User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2024/May

Puff words

Eminent, prominent, notable, noted and famous are all puff words when describing a person, especially if the person is the subject of an article. We know that the person is in some way this just because they have an article. None of these words say anything substantial about the person, they are all empty judgement words. The word "infamous" basically has the same function for criminals, and also should be avoided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Rebel, revolutionary etc.

I just came across an article that in the lead said the subject was a revolutionary. He was in a category that said he was a rebel. I am now eondering, is there a clear difference? Do sources use the two terms consistently, especially over time. I think the general thought is rebels seek to change who controls the government, revolutionaries seek to change the form of government. Then there are people who seek to either end a ln outside coloniskust regime, or to break a country apart in some way, that at least in their view is based on logical ethnic or such divisions. These are not mutually exclusive goals. People seeking to remove a colonial government may also want to go from a monarchy to a Republic or a communist regime. While to some extent we base this on attempting to use military means to accomplish these goals, at other time wecsay "Perdon x was punished as a revolutionary, thus thry were", but all they did was spread pamphlets critical of the government. We seem to only have revolutionary and rebel categories, and no clear distinction. I am starting to think we might need to make it all one category, because the placements seems arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Burial cats

Wikipedia is not meant to be a guide to finding the bodies of the deceased. I am unconvinced we need any burial categories at all. I think the only exception is if we can show that a burial amounts to an award. So military cemeteries might pass, and maybe a few other places. However we have to show it is a defining award. I think we should also limit categories to the first burial location. However the huge number of clearly not allowed categorizing of people by place as opposed to specific location of burial is a bigger problem. Overall it is a small problem. We only have at most a few hundred articles in any category, but it adds up to probably about 10,000 bio articles in a category thry should not be in, which is less than 1% of bios on deceased people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Philosophers by ethnicity has been nominated for deletion

Category:Philosophers 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. Psychastes (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

We should not be more precise than we can be accurate

I have found multiple articles that declare a birth year for their subject when there is a discrepancy in the birth year listed in sources. If sources disagree, we should at least indicate the birth year listed is only approximate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

American expatriates in Liberia

Hello. I wanted to ask about a recent edit you've made, this one. Why did you remove the 'in Liberia' part of the category, moving the James Hall article to a diffuse category? James Hall served as governor of Maryland-in-Africa, now part of Liberia, and before then, he served as a colonial physician in the colony of Liberia. I don't see why the category 'American expatriates in Liberia' would be inappropriate. RoundSquare (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• The key is "now a part of Liberia". It was not a part of Liberia then. It was a distinct polity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • • I guess since he was a physician in the colony of Liberia I will restore him. However people should not be placed in such categories unless they lived in the polity in question based on the boundaries of the polity at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

      JPL that is not the universal opinion. The rule is whether that person is DEFINING by that nationality. Mason (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

      • You cannot be defined as a national of a polity you did not live in. People who died in 1940 were not Israeli, nor could they have been Pakistani.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

        When someone is regularly described as being Israeli, that's that's defining.

        At the very least, if there isn't a more precise category (with the actual nation), they shouldn't be removed from one that is less accurate, using your term. The purpose of categories is to help navigation. Removing people from approximately right categories thwarts that purpose. Mason (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

        I challenge you to find any source that would describe anyone who died in 1940 as an "israeli", or any source that would describe someone who died in 1940 as Pakistani. Those categories are not "approximately right", they are just plain wrong. It is ahistorical and anachronistic to describe people in 1940 or earlier as Israeli or Pakistani. If the people died in 1950, it is getting into ambiguous areas, since most people who died in 1950 would have done most of their life work before 1940, let alone 1947 and 1948 when those countries were formed, but it is at least somewhat arguable based on other issues, but someone who died in 1940 was not Israeli or Pakistani. Just like someone who died in 1910 does not belong in a Soviet, Czechoslovak or Yugoslav category. There are some things that are fuzzy and debatable, but all of these examples above clearly do not apply to people as described.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think the most egregious I have seen is I saw today someone who died in the 1840s put in a Pakistani category. That was before the person who invented the term was even born. Plus I put him in the Durrani Empire category, because at least some of his life he lived there. That is basically the predecessor state of Afghanistan, although it controlled more area than just Afghanistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• The other is I saw someone who died well before 1900 (he was born in 1801, I forgot when he died) in a category for Czechoslovakia in some way. Czechoslovakia is formed in 1918, and has not existed since 1993. So that has the oddity of being wrong then, and not even being an anachronistic imposing of the present on the past, but an odder assuming that a status of thinks that is no longer in existence is actually the natural and correct way things ought to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with many of the examples you've included. However, I think you're missing the point. "Removing people from approximately right categories thwarts th[e] purpose [of categories]." I think it would be helpful for you consider the alternative view of why it might be helpful to keep people in such categories.Mason (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  (Also, I do very much appreciate that you have strong opinions on categories; even if I don't always agree with you.) Mason (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Russian scientists

