Jump to content

User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2024/February

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


Category:Danzig emigrants to the United States has been nominated for splitting

Category:Danzig emigrants to the United States has been nominated for splitting. 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) 22:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Artisans by ethnicity has been nominated for deletion

Category:Artisans by ethnicity 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. Mason (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Roger Hoffman

Notice

The article Roger Hoffman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of secondary coverage supporting notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Excessive categories

I just cut our article on Arnold Schwarzenegger down to 71 categories. I think it was at over 100. This still seems excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Soviet classical guitarists

A tag has been placed on Category:Soviet classical guitarists 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, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Shoqan Walikhanov

Please don't remove categories that are clearly defining. The Kazakh categories are useful and are not the same as the russian empire categories. Shoqan Walikhanov "was a Kazakh scholar, ethnographer, historian and participant in the Great Game. He is regarded as the father of modern Kazakh historiography and ethnography." Removing the categories related to Kazakh is unhelpful and risks erasing one the this person's defining features. Mason (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I think this person would fit much better under a Kazakh people from the Russian Empire category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
    • The categories in question are not named "Kazkh", they are named "Kazakhstani". The latter is a demonym linking people to Kazkahstan, which did not exist in the 19th-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
      Can you at least see how this removal could be problematic? Mason (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
      @Smasongarrison I've tried this same conversation before, to no avail, regarding these Russian Empire categories. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
      Kazakhstan can not be said to have existed as a political unit before the 1936 formation of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. There is no coherent nation to make people Kazkstani nationals if before then. There was an ethnic Kazakh people, but at least from 1945 until 1992 they were a minority of the population of the Kazakh Soviet Republic /Kazakhstan. For these reasons we would be beat off renaming Kazkstani categories to People from Kazakhstan, and limiting then to people who lived after 1936, and probably exclude anyone who was only a public figure in their life pre-1936. At the same time we might pbe able to form a sub-cat of Ethic Kazakh people for Ethnic Kazakh people from the Russian Empire, to join the various othercsub-cats of People from the Russian Empire by ethnicity. Fir similar reasons I think there is a strong argument to remane our Azerbaijani, Uzbekistani and for slightly different but rekated reasons our Armenian category to be People from Azerbaijan, People from Uzbekistan and People from Armenia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
      Ok, Mr. Lambert. Humor me. As a creative exercise, can you come up with a few reasons why it would be problematic to remove them? I understand the argument that you're making, but I want you to try to understand my argument. What could be the downsides to your approach? Mason (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
      @Johnpacklambert, humor me. Mason (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
      One underlying question is should categories be factually accurate for all members, or should they group like things, people etc. The problem is that the way groups of people are described changes over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
      Ok, but how does that relate to my questions. "Can you come up with a few reasons why it would be problematic to remove them?" [...] "What could be the downsides to your approach?" Mason (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
      @Johnpacklambert, I'm going to keep nudging you on this. This is a good thought exercise that'll help you consider alternative perspectives. Mason (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ethnic Kazakh singers

A tag has been placed on Category:Ethnic Kazakh singers 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, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Humanitarians from the Russian Empire has been nominated for merging

Category:Humanitarians from the Russian Empire 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. Mason (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Businesspeople from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for splitting

Category:Businesspeople from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for splitting. 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) 05:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Artists from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for splitting

Category:Artists from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for splitting. 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) 05:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum this category needs to also be upmerged to Colony of New South Wales people as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Scientists from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for merging

Category:Scientists from the Colony of New South Wales 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. Mason (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Writers from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for splitting

Category:Writers from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for splitting. 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) 05:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lawyers from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for splitting

Category:Lawyers from the Colony of New South Wales has been nominated for splitting. 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) 05:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For lawyers the political location where they work is absolutely defining. I think this nomination is not at all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic Kazakh people from the Russian Empire has been nominated for renaming

Category:Ethnic Kazakh people from the Russian Empire has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I really think assuming that the difference between Kazak and Kazakstani will be evident is too much. Kazakh currently as a category redirects to Kazakstanis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic Kazakh people from the Soviet Union has been nominated for renaming

