Jump to content

User talk:Smasongarrison/Archives/2024

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


Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

added Clovermoss
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Foreign-born politicians has been nominated for deletion

Category:Foreign-born politicians has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1920s battles

A tag has been placed on Category:1920s battles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Barnstar


Top 10 		Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar 2023
You were one of the top medical editors on English Wikipedia in 2023.
Thank you for your hard work! -Mvolz (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Italian polymaths etc.

Hello! I would like to ask you why are the polyhistors related categories proposed for merger? In addition to rationale in general (non-defining?!), I would like a more detailed explanation. What's the difference here compared to, for example, categories of philanthropists or dissidents, which also exist? Thank you for your answer. --Silverije 23:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to post about this on the nomination. But in general, Wikipedia:Defining, means that someone is consistently referred to as that characteristic. Furthermore, this category has been deleted several times Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_20#Category:Polymaths Mason (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Firstly, I asked you what's the difference compared to other, very similar categories (e.g. philanthropists, dissidents) which exist? Secondly, this category has been deleted several times because "it was undefined, which allows almost anyone to be included in it if they have demonstrated any sort of ability in more than one discipline or area of life" or so. But if you read the article Polymath, it is clearly defined: an individual whose knowledge spans a substantial number of subjects, known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. Furthermore, or last but not least, if a person is mentioned as a polymath in reliable sources, then it should be respected, and that's what the Wikipedia rules say, isn't it? --Silverije 22:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand that you asked me several questions. I think you'd be better off asking them on the nomination page as they are all related to the nomination/category in question. Mason (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Help needed citing List of Harlequin Romance novels

I saw you use AWB to tag {{Unreferenced}} to articles in List of Harlequin Romance novels. Would you like to collaborate citing these entries with corresponding OCLC numbers? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I'm not really interested in adding sources for the romance novels. My interest is more in categories. Good luck with those OCLC. Mason (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm tackling this backlog Category:Articles lacking sources from January 2024 and the Harlequin Romance lists appeared in my backlog feed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
26 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Wasif Manzil (talk) Add sources
19 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Chakma Circle (talk) Add sources
31 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Prithimpassa family (talk) Add sources
22 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Surajit Chandra Sinha (talk) Add sources
117 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Sandwip (talk) Add sources
86 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Bardhaman Raj (talk) Add sources
336 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Islamic State beheading incidents (talk) Cleanup
197 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Chittagong District (talk) Cleanup
5 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Tetulia Jami Mosque (talk) Cleanup
24 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: B Sheoraphuli Raj Debuttar Estate (talk) Expand
78 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Foreign fighters in the Syrian Civil War and War in Iraq (talk) Expand
56 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Names of Bengal (talk) Expand
43 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Romanisation of Bengali (talk) Unencyclopaedic
234 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Culture of Bengal (talk) Unencyclopaedic
878 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Indo-Aryan migrations (talk) Unencyclopaedic
395 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C African empires (talk) Merge
15,240 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Islamic State (talk) Merge
2,180 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Language family (talk) Merge
40 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Revolt of Rajab Ali (talk) Wikify
358 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Belligerents in the Syrian civil war (talk) Wikify
236 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Hindu Shahis (talk) Wikify
3 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Kevin Omar Mohammed (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Bhojyakheri (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Ali Ahmed Fazeel (talk) Orphan
18 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Ibrahim Khan Fath-i-Jang (talk) Stub
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Masum Khan (talk) Stub
81 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Deva dynasty (talk) Stub
15 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Andul rajbari (talk) Stub
36 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Bhawal Estate (talk) Stub
89 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start South Bengal (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Category diffusion

Hi, you seem to have included Julian Ashton in a category diffusion and identified him as a woman.[1] I am guessing this was either a misreading of the name or a misclick in cat-a-lot. I thought I'd mention it in case you were planning to include him in any more gender-based diffusions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I misread, Julian as Julia, while using cat-a-lot, so your guess is spot on. :) Mason (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Tex Gibbons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Gibbons.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

7th-century novels

There is still after your merge nomination only 1 article in 7th-century novels. That should probably be merge to 7th-century literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

10th and 11th century novelists

These 2 categories, well actually it looks like 6 categories, as a total have 1 article. Not 1 article a piece, rhere is one article on a writer who lived in the 10th and 11th century in Japan who wrote something deemed a novel, and we have 6 categories where the only article is this 1 Category. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is in 27 categories, including Japanese literature, which does not seem right for an article in writer categories. The article is in Japanese novelists, so we could merge to 11th-century Japanese writers, which only has 12 articles in total outside the poets sub-cat. I think that would aid navigation a lot. I am actually thinking if we want to aud navigation to pre-1200 novelists a list would be better than a Category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thanks! Mason (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "FOOian", please?