The Category Russian scientists should probably have close to no direct contents, since we diffuse scientists as geologists, physicists, chemists, biologists etc. It instead has a few hundred articles almost all of which are in diffusing sub-cats, often multiple ones. We need to start diffusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

People from categories

The basic question is, should people be placed in occupation plus nationality categories for an occupation they never did when they were that nationality. This might not be a case where there are clear universal answers, but I think some categorization gets this wrong. Some of these are case by case issues that may need some thought. Here are some issues. We have someone who was born in Cuba. Her family fled the change in government when she was 10. She becomes a lawyers, starting when she is about 25. She becomes a judge at age 50. From are 10 she is a resident of the US, and was a citizen before she even started law school. Does she belong in Cuban lawyers. I would say no. Cuban judges even less so. On the other hand if we have a British lawyer, trained in British law schools and then working in British India I think he is a British lawyer, although probably lawyers from British India applies. In our first case if she went to law school in Cuba and then emigrated, I would say we probably can put her in Cuban lawyers. It gets even more tricky with sub-nationalcats. In the US, since each state has its own legal system, I would say we would not put someone in a Maryland lawyers or Michigan lawyers etc. Cat unless thry were in some way a lawyer in that state. At least I would say if they were raised in one state, but went to law school in another and did all their law practice elsewhere thry would not belong in x state lawyers. I think for politicians from x we need at least some political involvement there. If someone lived in Michigan until age 15, or even 30, but then moved to California, and only became involved in politics after the move I do not think they go in politicians from Michigan. One where I think we have an even bigger problem is for x state y political party member. I think we should not place someone in Minnesota Republicans merely because they are known to have been a Republican, but are primarily an actor, singer or such. I really think we should limit such categories to people who held elected public office as part members, people who ran in party primaries or as nominated candidates of the party, Delegates to conventions of the party, and people who were formally part of the party structure. People who held elective office only from non-partisan elections I do not think we should categorize by political party. The lone exception might be if we can show that despite the non-partisan nature of the office they created xampaign literature that identifies them with a political party. In the case of candidates I think it is fair to ask if that party affiliation is defining. James Fouts, the former mayor of Warren, Michigan who was also my high school government teacher comes to mind. The only time he ran for political office that was in a partisan election was in the late 1970s when he ran as a Republican. According to our article he became a Democrat in 1980, and sometime in the 21st century switched yo bring an independent. However he was running in non-partisan elections. Warren does have political factions of sorts, but thry do not align with national parties, and are malleable and not really defining. Categories should be defining, and political affiliation is not for most people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Is Cemetery of burial defining?

I am wondering if Cemetery of burial is defining. In general people are buried based on where they lived or died. Burials at x Cemetery, if it is a main Cemetery in a large city, often tracks closely to People from y place. For example Burials at Elmwood Cemetery has a large overlap with People from Detroit and its sub-cats, with no particular reason this set of people are unique. It is a post death thing, so tells us little to nothing about their life. We gave agreed that any unit larger than a Cemetery, be it a city, county, state, Province, department or country is not defining. So I am really struggling to see how the Cemetery someone is buried in is defining. Maybe in a few cases like military cemeteries where it is limited to those who died as active military or were honorably discharged we could consider it a de facto award. However is it a defining award?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The imbalance of Emigration and immigration categories

