leagues on September 7, 1993, as a member of the Athletics in an 11–7 win over the Blue Jays.[3]" In the info box his 5 major league teams are mentioned, none others. There is also this "Abbott was granted free agency after the season, and lingered in the minor leagues until 2003, playing his final 21 games for the Memphis Redbirds.[9]" That is 2 years of minor league play at that point. I still think if we do not have it mentioned in the article we should not categorize by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1838 establishments in Schleswig-Holstein[edit]

We should not merge the article here to 19th-century establishments in Schleswig-Holstein. I erred in creating this category by not having dug deep enough. Schleswig-Holstein is born as a province in the Kingdom of Prussia in q866 or 1867. Before that the Duchy of Schleswig and the Duchy of Holstein are 2 district places. More to the point in 1838 the Duchy of Schleswig was part of Denmark, but not part of the German Confederation, nor had it ever been part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Duchy of Holstein is more messy. It was part of the German Confederation, but was also controlled by the King of Denmark. It had been part of Denmark-Norway, so part of a real union not just a personal one. I believe after the loss of Norway you still have Denmark with one government to some extent. The one article here is a sports organization formed in Kiel, in the Duchy of Holstein. I am not sure it is worth categorizing under the Establishments in Denmark tree. So 1838 establishments in the German Confederstion is probably enough. It might also go in the Duchy of Holstein Category, and because it did exist later in Schleswig-Holstein once it existed might fit in the History of Schleswig-Holstein Category. However it should not be in the establishments in Schleswig-Holstein Category at all, since it was established 28 years before Schleswig-Holstein was formed. That will then leave the whole establishments in Schleswig-Holstein tree empty. Even if this one thing was established in Schleswig-Holstein leaving it as the lone member of the Category would not make sense, but it was not. I added this to that category because I had not dug deeply enough in the history to understand that Schleswig-Holstein did not exist in 1838 when I made the category. That was unwise on my part. The whole project of trying to ensure that every article was in a category that intersected year of establishment with polity of establishment was probably taken too far by me. I created far too many nearly empty trees that did not aid navigation in the process. I wish I could reverse more of it, but it is clear that this category is historically wrong, and we need to do our best to restore the placement to be historically accurate. If we did place the article in 1838 establishments in Denmark as well, since Kiel and the rest of the Duchy of Holstein were in both the German Confederation and Denmark (the Austrian Empire was about half in and half out of the German Conferderation so that creates more mess, from 1815-1866 we have a confusing situation, earlier we have the Kingdom of Prussia from 1701-1805 including both areas in and outside the Holy Roman Empire), so if we place the article in both establishments in the German Confederation and establishments in Denmark, we will move establishments in Denmark in 1838 to a total of 5 categories. Why with currently 4 and potentially 5 categories it has a sub-category for companies established I am not sure. There are huge numbers of categories such as 1838 establishments in Ecuador that only have 1 article. I doubt these are the best categories to have. I also now wonder if everything established is really defined by where it was established. I spent a huge amount of energy trying to move musical groups into the category for the intersection of year of establishment and state where thry first come together intersect. Now I wonder if that really is a defining intersection for all groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy, robbery and fiction[edit]

piracy is an act of robbery is the real world. I am less convinced this is the case in the fictional world. TV tropes has a trope named "the pirates who don't do anything" to cover fictional pirates who never actually do any acts of piracy. The hierarchy of fictional occupations dies not need to meet what we set up for their real world conterparts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sacked Hindu temples in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Sacked Hindu temples in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriates[edit]