Hi, Smasongarrison, now that we've got the BNA Lawyers, Doctors, and Writers tidied up, I had a question. What is "FOOian", please? You used it in this sentence in the deletion proposal: "This is an unhelpful category that encourages individuals being removed from their defining FOOian medical doctor category." I've been trying to think what FOO stands for, without success. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

FOO is a filler word. In this case it stands in for any nationality category, so "British" medical doctor, "American" medical doctor, "Icelandic" medical doctor etc, are all FOOian medical doctors. It's a shorthand. Mason (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Smasongarrison,

You know more about categories on Wikipedia than I can hope to learn so I come to you with a question. Do you think we need both Category:Texas secessionism‎ and Category:Texas secession movements‎ or should there be some kind of Merge here? Thanks for any opinion you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Awww thanks for the compliment! My immediate reaction was that these categories seem extremely similar. So, I took a look at how other countries are categorized within the Category:Separatism by country, which includes a subcategory for Category:Micronations by country. Using this structure, Texas seems more akin to a Micronation in the United States than an actual nation. Notably, most of these categories do not have both a separatist movement and a separatism category. It might only be necessary to have both if there are a lot of separatist movements that are difficult to organize. However, for now, my immediate suggestion is to merge the Category:Texas secession movements‎ into the Category:Texas secessionism‎ category. Mason (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories

What do you take to be the difference between Category:Medieval Catalan-language writers and Category:Medieval Catalan writers? Srnec (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Medieval Catalan writers is for Catalan nationals, wheres Catalan-language writers are writers that use the catalan language. They're related, but one uses nationality and the other uses language. Mason (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


I am sorry about the above

I am sorry that my above comment was not written in the best tone. I am very sorry about that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to be a place where positive interactions can occur. I hope you will forgive me for the tone of the above post.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I accept you apology (and there's nothing to forgive). You've made a lot of progress over the years on wikipedia. We both want wikipedia to be a place for positivity. And, I think that it is; heck the fact that we can have this kind of conversation is good evidence for it being a positive place. Mason (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tuberculosis deaths in Kazakhstan

A tag has been placed on Category:Tuberculosis deaths in Kazakhstan 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)

Category:Faculty by business school has been nominated for renaming to Category:Academic staff by business school

Category:Faculty by business school has been nominated for renaming to Category:Academic staff by business school. 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. Place Clichy (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification: Feedback request service is down

Hello, Smasongarrison/Archives

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with eye diseases

Hello, Smasongarrison

According to the CFD closure, it looks like this category was supposed to be Merged but you emptied it and didn't merge the articles to the new category which was never created. Am I reading the CFD decision incorrectly? Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy to clarify. So Fictional characters with physical and congenital disorders was mostly dispersed to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12, so I merged the category there instead. Sorry, I should have documented my reasoning on that. Mason (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, the CSD tags on the category page do not have correct links on them. For one, for example, you have Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Roman Catholic chapels in South Africa linked in one CSD tag. That just directs you to the main WP:CFD main page, not to the CFD discussion about the category. I really appreciate you handling the outcome of closed CFD discussions but it would help if the deletion note had a link to the correct discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I can do that :) Mason (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I finally figured out how to do it! (by reverting Omni's edit), as that's a lot easier than figuring out how to get the template to use the link as intended. Mason (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Category query

Hello, Smasongarrison,

I just came across Category:Crime and Punishment in Richmond, Virginia when I was looking at an editor's contributions. I don't think this is how categories concerning locations and crime are titled but you are more familiar with the category hierarchy than I am. Is this okay to leave this as is or should it go to WP:CFD? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it along. I suspect that it'll need to be renamed, because the only Crime and Punishment categories are: Category:Crime and Punishment and Category:Crime and punishment in ancient Rome. I'll take a look and see where it should fit, and nominate it. Mason (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrong userpage

You posted this message on wrong userpage I think. That user has not edited cats at Karen Roeds. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Opps! Thanks!! you're right!!! Mason (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Excessively same categories

I have noticed that we havd some categories where people ofen end up in 6 or more related ones. At that point it become questionalble they are defining. I almost think there should be a way to create a rule against thos. One is coaches by college. Some people are literally in over 10 categories. This often involves 1 season placements as a liw coverage coach. I outlined a proposal for restructuring that on my talk page. Basically we would change the by college categories to bd by head coach, and then gave offensive, defensive and a few other coach type xategories. With sports expatriates we have a situation where people in say Expatriarlte Czech sportspeople in Mexico will also be in say Expatriate footballees in Mexico, so one article for a person who played for teams in 6 countries will be in 12 categories for this. I think in this xase just being in Expatriate Czech sportspeople would be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'll think about it. You make some good points, but it might be helpful to think through this counterargument. Is the purpose of categories to help navigation between pages or to help organize pages? If the only purpose is to add labels to pages, then your proposal makes sense. However, does it really matter whether a page is in a lot of categories, if the goal is to help users navigate from a page to a category to another page? Mason (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:American military sports coaches Category Talk