Emigration categories in ths main use demonyms. This we have French emigrabts, German emigrants, British emigrants, etc. Immigration categories use country names, this we have immigrants to France, Immigrants to Germany, Immigrants to the United Kingdom and Immigrants to the United States. There may be good reasons for this, but it does create an inbalance. We have the same issue with expatriate categories. British expatriates in France and French expatriates in the United Kingdom. Our biggest problem is that we probably have to many 1 article and otherwise narrow categories in the trees. A secondary problem is that the lines between expatriates and emigrants are fuzzy. It is clear that an American, person A, who goes to Ghana on a 4-month study scholarship is not an emigrant. It is clear that an American, person B, who moves to Ghana at age 22, becomes a citizen of Ghana, and lives there for over 60 years is an emigrant. The problem is that we do not require proof of new citizenship for placement in emigration categories, which is probably reasonable. Also person A is most likely not defined by being an expatriate in Ghana at all. There are many articles on diplomats who served in several counteies that are in expatriate cats for each. I have doubts this is defining. I am not sure it is possible to clearly define the minimum threshold to have an expatriate experience be defining. Clearly my less than one week long honeymoon in the Bahamas did not make me an American expatriate in the Bahamas. Some days I wonder if maybe we should combine the trees. Maybe we should have British expatriates in and emigrants to France, British expatriates in and emigrants to Spain, etc. As the Category names, then clearly tag that these categories are limited to people for whom their time in the destination country is clearly significant, substantial and defining. It would be awkward names, but it would cut Category clutter and end overly small categories. There is some idea that the British national who goes to France as an artist, but comes back to Britain from time to time, is fundamentally different than the one who permanently moves to France. However I am not sure this really makes sense. At some level the thought I think is the poor Iralian Immigrants working in low level jobs in New York City are fundamentally different than top singees who came on tour. However there are lots of fundamental differences, lots of reasons people emigrate. It might even make sense to get rid of Italian emigrants to the US, and place everyone in Italian expatriates in the US. We already have a whole tree of naturalized citizens of x, which is not divided by sending country, so maybe we are just overlapping categories and drawing lines for no good reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The place that the above would maybe work least well is if we converted British emigrants to British North America to British expatriates in British North America. Are people still within a unified retire expatriates. We do have possible precedent categories like British people in colonial India (which probably should be renamed British people in British India, since we have People from British India and a whole slew of categories. That we use as a catchall for anyone who was in some way British, who was in India, both born there and moved later, no matter how long they stayed. American expatriates in Germany and other expatriates categories include people born there who clearly were citizens of another country at birth. There are a bunch of people in American expatriates in Germany who are children of American soldiers whose mothers also were clearly American born in Germany. Another slam dunk case is children of diplomats born abroad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• I can see arguments for why emigrants are clearly a different population. For example American expatriates in China has a lot of people who went to China for various lengths as merchants or businesspeople. The issue becomes we should be able to without question say if someone is x or y. If we have Emigration and expatriate categories we in an ideal world should always be able to clearly sort people. The world is not ideal, so maybe we just go with what we have. At a minimum I think we do not want anyone in both say German emigrants to the United States and German expatriates in the United States. In theory emigrants all start out as expatriates, although a few are pretty clearly emigrants from the day they arrive. I think this is like how we do not put people in both French writers and French-language writers. I think with expatriate and emigrants categories we favor emigrant categories. I also think that in our current system someone who is in French expatriates in the United States, Indian expatriates in Egypt, South African expatriates in Brazil, etc. Should not be in any American, Egyptian, Brazilian etc cats. Only those in Fooian emigrants to Boo should be in booian categories. The fooian emigrants become booian, the fooian expatriates do not. The one exception is Fooian people in boo, where boo is a colonial (broadly defined) sub-unit of foo. I think here it needs to be a clearly colonial cat though. So British people in colonial India can also be in Scholars from colonial India. I do not think we should put French people in French Algeria in Algerian writers, only if we have a category named Writers from French Algeria. We have multiple times gotten rid of categories that are say American emigrants to Puerto Rico or French emigrants to New Caledonia, where the destination is a place currently controlled by the starting nation,b7t I think we may still have British emigrants to British overseas territories and sub-cats, so the rules are not quite uniform. We have some expatriate and such categories fopossessions though, though, although in some cases we seem to have decided that People from boo Colony so much overlaps with fooian people from boo Colony, where boo Colony was controlled by foo,that it is a case of unneeded overlapping categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• I wonder if there are more such candidates. For example such a high percentage of people from the Colony of New South Wales were British emigrants to the Colony of New South Wales, I am not sure the latter Category makes sense. I am thinking we could say that colonies that were primarily settler colonies (which would be those that formed Canada, the United States and Australia, and some others), there is such an overlap between the people from that Colony and the emigrants from the spo during country to that Colony that we should not have both categories, and should limit emigrants to Colony Y to those who came from somewhere other than X, or who were fooian. In the case of the Colony of New South Wales this would lead to selectively upmerging the British emigrants to the Colony of New South Wales to Colony of New South Wales people since some are already in sub-cats, but leaving the Immigrants to the Colony of New South Wales cat. A few in the later are actually British people who came to New South Wales by mylti-syltage migration, so if we jettison the British sub-cat we might want to remove some articles from the parent category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  We have Qing dynasty people gorgeous a reason. I know the common name is x dynasty item. Ming dynasty vase etc. This works more or less with inanimate objects, but with People it is a poor word choice. This is the reason we changed various Ottan categories to People from the Ottoman Empire, writers from the Ottoman Empire, etc. Using Ottoman as shorthand for all subjects of the Ottoman Empire is problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  wmWe for have the issue that Ottoman Empire is an article, Qing Empire redirects to Qing Dynasty. I think we should create a separate article on the Qing Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I meant to put these further down. We have both Ottoman Empire and Ottoman dynasty as articles. I think we actually should split Qing Dynasty into Qing Empire and Qing Dynasty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Qing dynasty people