If people spending 5 years somewhere as an art student is not defining, I have grave doubts that spending 5 months or less as a baseball player is. That said, I would argue that 5 years as an art student, especially before 1800 when it means living in the expatriated place continually for 5 years is defining. I think in general if someone is a resident student (as opposed to correspondence, online or some other set up that is low residency or non-resident) who earns a degree that is enough to place is an expatriate category. I think in general exchsnge students who come for a semester, year or less is not enough. Clearly internal student categorization is not a big cause of category clutter. The main expatriate category clutter drivers are placement of diplomats in categories for evey even short assignment, and the placement of some expatriate sports players in half a dozen or more categories. I am somewhat a guilty party in creating the first. The ambassador categories I think work, but for diplomats with lower level titles I think we need to ensure significant length of service. The problem is that there is no good rule. I am hesitant to even start after the category because some of our literrally thousands of expatriate categoeies may all be articles on diplomats whose inclusionis not in line with guidelines of definingness. The fact that we have acted like we need to place every expatraite and emigrant in the intersection category of starting and ending country, even if that is the only article that exists for that intersection has lead to dozens if not hundreds of such categories being 1 article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On second thought considering most expatriate resident students, as opposed to exchange students, are categorized by where they got their degree, I do not think we need to place then in expatriate cats in most cases. Some in the arts, especially if they created significant exhibitor performances while in the country they were studying in might by an exception. On the other hand, short term performances, exhibits, assignments as a journalist, travel that you then become notable for writing about, etc. I do not think are the things of expatriateness. There are probably American World War II soldiers defined by their involvement in fighting at Normandy, but I do not think thry go in American expatriates in France unless they were more significantly and long term in France. They go in American military personnel in World War II or a sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

artists from New Spain[edit]

Artists from New Spain consists only of people from.mainland New Spain. It does not include anyone from the Spanish East Indies or the Spanish West Indies. Every article is on someone who would live in an area in the Mexican Empire after independence. So however far apart they lay seem to us today, they lived in an area that was unified in 1822. Therem8ght be arguments for keeping those in physically separated parts of the Viceroyalty of New Spain in separate categories, but I think at least those within the contiguous mainland area of New Spain, which all of these articles are, form a coherent group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The category now contains José Damián Ortiz de Castro who is called in the article "Novohispanic". I have doubts that is the best way to refer to people from New Spain, especially in English, but that is a different issue. Since that article was only findable either by birth year searches (how I did it), or exhaustive searches in specific Mexican artist type categories to find those who were actually from New Spain (which I have not done yet), I suspect there are probably more articles that use that form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there is José Francisco Xavier de Salazar y Mendoza, who was born in Yucatan, but did much of his work in Spanish Louisiana. So he moved to different mainland areas of New Spain, but his most unifying trait is as an Artists from New Spain. It seems silly to create Artists from the Captaincy General of the Yucatan and Artists from Spanish Louisiana, just because we today do not think these places are connected enough. Salazar never thought of himself as going to a new place, and anyway he might well be the only person who had a defining artistic career in Spanish Louisiana, so there is no reason to create a one article category just for him. I am a bit more hopeful that there are a few other notable articles from the Captaincy General of Yucatan, but highly doubt there are 5.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American schoolteachers[edit]

I think it is right that the best way to subdivide American school teachers is by state. We maybe should make it clearer that this should be by state taught in. I quickly found a teacher who had taught at both a high school and a junior high. In fact the lines are not even consistent in the US, my brother at times taught both high school and middle school in the same term. He taught science and math. When I was in high school our choir teacher taught at the middle school at the sane time, and one of my middle school band treachery had previously been a band teacher in both middle school and high school. There are enough private, charter and even public schools in the US that are either 6-12, 5-12 and even in dome cases K-12 or even pre-K-12 that overlap occurs in many ways. In dome subjects like art and music most teachers are licensed K-12, and most high school teachers are licensed 6-12. James Fouts, who has an article because he was mayor of Warren, Michigan for over a decade, retired from a career as a teacher. I had him as my high school government teacher. He had previously been a Junior High School social studies teacher. I had several teachers in high school who had at times taught at the junior high/middle school level. All my treachery in high school did their whole trenching careers in Michigan. There are teachers who switch States, my grandmother's best friend was a teacher in Utah, California and Michigan, but she also taught at several grade levels so she would not be easily categorizable no matter which way you came at the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcocapelle&oldid=1234757258"