This category has 62 suc-cats and 6 articles. 31 of those sub-cats have 1 article. None have over 12 articles. I am also not sure this is defining. A lot of these categories are also American college football coaches. I am not sure this is right. I am not sure this is defining. In the Barksdale case that part of the career of the man who is the one article in the Category is only mentioned in a table, not even in the article text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What you're writing seems reasonable... I just wish I knew enough about football coaches to give you some guidance. I bet @Omnis Scientia knows more about this? (I know that they're more into baseball, but at minimum they have sports knowledge). Mason (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Smasongarrison, firstly I believe category title is misleading. These are all football coaches (even the two NOT named "football coaches") so it should be "military football coaches". But it should be noted these are also part of Category:College football coaches in the United States. So I would say, until there are more categories, we should merge the categories with 1-to-3 articles with the parent category and have the category renamed to "American military football coaches". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say deletely because it is part of Category:Military sport in the United States as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Categ.: Early photographers in Palestine

Hi. I see you're on a big move on rearranging photographers-related categories. I've been personally very much involved in this world, as I am now in topics relating to Israel & Palestine. A go-to category for colonial-era (Ottoman and British) photography in Palestine has proven to be missing and very much needed for lots of activities, and very useful once there. Please do read my reply to your, practically, elimination request, so I don't need to repeat my arguments here. My message to you now is just an attempt of explaining how this category is far from being an abstract and failed attempt at adding yet another impractical, theoretical systematisation item with a very questionable definition and arbitrary limits. No, it grew out of a real-life need, but can also be supported with theoretical arguments, not less valid thany any museographer's who is organising the existing collections and dedicating the available museum halls after a mix of pragmatic and analytic criteria.

Thanks for taking the time. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. I wouldn't say that I'm on a "big move", I just happened to stumble into the category. Mason (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:10th-century priests

Category:10th-century priests seems to be an abandoned start. I have proposed speedy merging to Christian clergy at WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Mason (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, I have now got round to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. – Fayenatic London 16:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

John D. Naylor

John D. Naylor is the only article in 5 categories related to Beacon/Goldey-Beacon College. It merged and changed its name, I am not sure if that happened while he was employed there. This seems excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! I think he was effectively the only coach, and the college merged at some point. I've made a nomination for a merge, which should at least help slim it down. Mason (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The mess that is College football coach categories

Some of these coaches have coached at over 10 colleges, only being at some for 1 season. I really do not think that all such assignments are defining. Especially since some stay as offensive coordinator, or running backs coach at several places in a row. In those cases I think the specific type of coach is defining but the place coached is not. There is a huge amount of overcategorization in this set of categories. My attempts to bring some order are bring attacked as going against how things have been done over a decade. A system that regularly places articles in 10 or more categories for being a college football coach and pairs this with dozens of such categories with 5 or fewer articles is systemically flaed and needs to change. Most of the extremely small cats are in NCAA Division III, defunct or NAIA categories, or the junior college Category. There may be several categories in there that we really do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Stan Drayton is the extreme in this. He literally coached at 12 colleges, 10 of them as running backs coach. I really think that is what idms defining in most cases, not the particular schools he worked for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Yep, I've already starting seeing some arguments that a merge who ruin the current coaches system. I'll see how this nom goes, but I'm starting to agree with you at least for the extremely tiny categories. I personally don't see the harm in having individual coaches in a lot of categories, as long as there are enough people in the category. But, I'll keep looking around in coaches. Definitely let me know if there are any other category messes like the Beacon/Goldey-Beacon. I'll be sure to take a look and see if it should be nominated. (I want to make it very clear that I'm not being a meat puppet for you, or that this is circumventing your editing restriction.) Mason (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
When someone was at a place as one of a large coaching staff for just 1 year I do not think that is defining. On the other hand I am thinking there are too many coaching positions. I think we need to simplify to only a few. I think in a different spirt we limited the coaches by team to the head coaches. I think that might be a better approach in college football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

UC San Diego Tritons football

This is a defunct team. There is only one article on a coach. The Category is currently no.inated for upmerger or such. I wonder if merging the 1 article directly into College coaches of defunct teams in the United States might be OK with editors who object to directly placing articles in College football coaches in the United States. The Junior college football coaches in the United States Category directly has about 137 articles so there is a relevant precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Junior College football coaches in the United States

This category has 237 direct articles. I have yet to see anyone even try to explain why this category can have direct articles but the parent Category College football coaches in the United States cannot. We do not directly place people in an undifferentiated alumni category, but we do place people in the heads of universities in x country categories. Being a head of a university is a defining part of virtually every biography, at least if they are more than a figurehead. Going to college not really unless it allows for dome sort of grouping. Football coaches we seem to have divided by level they coached at, so it seems that there is no reason bot to place them there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Matt Dyson

Matt Dyson is the only article in George Mason Patriots football. We do not have any other articles on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

2 other George Mason Patriots coaches categories also only gave 1 article, and another category had 2 articles. The College men's basketball coaches in the United States has 4 direct biographical articles, so there does not seem to be an actual precedent that the college coach categories cannot hold direct articles. What really worries me in some of these is when people act like moving for 1 article in a category to 2 or 3 makes things all right. We need more stringent ways to end small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
One of the 1 article George Mason Patriots categories is George Mason Track and Field coaches. There are 259 direct articles in College track and field coaches in the United States. Yet of the 163 sub-categories, 63 have just 1 article. Several havd only 2 or 3, I didn't bother to count those. This might be a record number if 1 article categories in a tree. Although probably not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll check these out Mason (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