I have to admit I think this is a horrible name. The Qing dynasty tech ically is the ethnically Manchu ruling family of this polity. I really think the category would be much better named People from the Qing Empire. We have some other categories that use under, but I have to say I do not think it is a good convention. We have People from the Ottoman Empire, People from the Russian Empire, People from the Austrian Empire and a little earlier but still overlapping with the Qing Empire We have People from the Holy Roman Empire, People from the Maratha Empire and People from the Mughal Empire. We have others. The Qing themselves were nit Chinese, nor were their Tibetan, Uighur, Mongolian, and some other ethnic group subjects, including the Manchu subjects who were the ruling elite. True, a huge percentage of the scholarly functionaries of the Empire were Chinese, but there are lots of people who do not go in Chinese categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

please stop removing people from Canadian categories

Please stop removing people from canadian categories. It makes it much harder for people to find those pages, as the typical use expects to find people from colonies that are now parts of canada in the canadian category.Mason (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If you must remove them, PLEASE PUT THEM in the parent category for their nationality. For example, if you remove someone from Category:Irish emigrants to Canada, please place them in Irish emigrants to pre-Confederation Canada (or if that category doesn't exist, Irish emigrants. Removing them from Irish emigrants entirely is counterproductive and makes more work for other people. Mason (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have generally been doing this. I am not sure that Irish is really a reasonable designation for all people who lived in the United Kingdom who happened to reside at some point on the island of Ireland. If I come across some of the borderline cases in the future I will make notes on the edit and in dome cases open a talk page discussion about it. Borderline cases are those who A-would have called themselves, or have been described in soutlrces as Ulster Scotts, B-people who called themselves Anglo-Irish, but that is borderline, C-people who were born in Ireland when it was in the UK, joined the British military, and lived other places a long time before going to what is now Camada. Especially if their parents were originally from the island of Great Britain. D-people born in Ireland when it was the UK, then moved to the island of Great Britain. That is not an Emigration, and we have several discussions that clearly said we should not categorize it as such. Then at second later point thry move to British North America. Are they an Irish emigrant? Maybe, maybe not. If their parents were originally from the island of Great Britain and thry moved back there early probably not. What is clear is someone born in Liverpool in 1853 to parents from Ireland, but who himself only lived in England until 1864, when he then moves to Nova Scotia or British Columbia is not an Irish immigrant to Canada. If someone is born in Dublin in 1929, at least if they are considered an Irish national at birth, no matter where their parents are from, and in 1932 they move to Canada they are an Irish emigrant to Canada. Some of the other cases are more borderline. This is why it was really nice when we split out pre-1923 Emigration, although there was probably a better name for that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories that are called immigrants to Canada would most logically be limited to post-1867. JPL, that is not accurate. Please stop removing people from canada categories. Canada includes pre and post 1867. There is an entire tree of pre-confederation canada people that are NESTED with Canada. removing them is disruptive. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_McIntyre_(poet)&oldid=1224513492 Mason (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Emigration is a political thing