Category:Ethnic Kazakh people from the Soviet Union has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Too small categories

Wikipedia has way too many categories with under 5 articles in them. We really need to cut down on the excessive number of such small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't delete categories out of process. Mason (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Women composers from the Austrian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Women composers from the Austrian Empire 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 14:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Draginja Ružić

Draginja Ružić is an article that illustrates the problems with anachronistic speaking of things in the past as if they were happening under the present border conditions. The article used to suggest in 1860 she moved to a new country. In fact she just moved within the Banat, an area in the Austrian Empire. There were no boundary crossings at all, but by focusing too much on modern boundaries the article made it seem otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

College Football coaches in the United States

This category has 35 sub-cats in its first 200 that have less than 5 articles. It has over 1000 sub-cats. At present most college football coaches coach at multiple colleges in their career. Pre-1920 or so many college football coaches were more like a team captain. I am also not at all sure that all college football coaches are defined by every single college they were a coach at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ted Egger first example has had positions at 9 colleges. At times this starts heading toward performer by performance territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

19th century births by decade

The combined total of articles in all birth categories for the 1830s is 20,268.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

For the 1840s the number is 23454.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Architects

At least 32 architects buly nationality categories have less than 5 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oregon pioneers

I really think we should scap the Oregon pioneers Category. It excludes those born in Oregon. It says it includes those who came to Oregon by 1890, but then says maybe only those who were there before statehood in 1859. Then it says those who came by ship, or who were bankers in Portland should be excluded. It is unclear what use this category is when we have both People from Oregon Country and People from Oregon Territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Gynaecologists

Category:Gynaecologists has way too many categories with 1 article, and even more with less than 5. We also seem to not know if we want this category or the Obstetricians and gynaecologists Category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Grigoris Lambrakis the one entry in the Greek category is mainly k own as a politician and activist. There is no reason why being in a Greek physicians Category and a general gynaecologists Category would not suffice for him. It would make finding him in searches easier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
22 of the 87 gynacologists and 75 obstructions categories are dual categories. In some where there is not overlap, like Bangladeshi, what is 4 g and 2 would become 5 articles if the category merged. While these are 2 distinct roles, a large portion of medical doctors who are 1 are the other. Beyond this some medical doctors in this sub-cat are in the general physicians/medical doctors parent Category for the same nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Zaid Kilani

Zaid Kilani the one article in Jordainian obstetricians is said to have specialized in obstetrics and gynecology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Laila Bugaighis

Laila Bugaighis the only article in Libyan obstetricians is said to be a consultant in obstetrics and gynecology. She is also in women gynecologists, but in defiance of ERGS rules not in the gender neutral parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Samia al-Amoudi

Samia al-Amoudi is the only article in either Saudi Arabian obstructions or gynecologists. So there are 2 categories to hold this 1 article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Lebanese

The Lebanese gynecologists and obstructions categories each have 2 articles. They are the same 2 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Singaporean categories collectively have 5 articles. At least 4 were both. But 2 of those who say thry were also obstructions are only in the gynecologists caregory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Italian obstetricians

Michele Carlo Frari one of 3 articles in Italian obstetricians is already in 19th-century Italian physicians, so if we just moved him to obstetricians the number of categories would remain the sane.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Taiwanese categories also have a total of 1 article for 2 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
of the 3 articles in Swedish obstetricians, 1 only even went to medical school after leaving Sweden.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The Tajikstani cats are separate, but for obstetricians all 3 articles are also in the Soviet category which is combined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

American football College coaches in the United States and overcategorization

Right now we are categorizing college football coaches by every college they every coached at. Yet categorization is supposed yo be by defining characteristics. It is also supposed to create large enough groups. We have over 1000 such categories, but a portion of them have less than 5 articles. Just upmerging all the under 5 categories would create a large parent cat, although since some articles are in 10 or core cats for coaching at specific colleges, universities or other places competing at that level, it is hard to model how big this would make things. However there might be another option. Many college coaches who go from college to college specialize in specific areas, say defensive coach or offensive coach. At the sane time the people most connected with an institution are thd head coach. Even a short term head coach is going to be spoken if in connection with the institution. A short term defensive line coach not quite as much. I think we should do the following:

1-rename the coaches by institution categories, at least in college football, to head coaches, so we would get Michigan Wolverines Head football coaches. 2-limit such categories to those with 5 or more articles. Place other head coaches in a general cat. 3-create categories for college defensive coaches, college offensive coaches, and a few other well defined somewhat broad categories, and place coaches in them as needed. This should solve both the placement of articles in 10 plus coaching categories that at times gets too close to performer by performance, and at the same time cut down on too many small categories that make navigation hard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Engineers by nationality

This whole tree is full of way too small categories. Not only are there many cats wirh under 5 articles, some with under 5 articles have sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

please stop removing people from Pre-Confederation Canadian emigrants to the United States‎

Please stop removing people from the more specific categories within Pre-Confederation Canadian emigrants to the United States‎. It is not helpful as you're effectively disconnecting them from the geographic area of Canada. [1]. The understanding from recent CFD is that pre-confederation Canada includes people who emigrated to places in present day canada BEFORE the confederation. They're still described as Canadian in the vast major of cases. If you don't understand why this is problematic, I am happy to discuss and give you suggestions for thought exercises, like I've been trying to do in other conversation on the page. Mason (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

For the time being I will not remove people from such categories. For the record I think they are wrongly named. We should not be categorizing people as emigrants by what the area they moved to would later be. We should be categorizing them as emigrants based on what the area was when they emigrated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • To eleaborate more on the above "pre-Confederation Canada" is an indication the area would later be Canada. Some of "pre-Confederation Canada" overlaps by time with the Dominion of Canada. So it would make a lot more sense to call it "British North America", and name categories about it accordingly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • In 1869 Canada has clear boundaries. It does not then include the Colony of British Colombia, Ruper's Land, Prince Edward Island, Or the NorthWestern Territory, or whatever exactly that area was called then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
    "For the time being I will not remove people from such categories. " thanks. I appreciate it. I know that the current system isn't perfect, and I agree that there's a lot of nuance in the boundaries that aren't captured exactly right. And you raise good points about the nuance that don't work in the current system. I just think that it's a better use of everybody's time (yours included!) to focus on correcting major inaccuracies. I think you do a lot of good work at those major inaccuracies! Anyway, thanks for being flexible. Mason (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

1831 births

The category 1831 births currently has 1859 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:American military sports coaches Category Talk

American military sports coaches has 62 sub-cats. 31 of them have 1 article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:NCAA Division II College football coaches in the United States has been nominated for renaming

Category:NCAA Division II College football coaches in the United States 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. – robertsky (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The other parts of the football tree are organized by division. Also the parent Category had over 1000 sub-cats. This is too many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:NCAA Division III College football coaches in the United States has been nominated for renaming

Category:NCAA Division III College football coaches in the United States 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. – robertsky (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The parent Category has over 1000 sub-cats. That is too many. Other football categories are sorted in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:NAIA College football coaches in the United States has been nominated for merging

Category:NAIA College football coaches in the United States 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. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

We have other content in NAIA football. No explanation has been given as to why this cannot go there. Currently the parent Category has over 900 sub-cats, and would go back over 1000 if this was implemented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Diarists by nationslity

10 or the 33 categories have either 1 or 2 article. We already have diarists directly under Diarists, so I see no reason we should n9t upmerge these articles to respective writers by nationality categories, if they are not spread in other sub-cats, and to diarists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Diarists from Austria-Hungary

A tag has been placed on Category:Diarists from Austria-Hungary 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 14:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

College athletes and College coaches in the United States

These two Category sets have excessively high numbers of sub-cats with less than 5, and often with just 1 article. There is no reason that we cannot directly place these in a non-sport specific athletes or coaches Category for the College they went to and in a non-college specific College players or coaches Category. We already have people in such non-differentiated categories in some cases. In some structures, such as College rifles coaches in the United States, we have more total categories than total articles. This while structure is very excessive and is not aiding navigation at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines coaches