College sports coaches in the United States

The more I look at this, the more of a mess it is. There are some sports, such as rifle, where not even one of the sub-cats has even 4 articles. The whole thing is a huge mess to say the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it is extremely messy! Mason (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Century categories are not really good for articles

I do not think we want to be putting articles directly in 20th-century Indian people or 21st-century Indian people. This just leads to too many categories. At any point the average life span is over 50, this will lead to most people being in multiple categories. Some editors will place based on birth and death years alone. I an less than convinced that we need any by century categories gor the 20th or 21st century, but I do not think we want to place biographical articles in ones that intersect nationality and the century. If an occupation is not being diffused by century just place people in thd occupation and nationality cat, but please do not send them up to the nationslity and century cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Drafting technicians

I think Drafter is an example of an article that has too ambiguous a name. It is clear enough from the article, but there are other uses of the word. We have a set of categories for conductors (music), since there are other uses of the word conductor, as a think in electronic and thermodynamics and as a person on a train, and potentially other uses related to the word conducting and those doing it. I think with drafter we may also need a disambiguation heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
166 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Duke of Atholl (talk) Add sources
16 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Bishop of Dunkeld (talk) Add sources
74 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Scottish Romani and Traveller groups (talk) Add sources
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ada, Countess of Atholl (talk) Add sources
27 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B History of local government in Scotland (talk) Add sources
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub David Strathbogie, Earl of Atholl (talk) Add sources
24 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Irish Uruguayans (talk) Cleanup
53 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Celtic studies (talk) Cleanup
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: Start Conall mac Taidg (talk) Cleanup
200 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Ancient Celtic warfare (talk) Expand
9 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Politics of Aberdeen (talk) Expand
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Oakley, Fife (talk) Expand
8 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Collessie (talk) Unencyclopaedic
155 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Early Irish law (talk) Unencyclopaedic
25 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Rhins of Galloway (talk) Unencyclopaedic
38 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Nishiōhira Domain (talk) Merge
7 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Unavailable name (talk) Merge
495 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Intermittent explosive disorder (talk) Merge
103 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Phonological history of English close front vowels (talk) Wikify
150 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Phonological history of English consonant clusters (talk) Wikify
86 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Rotwelsch (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Amlakhu (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Blue Book Top 20 Network Rankings (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Big Ben Phonogram (talk) Orphan
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Five Glens of Angus (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Gregoir of Dunkeld (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Fothriff (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub John of Caithness (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Léot of Brechin (talk) Stub
35 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Lundin Links (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Fooian fooers

Just a request to please be careful when you make changes to the {{fooian fooers}} templates in British categories, because you left a large trail of redlinked categories that don't exist behind you.

It's not that your code is wrong, it's that sometimes what was already there interacts with your code incorrectly if it was varying from standard — before the code you're adding to the template was enabled, the common workaround to avoid duplicate categorization in the UK was to change the profession= from "X" to "British X", which causes your new code to generate "British british X" instead of "British X" as the category and thus created obvious silliness like Category:British british numismatists and Category:British british comedy writers.

There were also a couple of cases of categories that weren't double-British nonsense at all but just don't actually exist to have subcategories filed in them, such as Category:British astrological writers and Category:British song collectors.

So basically, after every edit, you need to double-check to ensure that you haven't accidentally caused the page to become filed in categories that don't exist — if you have, then you need to either create the category if it's justifiable, or fix the code if it's double-British nonsense, and don't just walk away leaving the page sitting in redlinked categories. Again, it's not that your code is wrong, it's that sometimes what was already there interacts with your code incorrectly if it was wrong, so just please be aware and watch out for that. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

My bad. I'll trackback through my work and reevaluate my workflow, as well as think through how avoid things like this happening in the future. Mason (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I've already caught everything that was picked up by Special:WantedCategories as of this morning, so don't worry about having to go back and review everything you've already done — just keep an eye on it in the future as much as possible. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm still going to go through at least a handful of them so I can figure out how to prevent (ok... more like reduce the chances of ) this happing again. Mason (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, for the time being could you avoid making any major changes to Dominican Republic categories? You edited Category:19th-century Dominican Republic women writers yesterday to change it from manually-coded templates-plus-categories to the standard {{Women writers by nationality and century category header}} — but again through no fault of your own, this had the undesirable side effect of causing the proper Dominican Republic categories to become replaced with mostly-redlinked Dominica categories. But, of course, Dominica and the Dominican Republic are actually two separate countries with their own separate category trees that can't be mixed up like that.
    Again, you didn't do anything wrong, and just kind of stumbled into another situation where doing a perfectly rational thing imported an error that was caused by other people somewhere else — it's a mistake in the category generation module that needs to be repaired, rather than a mistake you made. I've already reported it to WP:VPT to get it looked at, but could you just avoid making changes like that to Dominican Republic categories until it does get fixed? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    Will do! And thanks for emphasizing that the coding error is larger than my changes.  :) Mason (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, the Dominican Republic problem has been fixed, so you can resume making changes to those categories now. I have to imagine it's kind of frustrating to have so many things happen in such a short time where you did the right thing and it caused silly other problems that weren't actually your fault at all, but I guess it's improving the encyclopedia since we'd never find these things to fix them if nobody ever walked into them by accident (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    That was so fast! Thank you for being proactive about getting this fixed :) (And no worries, my frustration was spend reviving my desktop today, after a windows update messed up something. And... finally, my PC lives! So from my perspective, this is a nice bonus fix that worked out really well in terms of timing.) Mason (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, yuck. I had the same happen to me last week, so I can definitely relate. But that also means that the latest Windows update is probably corrupted itself, in turn meaning that was just another version of the same problem! (Damn trickster gods!) Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Suppress categories