Emigration is a political thing. One cannot emigrate if there is no political boundary to cross. Thus a move from Vienna to Budapest is not Emigration in 1860. A move from Budapest to Pressburg (now Bratislava) is not Emigration in 1860, or in 1916.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the point of my request. My request is for you not to remove people from the categories users expect people to be in. The purpose of categories is to help navigation; it is not to classify pages for the sake of technical accuracy. Mason (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Canada would most logically be limited to post-1867 moves to places at the time of the move within the Confederation " This is exactly what I am talking about. Other users expect people to be in the canada categories. Your removal of people from this category is disruptive and counter to the purpose of wikipedia categories. Mason (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Italian expatriates in the Crusader states has been nominated for renaming

Category:Italian expatriates in the Crusader 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. Mason (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Should we have an upper limit of number of categories

Categories are supposed to be defining to the individual. They are supposed to cover the core biographical details. Some articles have over 100 categories. Winston Churchill had that many, at least at one point. I doubt all of them really are defining. I am wondering if we should have an upper limit, or if we just need more vigilance against putting people in trivial ones. The fact that some articles are in multiple categories where that is the only article in the category does not help. One would think small precise categories would lead to less on any given article. For example if domeone is the lone person in 19th-century French classical piccolo players, you would think that would mean less categories than if he was separately in 19th-century French people, classical musicians, and piccolo players. Somehow this does not work in practice. Part of the problem is that maybe he was also a flute player, and he was part of the Romantic movement in music, and he was born in 1870 and lived until 1935 do he is in 2 centuries. I am not sure there is actually a maximum number of categories, and if there is we would want to put in ludicrously high, so maybe such a rule would not help, buy we maybe want to Co sider this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories are supposed to help with navigation between pages. I don't think that putting a limit on categories serves that mission. Mason (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Placing people in categories that are utterly trivial and not at all central to what defines them does not either. Limiting the total number of categories might cause people to focus more on these key defining things when creating categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point, perhaps a policy to be more intention after you hit a certain number might split the difference. Mason (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This might be a better approach. On the other hand, it might just help if we more consistently did not have overly narrow cats. A hard rule against any category having under 5 articles under any circumstances would cut down the overall number of categories. Another help might be if we had guidance that said "if you are going to place people in multiple occupational categories, care should be taken to not place them in occupational categories that were overly brief to be defining."John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

>care should be taken to not place them in occupational categories that were overly brief to be defining

I'm pretty sure that that's the case regardless of how many other categories they are in. Mason (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• For example Ben Affleck was in a poker players category. I do not think that is significant to him at all and removed him from it. The various places his much earlier ancestors came from in Europe are also not defining to him, so I removed that about a half a dozen categories. That has brought us down to 48 categories. Does it make sense for him to be in both Actors from Cambridge, Massachussetts and Actors from Boston? This seems excessive. I think the 48 categories he is in are far too many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yet that is 20 less than the number of categories his wife is in. She is in 68 categories. One of the reasons why is because for reasons I am not convinced make sense we categorize musicians by the label they contracted with. Yet many musicians contracted with multiple labels, Lopez has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

    I worry that this cut off with disadvantage people who are in more groups naturally. The fact that his wife is in 68 categories, doesn't surprise me because most women are in the women version of the category and the ungendered version of the category. So I'd expect her to have a lot more categories based on that fact alone. Please, think about how this approach would affect different kinds of pages. Mason (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

British North America

In general categories should follow the lead of articles. We have an article British North America we do not have one entitled pre-confederation Canada.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say that categories should follow articles? And then shouldn't we be placing these people into Canadian categories because often the lead says that the person is canadian. The lead rarely ever describes someone as British North American. If you want to upend the consensus, please draft a case that other people would find convincing. Mason (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The article on a person often is not well vetted. Articles on places are well vetted and based on research. That is the best place to look for information. Articles on places are written using reliable sources about that matter. Articles on people often totally violate the rule that in describing where an event occurred we should use the standard description of that place for that time. John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In categories we over and over again defer to article names. When a name of an article changes we change the name of the category in most cases. We normally match the disambiguation in article names. Thos is because articles on a subject are built on what reliable sources on the subject say. Reliable sources refer to British North America. On the other hand we have a clear rule that in articles events should be decided by using the terms referring to a place when an event occurred. This rule is flagrantly and frequently broken. I do not think we should use what is said in biographical articles to develop our understanding of polity based categories, especially when it goes against what is actually said in those polity based articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy? Because this seems like you're saying articles should sometimes be deferred to, but only for non-biographies. Mason (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• For example, up until recently many of these biographical articles Saud the person was born in x place in Ontario or Quebec. Even though it was not in Ontario or Quebwc when they were born there. This is mostly because it is easier to just link to the existing article than to make sure the linking, or double linking properly uses the contemporary names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  But that seems to be a reflection of what people consider defining. Mason (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Twin categoroes