Michigan Wolverines coaches has 23 sub-cats. 12 of these have less than 4 articles. I see no good reason why we should keep these 12. We could upmerge the contents to Michigan Wolverines coaches directly and to the College x sport coaches in the United States categories that apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Category:College offensive line coaches in the United States has been nominated for deletion

Category:College offensive line coaches in the United States 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. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:College running backs coaches in the United States has been nominated for deletion

Category:College running backs coaches in the United States 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. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:College tight ends coaches in the United States has been nominated for deletion

Category:College tight ends coaches in the United States 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. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:College quarterbacks coaches in the United States has been nominated for deletion

Category:College quarterbacks coaches in the United States 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. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:College offensive coordinators in the United States has been nominated for deletion

Category:College offensive coordinators in the United States 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. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:College defensive coordinators in the United States has been nominated for deletion

Category:College defensive coordinators in the United States 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. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Assistant College football coaches in the United States has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assistant College football coaches in the United States 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. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Overcategorization of football coaches

I think it is overcategorization that we categorize football coaches by every college thry coaches at, even if thry were a low level staffer for just 1 season. 1 season as a low level staffer is not defining in most cases. We need to finsmd a watmy to limit these categories to links that are defining. 1 season as a 3rd tier coach on a huge coaching staff in a decades long career is not defining. Categories should only cover defining things not every detail of a person's life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

College football coaches in Alabama, etc.

I am wondering if it would be worthwhile to divide the categories for some college sports coaches in the US by state. We already divide some high school coaches in the United States by state. I am not yet sure of all the pros and cons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

We do not allow high school coaches by school categories. We only divide basketball and football coaches by state. We have 288 baseball coaches. That is probably not enough to justify a division by state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I am thinking the by state division would help with college track and field coaches in the United States. We have 259 direct articles, plus 163 sub-cats, 63 of them with 1 article and a bunch more with under 5. I am not sure we could get a large enough size for all states to justify sub-cats, but I think we could for most states. At least some coaches have careers involving multiple schools in the same state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Only 3 of the college track and field coaches by college categories have over 10 articles. The most any Category has is 13.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Category:Establishments in Danish India by year

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 7 § Category:Establishments in Danish India by year on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Category:1951 establishments in the Free Territory of Trieste

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 7 § Category:1951 establishments in the Free Territory of Trieste on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories

If you're going to go around adding "empire" categories to people, you need to be far more careful about it. Literally every time a new run of Special:WantedCategories generates, I always find several categories that you added to pages which either (a) contain a typo that you failed to correct, or (b) are correctly spelled but don't even exist at all.

Redlinked categories are not allowed on articles, however, and it makes unnecessary work for other people to have to clean up your mistakes after you.

If you want to add categories to articles, then the onus is on you to double-check that you're adding categories that exist, and are spelled correctly, so that you're not leaving a trail of non-existent categories behind you for other people to fix. So after you add any categories to a page, check to ensure that the categories you added are blue — if they're red, meaning that they don't exist, then you need to either fix your typo if you just made a typo, or remove the category if it actually doesn't exist at all, yourself.