Just wondering why you added {{suppress categories}} to Category:17th-century bishops in the Holy Roman Empire and some others. It looks like the categories you then added are the same as those the template is suppressing. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think at the time, I hadn't fixed the template to check if the country existed, so it would break a lot. The template I'm using to grab country names doesn't handle many non-modern countries, like the HRE etc. Mason (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Templates

The templates you have created on Bishops, writers and LGBT people are causing an error in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals if the country portal does not exist. Would it be possible to make them to only add a country portal if it exists? Lyndaship (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll definitely try to do that. Do you happen to know of any examples of templates that check before adding? Mason (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Templates are a bit beyond me but another editor User:Aidan721 who I contacted did a change on this template Template:Sports clubs and teams in Fooland category header/inner core which fixed a similar issue. {{#ifexist: seems to be the necessary addition. If I could interest you on looking at the other templates in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals which are causing problems, they are mostly YYYY ones which are trying to list non existent portals that would be great Lyndaship (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
great! that's good enough to get me started :) Mason (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, see you've managed to resolve all of these. Can you have a look at Research institutes established in YYYY. I think they are trying to load non existent decade Portals Lyndaship (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll do those next! Thanks for reminding me they exist :) Mason (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Swiss categories

Hello. I created the category « 18-th century mathematician from the Republic of Geneva », containing 8 entries. This allowed the suppression of the categories containing the adjective « Swiss » in at least some of the most absurd instances of people having no tie whatever with Switzerland (until a well-intentioned contributor creates subcategories such as fist-decade-of-18-th-century-Swiss-mathematician, I guess…). I’ll see what else I can do. For instance to classify as « Swiss » Jeanne de Jussie is so totally absurd and outrageous I will find some solution. Sapphorain (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be helpful to bring these categories to a discussion at CFD to get some outside opinions. I woudn't go as far to say that it is outrageous or absurd. Mason (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem does not lie with the categories, it is the consequence of classifying articles without reading them in totally inadequate categories just because the instructions in Wikipedia:Categorization can be interpreted to allow it. Anyway, for the time being I created the category « 18-th century physicist from the Republic of Geneva » (5 entries). --Sapphorain (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, I strongly recommend you bring this to CFD Mason (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
What for? CFD discusses «  specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories ». I don’t have any such proposition. I just aim to avoid putting articles into misfitted categories providing false information. --Sapphorain (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Because you can get some consensus on how the categories should work, as well as be able to change the parenting structure. Mason (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. But I have nothing per se against anachronic or otherwise approximate parent categories, since these can be useful for classification of categories, as long as they are not used directly on pages on which they convey false information. So this is a general problem which could possibly be brought to discussion somewhere, but not as you suggest on CFD, as this page explicitly excludes general discussions. General discussions are supposed to be initiated in some WikiProjects’ talk page, but which one would be the more appropriate is still unclear to me. In the mean time I will continue to spot possible creations of categories — i.e., containing enough entries — that can replace false Swiss categories (such as « 18-th century physicians from the Republic of Geneva »).--Sapphorain (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Sapphorain, I'm going to bring this to CFD. Mason (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Loewen/Sallis

I switched to the ampersand (&) in the book title (as shown in the Sallis obit pic) from 'and' in James W. Loewen. I'm not sure how to change the redirect title Mississippi: Conflict and Change and thought maybe you had different info/opinion anyway. Or it can stay as is -- two ways -- or I can reverse those of my changes. I did add Sallis to the Sallis dab page, linking also to the Loewen 'First Amendment ...' section. And I emailed the NYT about the missing Eagles book details -- Charles W. Eagles, Civil Rights, Culture Wars (U Chicago) / Eagles provides biographies of the members of Loewen and Sallis's textbook writing team, the Mississippi History Project (MHP), as well as the process of ...; The Clarion-Ledger / Sep 4, 2017 — "Civil Rights Culture Wars," a new book by Mississippi historian Charles W. Eagles, tells the compelling backstory of a 1970s textbook that ... (Google; links wouldn't copying over here) -- in obit; and the fact that 'Your Mississippi' post-dated by a year 'Conflict' (wording nuance, if they care); and did other bits in Wikipedia. Sallis maybe deserves his own page but it's more than I can take on now. Good work; nice to find someone there ahead of me. Swliv (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions about '&' versus 'and'. I'm happy to make that change. I'll just move the redirect. :) Mason (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Page is now moved https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mississippi:_Conflict_%26_Change&oldid=1208506982. Also I love your enthusiasm :) Mason (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