I just came across a very well known singer and saw that he was in the twin category. We recently removed all articles on individuals from the triplet category. I am seeing no reason why we have articles on individuals in the twin category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the twin category is supposed to include all flavors of multiples, rather than triples aren't defining while twins are. Mason (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think it is defining at all to individual articles that the subject had another sibbling born at the same time as them. I think in almost all cases this is a trivial detail that we should not be categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

But people are often described as twins, which seems to be the definition of defining even if you consider it to be an important detail.Mason (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

People are also often described as a first-born son, and lots of other things that we do not categorize by. Also, the person in question I just can across a statement that it is common knowledge he was hisparents only son, yet he had a twin brother. So sometimes being a twin is so trivial it is not even widely known. We do not categorize people by being posthumous births, or method of birth, or number of siblings. I really do not think we should categorize people for being twins. If we have an article on a set of twins that makes sense. I think the same reasons that we do not categorize people for being one in a set of triplets absolutely apply to not categorizing one person in a set of twins.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tibet

I jyst realized we have the article Tibet (1912–1951). We also have various Tibetan categories. I wonder if some of these would better function as nationality categories which we call People from Tibet, Writers from Tibet, Scholars from Tibet, Artists from Tibet, etc. and we state in the header these articles are limited to people who were nationals of the Tibet linked yo in that article. Maybe we should start with People from Tibet (1912-1951) and then see how large it gets. I have to admit I hate using year modifiers in a category named like that, but matching the article name is the best way to ensure we are matching scope and subject. For other cases where a polity name is ambiguous, such as the Kingdom of Naples, Republic of Venice, Republic of Geneva, Republic of Genoa, Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Kingdom of Saxony Kingdom of Bavaria, Kingdom of Prussia, etc. we have articles without year modifiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV language

I am thinking that there is no good reason we should ever directly call someone a "hero". That is a very much Point-of-view and non-neutral statement. We can say that sources regularly call people heroes. However I do not think we should do it directly. Especially in cases where people were a hero of a revolution/independence movement. In those cases there is another side in the conflict that would view the situation very differently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The Nethelands

I think we should replace categories that use "Dutch" as the name of a nationality with "People from the Netherlands", "Writers from the Netherlands", "Scientists from the Netherlands", etc. Those from the Netherlands from 1815 on a clearly defined group (maybe even earlier), but whether "Dutch" is the best word for them all is open to dispute. Especially from 1815-1830, but there are sizeable groups within the Netherlands to this day that are not ethnically Dutch, there is a sizeable Frisian population, and Dutch is more an exterior English imposed name, not what they call themselves. With the articles at "The Netherlands", etc, I think it would be more clear what we mean if we used "People from the Netherlands", etc. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Burials at sea

I am not seeing how being buried at sea is at all defining. We already have another category for people who died at sea, so many people end up in both. If the country, state, county, province, region or city of burial is not defining, I see no reason that burial at sea would be defining at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Eeltsje Hiddes Halbertsma, he is not described as Dutch in the article, but we end up putting him in Dutch categories because we have named the categories for people from the Netherlands "Dutch", even though there are many people who are subjects of the Netherlands who identify as things like Frisian (that is the case here) and not Dutch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about Carletonville, Michigan

Howdy, sorry to bother you. If I shouldn’t be contacting you directly then feel free to tell me off and delete this. I was recently looking through the orphaned articles category and found this from 2018. I tried to find some online sources about it but all I could find were websites quoting the Wikipedia article directly. After reading WP:NGEO, I’m not really sure if it meets the WP notability guidelines and if it should be removed. I’d just like any input you have before tagging it. Cowinatree (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• The article is based solely on Romig. The mention of it there is about 1 or 2 lines. That says it was a place that was named, but does not tell us what if any legal status the place every had. I am hesitant to say anything else since I am under a topic ban related to participating in deletion, which extends even to articles I created and have been the only substantial editor of. I hope even saying that much has not triggered a negative reaction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Taxa named by issue