If I continue to see redlinked categories caused by you mistyping things, however, I'll be forced to report the problem to WP:ANI to potentially seek even further restrictions on your editing privileges on grounds of being disruptive. So you need to fix your redlinked category mistakes yourself before they become my problem to fix. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This was a very unfriendly note. I am regularly checking categories to ensure that they exist. When I find new categories I feel are worth creating I go to the effort to create at least 5 articles to place in them. This was very rude and both the tone and the attack in it was totally uncalled for. I have been working to ensure that every category I add does in fact exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Johnpacklambert, I have a similar complaint. At both Hoover J. Wright and William J. Young (coach) you deleted categories that are supported by the text of the article. This comes on the heels of a few days ago when you started mass-deleting college football coaching categories related to tenures as a assistant based on own your rationale that contravened broad consensus upheld by scores of other editors for the better part of two decades. I also think your current campaign to break down Category:College track and field coaches in the United States is also ill-conceived. In short, you need to do a better job of editing carefully and seeking consensus before instituting broad changes to categorization. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Your complaint is not similar at all, but totally different. There is nothing in the text of the article on Wright that states his ethnicity, so categorizing him by that is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
My complaint is similar in that it's also related to messing up categories. Any American who graduated from an a HBCU prior to integration in the 1960s can be safely assumed to be African-American. His ethnicity is also obvious from his picture. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Ethnicity is not obvious from the picture. Please stop going around and using pictures to impute ethnicity. It is a wrong headed practice. You need sources that state ethnicity. Looking at a picture and assuming ethnicity from that is original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course his ethnicity is obvious from the picture. That aside, how about the fact that he graduated from Maryland State College in 1948? Common sense should trump pedantry here. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Facts that are included in categories should be stated clearly in the text of an article, not have to be deduced from such details. No, it is not obvious from the picture. For all I know from the picture alone he could be Afro-Brazilian, Black Canadian, from Nigeria, from South Africa, Black British, and probably Fijian. Beyond this, ethnicity is based on the total sum of a person. It needs to be sourced, not just assumed from a picture.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
But we know Wright was American. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
We know Wright was born in the US. That is not the same thing as identifying as African-American, or being identified as such by others, or by similar terms. I strongly suspect he was, but we should have a sourced statement that he was, not just be guessing at it based on where he went to school or how he looked. You should be able to say "I am adding Wright to the category African-Amercan x, because this reliable secondary source referred to him as African-American, or this reliable secondary source in this year referred to him as X, which is a term that we can understand to be equivalent to African-American", categories by ethnicity should be built on what is said in reliable secondary sources, which is then stated in the text of the article. We should not be assuming ethnicity by guessing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
We know Wright was born in the US and spent his whole life there. Thus he was American. We also know that that he graduated from an HBCU prior to the civil rights movement and desegregation in the United States, which means that he and/or his society at large identified him as black. Black plus American = African-American. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Not all people of African descent in the United States are African-American. We categorize based on ethnicity, not based on race. While people who are children of immigrants from Nigeria, Jamaica, or Haiti may identify and be identified by others as African-American in some cases, others who are such children would not identify as ethnically African-American. You need to source ethnicity, not assume it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
You claim that you regularly check categories to ensure that they exist, but Special:WantedCategories begs to differ — for instance, today's report featured both Category:Emigrants fromvthe Russian Empire and Category:Painters from the Russuan Empire, both from typos you made but then failed to correct. I'd have let it slide if this was an isolated incident, but it's not: literally every time that report runs, it always contains somewhere between two and five or six redlinked categories that you put on articles, usually from typos that you failed to correct but occasionally also because you correctly typed the words but a category at that name doesn't exist at all. I'm not frankly all that interested in what you consider "unfriendly" or "rude", either — I can't guess what you think you're doing, I can only go by what Special:WantedCategories actually shows, and it always contains mistyped redlinks that were left there by you every single time it runs. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not saying you're not allowed to make typos — everybody makes typos, even me. But after you save a page, review it to make sure that everything you did worked properly, and if you do see redlinked categories then make another edit to fix them right away. The report doesn't instantly catch redlinked categories the moment they exist — it only runs once every 72 hours, so it will only catch redlinked typo categories if you leave them there and walk away. If you fix any typos you make promptly, however, then there won't be a problem because redlinks weren't left behind. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Overcategorization

Categorizes are supposed to summarize the key important details of a persons life, not cover every possible small bit of trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Using a picture as a source for ethnicity needs to stop

I was just told by an editor about an article "his ethnicity can be assumed from the picture". No, it cannot. We cannot assume what ethnicity someone is from how they look alone. That is not justified. First off, because it is original research. Secondly, because ethnicity is a complex thing that is not created by one factor. Thirdly, because we categorize by defining traits, not just by any trait. I guess there might be a picture that one could assume ethnicity from. The subject would need to be wearing clothes, and better yet holding a sign, that actively proclaimed their association with a group. Even then you probably cannot assume from a picture. You most clearly cannot assume ethnicity based on how a person looks. Because any ethnic group your chose there are lots of people who look that way who are in another ethnic group. Also because we categorize by ethnic group, we need to show both that the person idetified with the group and others do. A picture on its own will not provide that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