African-American women chemists

I think this category also violates the last rung category. We may have dispersed American chemists by state, but that is not the issue. Since it is a triple I ntersection it only exists if both African-Americsn chemists and American women chemists have a lower level of categories. The women one does have biochemists, but that is not enough. This is exactly why triple intersections are so hard to justify. Likewise African-American women lawyers will really only work if we are willing to disperse American women lawyers and African-American lawyers by century, and that will only work if we are willing to divide 19th, 20th and 21st century lawyers by state. With lawyers such an approach works, and since we have dispersed both African-American scientists and American women scientists by field of specialty (geologist, chemists, astronomer, physicists, biologists, etc.), we can have African-American women scientists. I have to admit I have thought about the obstacles rung rule. Some days I wonder if we really should have American women novelists at all, which is the Category I was a major contributor to (although contrary to what some have claimed not the creator of) at all. Other days I wonder if it really makes sense to have the whole novelists and short story writers tree at all. Most short story writers wrote novels as well, some works are between the two, and the whole writers tree seems a bit messy. A big part of this is many people were writers and poets but what thry wrote is hard yo easily tag them as except that not all was poetry. I am thinking that poets should be non-diffusing subcats of writers. Some poets were fully oral as well. So maybe we should remove poets from the writers tree, and not class people only known for poetry as writers, but allow those known for both poetry and non-poetical works yo be in both. OK, I know this comment ranged broadly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Since we have diffused American novelists by both century and state, subdividing along other non-diffusing lines probably works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
lol, no worries about wide ranging comments. I thought that making a category non-diffusing worked as an alternative to the final rung rule. Although to be honest, I don't have as good of a handle on that aspect of categorization. Hmmm, the poetry is an interesting angle; have you thought about how that could intersect with storytellers? Because effectively that's the non-written writers/poets in a way. Mason (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the slash issue

Hi, thanks for raising the issue of the slash in the two categories I created about lawyers in the Canadas. I’m not very familiar with categories and appreciate the guidance. It seems to be a very technical area, but I’m learning! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! I hope you stick around. :) Category work is a unique mix of technical writing as well as qualitative/holistic thinking. Mason (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

What were you doing with this edit? Why did you remove the nomination? StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, I'm not sure how that happened. I'll fix it. Mason (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hyphen or en-dash?

Hi Mason, I just created a new category, got it nicely populated, and then realised I may have a syntax error. It's Category:Papineau-Viger-Cherrier families. Should that be an en-dash instead of a hyphen? It's the names of three families related by inter-marriage, not a hyphenated name: Papineau, Viger and Cherrier families. Would it be better as "Papineau–Viger–Cherrier families"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, honestly, I don't know. My strategy would be to see what other categories do, and model it off of that. Mason (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Having seen how much it took to get a slash changed to "and" in those other two categories, I'm inclined to just let it sit. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It's a fascinating group of families. Grandpère Papineau was a cooper; Grandpère Viger was a shoemaker; their grandsons included a revolutionary leader, two premiers of the Province of Canada, a mayor of Montreal, and a bank president; and one of the Cherrier cousins was Bishop of Montreal, while another Cherrier cousin turned down three different offers of judicial appointments. Two of the Vigers got tossed in jail for sedition during the 1837 Rebellion, and one Papineau had to flee to the US, then Paris, where he was in exile for several years. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Trader Horn

I know you are in the middle of a fairly full category work, could you be kind enough to close the trader horn item, it seems to have evoked an out of process 'emptying' reaction, it would be nice to close/resolve please. You sure have your time organised in the larger stuff. Thanks. JarrahTree 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. But, I don't know what you mean by " it seems to have evoked an out of process 'emptying' reaction". But regardless, I'm not going to withdraw the nomination. As a policy, I don't withdraw nominates because people ask me to. And, when I nominated it, it only had three pages in it, which weren't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
cripes, more misunderstanding, what about - Please close and delete. I hope that explains, what I had tried to say but clearly misuderstandings creep in everywhere - I agree with your nomination, I would hope at some point there might be clarity as to the need to delete and remove the category. If you want a blow by blow background to the obtuse messages and edit history, I can provide. Otherwise, thanks in advance. JarrahTree 05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Colombian atheist writers

Hello, Smasongarrison,

This category, and another similar one, have a speedy rename tag on them but in the page history, you make an edit and refer to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 but I can't find a discussion on these categories. Also, it seems completely different to say that someone is an atheist who is a writer and someone is a writer who writes about atheism. It's like saying an individual is a Catholic writer vs. a writer about Catholicism. Who one is doesn't mean that someone writes about that subject. Can you clear that up for me? Thank you and for all of the post-CFD work that you do. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure! So the parent category was renamed to make it clearer that the category is supposed to be for "writer[s] who writes about atheism" instead of "someone is an atheist who is a writer ". Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 18#Category:Atheist writers. The closing was rename and purge. I sillily nominated the child categories for renaming before actually looking to see if there would be anyone left who met the criteria for writers about atheism. In hind sight, I should have starting by purging. Mason (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Critics