I do not believe we should place "taxa named by person x" under the fooian taxonomists tree. This is close to implying nationality to taxa, which should not be, and especially not by the person who named them. Additionally we have far too many 1 articles fooian taxonomists categories, or ones with only a taxa name by person x subcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Franz Ernst Neumann

I placed Neumann in the category Geologists from the Kingdom of Prussia. He was removed on the grounds he was not a geologist. The article says he was a minerologist. Minerology is defined a sub-discipline of geology, and minerologists are a sub-category of geologists. So I think in cases where there is not a minerologist category for a nationality, we can reasonable place people in the geologists category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I have answered on Talk:Franz Ernst Neumann. --Dioskorides (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kara-Kyrgyz Khanate

A tag has been placed on Category:Kara-Kyrgyz Khanate 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 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

We use too many demonyms

I just realized we have the category Papua New Guinean journalists. I really think that we should call the category Journalists from Papua New Guinea. I think trying to make a 3 part name into a demonym is just not wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We have too many century categories

We have too many by century categories. I am thinking the below would help gets things under control.

1- I think we should agree that X century Y people should only be container categories. Otherwise we get people placed in them who were extremely young, or who were retired and not making sprmecific contributions.

2- I think we should scrap all 20th and 21st century categories, this ends up in too many cases splitting living and dead people. It also has high overlap. Plus many of them are for occupations that did not exist over 100 years ago. There are also a few countries that in no way existed before 1940.

3. We should also limit any by century categories to a system that can have at least 3 subcats. We would allow any 19th-century cat where you could have a 20th and 21st century cat in theory. We would also However if we can't have 21st need a 20th, and if we can't have 20th we would need both 17th and 18th. For example since we do not have 20th-century people from the Russian Empire (which exists until 1917), we would not have any century cat, because it was gormed in 1721, so without 20th we could not get 3 by century cats.

4. Regardless of the above principals we should scap the 19th-century Neopolitan people category. This refers to people from the Kingdom of Naples. That place did not exist after some point in 1816. If the Russian Empire does not get a 20th century cat since it ended in 1916, we should not have a similar category for a place that ended even earlier in a given century.

5. We should not create by century categories if it will lead to extremly small categories as well. I think we should require at least in cases where the minimum categories are 17th, 18th and 19th that each of these have at least 10 articles before we create the system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Just plain wrong and wrong-headed century categories

I have come across several people who died before 1900 in the 20th-century categories. I have also come across people who were born in 1800 in the 18th-century Category. While the later is technically correct, it makes no sense to place people in categories for before they were in their teens at the lowest. With a very few exceptions for people notable as children.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've found this as well. Think that those are fine to remove. My rule of thumb for those folks is whether they were defining/notable in that century. Mason (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I really think that we need far less by century categories, period. They are a key cause of Category clutter. For example with American politicians we subdivide them almost universally by office held. Also by part. Yet for hard to understand reasons we have 19th-century American politicians. Lots of people are in that category and categories for parties that only existed in the 19th century. This is unneccesatmry and duplicative. 19th-century American legislators should have no direct articles for people who served in any Territorial Legislature that existed only in the 19th-century. Yet huge numbers of articles are in say Members of the Wisconsin Territorial Legislature and in 19th-century American legislators. I do not think any article on a legislator was undercategorized before this, we have categories for every state Legislature. And with congress we even have subcats for Y party members of Congress. Plus most legislators are also categorized by pre-political career and much else. The 19th-century American legislators just leads to Category clutter. The one good is we have not yet categorized members of Congress by each congress thry served in, as we do for some other members of legislators. That is the number one cause of over categorization. At least since we actually in general do not allow performer by performance. The other leading cause of overcategorization is we categorize sports people and coaches by every team thry played on or coached, with no real limits to it. We do not require any prose in the article mentioning it, as Ling as it is in some table. I think we even include teams where someone was on a practice squad but dropped before ever playing a formal game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• With coaching we have dome people who coached football at half a dozen or more colleges. Are all these colleges defining. In some cases we only have 1 or 2 articles for coaches at that college. On the other hand we have some coaches who coached half a dozen different doorts at one college. In a few cases thry literally coached all sports at once. Do we really need them in all those categories? Wikipedia pelrobably has more categories than articles, and there are tens of thousands of 1 article categories, and probably hundreds of thousands below 5 articles, which is general considered the absolute minimum to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you're removing Puerto Rican people from their 19th/18th/17th-century categories?