How about the fact that Wright graduated from Maryland State College in 1948? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Many people at HBCUs were not in fact African-American, but were Liberian, or many other ethnic groups. The sum total of that pacticular case might point to being African-Amenrican, but it should be stated explicitly in the text before it is added as a category, not left to make the reader investigate in detail the history of of the educational institution before understanding. Information needs to be placed in an article before it is included in a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Anyway my above statement was about the claim that something can be assumed from a picture. Trying to figure out things from a picture is doing original research, that should not be done in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
"Information needs to be placed in an article before it is included in a category." I wasn't aware of this policy. Can you point to something to support this? I thought it could go in either direction as long as there was sourcing. Mason (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Smasongarrison For something to be categorized by something it needs to be significant. One determination something is significant is that it is mentioned in a biography. if it is not significant enough to actually mention in the text it is not significant enough to categorize by. if you want to make a Category, you should first place the relevant information in the article. I am not sure if this is clearly spelled out but it defiantly needs to be. categories need to be built on the article, not on stuff not in the article.2601:406:4001:AC50:98A5:1850:E8F:EFEC (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I meant to sign the above statement. Sorry I did not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
No worries. I suspected it was you. But, this seems like something that there should be policy on. Mason (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I figure things in articles need to be based on reliable sources, not original research or suppositions from photos. The statements need to be clearly in the text before used for categories. You can do all this in one edit, but you should clearly state the info in the article, not make people look through sources or footnotes to verrify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
What I can say is far too many articles do not follow this rule. The place where this seems worst is descent categories. Even some sourced statement of the ancestry of a person do not reasonably pass notability guidelines. I would say in general Americans ancestry to Europrle further back then their grandparents we really need good reason to include. I would also say if we have more than 4 listed ancestries we have to ask if any of them are defining. There are case by case issues, but our current disproportionate use of ancestry for American actors as opposed to anyone else born after 1950 is probably not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary categories

I have to admit I am less than satisfied with us having Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary categories. While there are changes to the structure of the government when the name changes, this is not a regime change. Francis Joseph/Franz Josef I was literally the Emperor before and after the change for over a decade before and multiple decades afterward. The same legislative structure at the top exists. The boundaries do not change at the time of the change. To be fair Veneto was lost the year before, but has no real relevance to the change, and the multistage incorporation of Bosnia-Herzegovina comes after. There are other state name changes, notably Siam to Thailand, and Burma to Myanmar (although that has its own complexities), that we do not break categories before. Yugoslavia we treat as one unit from its birth in 1918 or so, to its disintegration in 1992. Even though it has total government change in the early 1940s, and disintegrates under outside occupation. The thing is while there are boundary changes and population exodus in the 1940s, a Yugoslav writer in 1930 and 1960 could well be the same person. The same applies to an Austrian Empire writer in 1850 and 1880. The change to the dual structure does change some things, but it is far less than the break with pre-1804 history, and even less so with the break at 1918. I just do not see any way to capture adequately in a category the nationality of people on both sides of the 1867 divide. I guess we could have something like "people from the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary", but when applied to by occupation sub cats this could lead to really unwieldy names like "Writers from the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary", or "Dramatists and playwrights from the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary", and who wants "Emigrants from the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary to the United States" and do not even think about "Ukrainian people from the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary". This solutions looks to make things worse than the present issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    • One could argue we are following country article practices in this case. Yugoslavia, as an article, defines it as having existed from 1918-1992. The Austrian Empire defines it as having existed from 1804-1867. So until someone comes up with an article that covers a broader period, we have what we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
      • We do have Habsburg monarchy, but because of various issues I am less than convinced treating this as a "former country", with nationals, would quite make sense. Especially prior to 1804, I am not sure the Habsburg monarchy was really administered as a central state in a way that we could reasonably speak of people as being nationals of it. Since I am at 1829 in my going backwards review of articles by year of birth, I am not going to confront issues of pre-1804 status for a while. It seems we have chosen in the pre-1804 time frame to have seperate categories for people in the various regions government by the Hapsburg Monarchy, thus we have People from Bohemia, Carniolan, Austrian Netherlands (or whatever exactly we call it), and possibly some related categories. We also have a category for People from the Holy Roman Empire, which covers much of (but not all of) the Hapsburg monarchy, and many lands beyond. I am thinking for now Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary categories are the best we can do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