This category is a mess. It seems to be built on a like name, but not like things. Our article Critic defines this as a person who reviews and analyzes something. This is very different from someone who attacks and tries to disprove or destroy or discredit something. We have two meanings of crisis bring merged into one category. I have to admit I am not convinced that some of these categories pass the ruke against opinion categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Explorers of West Asia

In mid-January 2024, you proposed to rename and move the category "Travelers in Asia Minor". As there was already a group category "Explorers of West Asia", it made perfect sense to add "Explorers of Anatolia" as a regional subcategory to it (there are already subcategories for explorers of Arabia, Caucasus and Iran).[1] However, what happened instead is that the pages listed under "Travelers in Asia Minor" (regionally specific) were added directly to the blanket category "Explorers of West Asia". That is not what was agreed and also goes against basic Wikipedia principles of keeping a more detailed category where relevant (what happened is similar to turning, say, "French presidents" into "French politicians").

Can I ask you to fix that please and move the pages currently in "Explorers of West Asia" into a subcategory called "Explorers of Anatolia"? VampaVampa (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I proposed a merger, not a rename and move. @Qwerfjkl closed the discussion, stating that the consensus was "the result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Explorers of West Asia." If you have a problem with the decision you can contest the result . However, I am not going to subvert the consensus, which is effectively what you are asking. Mason (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Since I have not been involved in category management before, I could not tell that "rename and move" is not a subset of "merge". I will then re-open the discussion and appreciate your engagement with what I have said about the close match between the contested category and the existing subcategories in Category:Explorers of West Asia. VampaVampa (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I see that you edited the closed discussion [2]. That's not how you contest a closing. I've moved your message outside the archived discussion. As per the instructions at the bottom of the archive. "The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section." Personally, I don't think you'll "win" with the argument you've made. But I do encourage you contest it if you think the closing was in error. Mason (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@VampaVampa, forgot to ping. Mason (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ As per my reply in the January discussion: "Renaming as "Explorers of Asia Minor" or "Explorers of Anatolia" and adding as subcategory to the Category:Explorers of West Asia". There was no further counterproposition.

Reason for this edit?

Hi, what's the reason you removed a category in this edit? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think that it counted as "Wartime", when it was already in Rape in India, and I saw that the header was about "Violence against Muslims in independent India". However, I've now looked closer and realized that it was part of the "Annexation of Hyderabad", which I think counts as wartime. Mason (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you self-revert? Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure, just did! Thanks for bring it to my attention Mason (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Grin

[3] - Sorry colleague, simply removing from a category does not mean "diffuse". Reverted. - Altenmann >talk 02:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a case of massive overcat. I didn't update my default edit summary. Mason (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm 210.3.136.74. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Olga Forsh have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you not understand what diffusion is? Mason (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Antonina Koptiaeva. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:210.3.136.74, you may be blocked from editing. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop reverting. Have a conversation. Mason (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know that bleep they were up to but their editing history strongly suggests that they were NOTHERE. I am seriously considering mass reverting all of their recent edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
No idea either. But, yes, I think mass reverting is in order. Mason (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
They have posted an unblock request. As skeptical as I am, I will give them a chance to explain. But it better be good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Fascinating. I'm morbidly curious. So I'll wait on helping you rollback. Mason (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to give them ten minutes to reply. Then AGF goes out the window and the rollbacking begins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm off to bed, but whatever miniscule doubts I may had are gone. Anyone who suggests that an editor with a half million edits over 12 years is NOTHERE and should be indeffed, is obviously just playing games. Honestly I regret opening the discussion at AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't worry about it; the AN gave you the sanity check you needed. Have a good night! Mason (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Prehistorians and Archaeologists

I am sorry I do not have any convergence with what you are doing with these things, but am really not interested in trying to explain. Unless required I will leave it at that. JarrahTree 11:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "convergence". Mason (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
In a venn diagram your understanding of the world and the one I think I have do not meet, no convergence.

In the anglosphere there is no necessary or sufficient connection between the professions of anthropology and archeology, indeed conflation I thought I saw you apply to categories would indeed be considered quite offensive to some. JarrahTree 07:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello! Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. Please be careful to distinguish between the two when changing bio categorires! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the note! Mason (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Writers by nationality and century

Your recent edit to {{Writers by nationality and century category header}} is for some reason causing a handful of Uzbek, Kazakh and Turkmen categories (but no others so far) to get directly filed in Category:Writers even though they're already in appropriate subcategories by century and nationality, and thus don't need to also be in the parent category at all. I can't find any obvious indication in the template coding of why this is happening, however — but since the unnecessary category is being transcluded by the template rather than being directly declared on the categories themselves, I can't remove it without editing the template either. So could you figure out what's needed to get the following categories back out of Category:Writers since they don't belong there?