I don't understand why you removed practically everyone from 19th/18th/17th-century Puerto Rican people categories and placed them exclusively in People from Colonial Puerto Rico. That just doesn't make sense to me. Because they're described as Puerto Rican and are from a specific century. The fix would have been to notice that People from Colonial Puerto Rico was the parent category. In the future, can you please look at the category nesting structure if you find yourself making the same changes again and again? Mason (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

17th-century Puerto Rican people has 2 articles. There is no article in People from Colonial Puerto Rico on a 17th-century person. 18th-century Puerto Rican people has 8 people. Of the 75 articles in People from Puerto Rico, 72 were born in 1800 or later. 2 were born in the 1790s. I in 1784. I think with this distribution we should just upmurge all to People from Colonial Puerto Rico. I also think that is a very wrong name. There is no coherent way to argue Puerto Rico was less Colonial in 1905 than in 1895. The issue is who controls the island, not an independent v. Colonial issue. So I think we should rename the category to People from Spanish Puerto Rico.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that lots of people from 19th-century Puerto Rico, or at least some have bern incorwctly placed is American categories. This might be because the Puerto Rican category thry were once in was upmerged. Tgis illustrates why placing people in categories that do not properly acknoeleledge the political status of the place they are from is unwise. If we need the 19th, 18th and 17th century categories, which does not really seem needed based on the actual category sizes, I think we should call them People from 19th-century Spanish Puerto Rico, etc. In other cases where a century category refers to people from a past polity we use the past polity's name, such as 19th-century writers from the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Also, some editors have argued that People by nationality by century categories really should be container categories. With 19th-century American writers, 19th-century American actresses, 19th-century American lawyers, etc. we have the limiting principal that the person has to have been a writer, actress, lawyer etc. During that century. With the general people categories there is no limiting factor. Which leads to lots more category duplication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm going to be honest, I'm struggling to follow your answer here. Can you please just not depopulate categories out of process? Mason (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Having reviewed People from Colonial Puerto Rico, none of the articles there fir in either the 17th or 18th century categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's because I already moved them. Can you please just not depopulate categories out of process? Mason (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, that is not true. I have never edited either of the articles in 17th-century Puerto Rican people. That category has had 2 articles period. It is an overly small category that has no good reason to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Both of the 17th-century Puerto Rican people are among the 7 articles in 18th-century Puerto Rican people. So if we just put them in People from Colonial Puerto Rico we would have fewer categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I added people to other centuries. I'm not saying you put them there originally. My request is that if you have a problem with the Puerto Rican by century categories you can draft a proposal for consideration. But until then, please don't remove folks from the century categories because you don't like the category. Mason (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ed Winters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ed Winters. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We should end 19th-cdntury Austrian categories

I think we should end 19th-century Austrian categories. In the history of Austria we have better names that make categories better correspond to centuries. In the 19th-centuey we have this issue. If someone died by 1804, they will be better categorized by the Holy Roman Empire or the Habsburg Monarchy. Austria per se was a small area within that domain. The Kingdom of Bohemia was the most populous Habsburg area within the Holy Roman Empire, sine the Arch Duchy of Austria was not the same as modern Austria. I think People from the Holy Roman Empire is best. From 1804-1867 we have the Austrian Empire. The 1867 change to Austria-Hungary is as good as any a place to break, but that goes yo 1918, so not at all good to break. I think we should place people in categories for either the Austrian Empire, or Austria-Hungary, or both if they have defining connections to both. I see no reason to have by century categories at all for 19th-century Austria. In fact I think we can avoid century categories for Austria totally, but the 19th is the easiest to scap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benjamin Daniel Greene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch Guiana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Bankers excessively divided by category

15 of the sub-cats of Bankers by nationality have 1 article in the category. A few of those have 1 article but 2 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Dominican bankers

This category has 2 issues. 1- it only has 3 articles. This is really too small to justify a category. It would probably make more sense to upmerge it to Dominica People (which would probably be less confusing if it was named People from Dominica), and 2- to Bankers. This category could currently be confused with Bankers from the Dominican Republic, since many of those articles also call the people "Dominican", and there are other meanings of the word that could also cause confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Dominican itself is a disambiguation page. The nation called Dominca is not the first thing listed there, so I am not sure why in the world anyone would think "Dominican bankers" are bankers from Dominica as opposed to from the Dominican Republic, which is listed higher up in that aricle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)