19th-century Greek Americans

Why do we have this category? It is the only European origin American ethnic group with a 19th-century subcat. I am not convinced it is needed. If it is, we should follow the parent Category and name it something like 19th-century American people of Greek descent. The parent is American people of Greek descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I just removed William Spencer Bagdatopoulos from the Category. He was born in 1888, so categorizing him based on something that only applied before age 12 did not make sense. It gets better. Bagdatopoulos was not even in the US during the first 12 years of his life, so the Category is just plain wrong. I have no idea if the other articles in this category are justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Modern Latin-language writers has been nominated for deletion

Category:Modern Latin-language writers 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Johnpacklambert. Just dropping by to see how you're doing. Looks fine. You doing OK? Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I am. I wish I could get some of my editing restrictions lifted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Mnmh. Remind me... which ones specifically? Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Both really, especially as applied. The one related you deletion was crafted to ban any participation not just at articles for deletion, but at categories for discussion although categories were not even under discussion at that point. The one related to religion uses "broadly defined" in a way that it prevents me from doing even small edits on a huge number of people, especially musicians and artists, and most especially architects. Because "broadly defined" means that no matter what if it exists it can be swept up in it. The restriction has now lasted well over 2 years. I do not really dare bring the subject up most of the time because any attempt to get clarity on the scope of the restrictions is treated as trying to undermine them, and my last attempt to get one reversed was used as grounds to push for banning me from editing Wikipedia at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

New appearance on a mobile phone

On a mobile phone links that you have already gone to look exactly like unlinked text in Wikipedia. I do not like this new look.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

?Doing bios of photogs in Blk Hls Gld Rush,1874-'79. C. Howard of interest. Will talk(@ length) contact on FB.
best 2 U 75.233.119.100 (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
fixed apparently. phab:T356928 – robertsky (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes it has been fixed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"William Melling" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect William Melling has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14 § William Melling until a consensus is reached. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Republic of Venice expatriates in France has been nominated for splitting

Category:Republic of Venice expatriates in France has been nominated for splitting. 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) 22:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Kis-Lev

Hi, four years ago you participated in this deletion discussion, a few days ago the entry recreated, John Kiss (artist). Please note that sockpuppet investigtion identified the creator as the artist with multiple accounts.

Birth year review

I started my review of birth years with 1927 in maybe May of 2021, maybe a bit later. I have now made it back to 1827.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Korean surgeons

This category is a 2 category tree with 4 articles. 3 in South Korean surgeons and another on a surgeon who died in 1940 when Korea was still a united country. It looks to me like we should upsurge that article to Korean physicians and the other 3 to South Korean physicians. We do not have enough articles presently to justify these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

South Korean surgeons is the largest sub-cat by medical specialty of South Korean physicians. The other 10 have either 1 or 2 articles each. It looks like at this time we should merge them all to South Korean physicians and the general by speciality category. Since South Korea has existed under 100 years, only since 1945 at the earliest, I do not think we need a South Korean physicians by century. We should upsurge the 20th and 21st century categories to the South Korean physicians category. We should also delete the 21st century Korean physicians category. All those people are either North Korean or South Korean physicians. We should also exclude anyone who only practiced medicine after 1945 from 20th-century Korean physicians and put them in South Korean physicians or North Korean physicians. This will then leave South Korean women physicians as a last rung category. We should upsurge it to Soyluth Korean woman scientists, women physicians and (hopefully unneeded) South Korean physicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Scott Christopher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Christopher 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/Scott Christopher 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.

Password (talk)(contribs) 08:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2024/February&oldid=1210796376"