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Howdy!
Thanks for keeping an eye on for the gltiches. I'm working on it; the template isn't smart enough to find Uzbekistani writers‎, etc, when the denymn doesn't have a country in the list. I actually had to add in 21st-century FOOian categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:21st-century_Uzbekistani_writers&diff=prev&oldid=1214518115
But, I'm working on it. Mason (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Geriatricists

no one is in multiple nationalities, which I suspect we have at least one or two who are, there are 66 articles in the geriatricians tree. With that size I think we should eliminated all the categories. I think we should establish a bare minimum size at which we will split by nationality an occupation. Specifically an occupation that is a tertiary sub-cat of scientists. I think we should bite the bullet and place everyone a rung up and group all geriatricians in one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look and nominate the last few stranglers. Mason (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffusion of categories

I am thinking we should make it so no occupational category ever diffuses to a cause of death category. The intersection of being a US president and being killed while in office might be something worth having a category for (although it is so small, I really see no reason to not just have a list), but we should not have it set up so we essentially have one category US presidents not killed in office, and another US presidents killed in office. This would also apply to soldiers killed in a war, radiologists who died of cancer, journalists killed, or any of the other rare cases where cause of death and occupation (broadly defined) have a notable intersection. I know creating non-diffusing rules makes things require review, but overly small categories that remove people in odd ways are not good either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that the intersection between occupation and death has serious problems. I think that making them non-diffusing would make a lot of sense, in the same what that suicides by year are non-diffusing. Mason (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

CFD

Hello, Mason,

You are very experienced in nominating categories for CFD discussions so I thought I'd ask you about Category:Oratorios by year. Many of these categories just have one article so do you think it makes sense to categorize them by decade instead? Just thought I'd check in with an editor more familiar with the process of recategorizing to see if there is any benefit in making a change. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think bundling them by decade makes a lot of sense. Similar to how we did that for Category:Danish novels by decade.Mason (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

False accusations

I have just noticed that you accused me for edit warring along with 185.104.63.112.[4][5] I was not notified. No I don't engage in 3RRs and I don't know that person. Please stop your false accusations and your contentious edits. Thank you. 218.102.133.99 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Merging to multiple categories

Hi Mason, I noticed that you have used {{cfs}} for nominations such as this. The template {{cfm-double}} would probably be more helpful for all concerned. "Splitting" categories means manually moving the members into either one (or more) of the proposed targets, but that nomination was intended rather to merge all members into all the proposed targets.

Cfm-double only takes two targets, but once you have created the nomination you can just append " and Category:Foo" if there are three or more applicable targets. – Fayenatic London 16:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of the cfm-double template, and that splitting means something very different from merging. Unfortunately, cfm-double isn't implemented in Twinkle. I've made the request, but I don't know how long or when it'll be implemented. Mason (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

British North America

I still think the wrong name is "pre-confederation Canada". That is a horrible case of anachronism. The name at the time was British North America. We should categorize by what something was, not what it would become. Beyond this from 1867-1907 you still have British North America existing along sulfide Canada. So the name becomes even weirder. Does it make sense to call someone who emigrated from Price Edward Island, Newfoundland or British Colombia in 1869 a "pre'l-confederstion Canadian" emigrant. I still think this is a horrible name, especially when we have the British North America oprlt8on which was the term actually used at the time and does not require ulus to label people based on future events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rican luthiers

The one actual article in this category is on someone who per the article seems only to have worked as a luthier in the US mainly, I think mainly if not exclusively in Massachusetts. He came to the mainland at least 5 years before he started working as a luthier. Whether we should class a luthier working in Puerto Rican as an American I am not 100% certain, but clearly someone working in Massachusetts and maybe also New Hampshire, especially such a person who is a US citizen, goes in the American Category. In fact I would argue calling this guy a Puerto Rican luthier is in his case just wrong. We should not class people by the intersection of place and occupation if they only did the occupation after leaving the place. A person born in Mexico who imigrates to the US as a young child is Mexican by birth and a historian, he is not a Mexican historian. He is an American historian of Mexican descent, but not a Mexican historian. He immigrated to the US as a young child long before he became a journalist, he was not even a Mexican journalist, and he becomes a historian after that. The luthier is a slightly different case, he come to the mainland for college but his mom was born in Boston. However since Puerto Ricans are US citizens by birth, and I am almost certain there is no Puerto Rican citizenship, the day a Puerto Rican sets foot in Massachusetts he has the same legal status there as someone who was born in Rhode Island and moved to Massachusetts that day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Category templates

Can you please be careful with these. Several of the new ones are populating category redirects, usually because the parent category name is not how the template blindly assumes it, and there are invariably no instructions on the template page for how to override the mess. Current examples of populated redirects include Category:9th-century German people and Category:Kazakh musicians. If the templates can't be fixed then they'll have to be removed. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any templates that handle redirects smartly? I'd love to see an example. At present, I don't have a larger fix, that doesn't require adding a wall of conditionals. I am working on the handful of demonyms that aren't behaving right Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#c-Jonesey95-20240319145400-Smasongarrison-20240319124400. Mason (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Resolve category redirect can fix the problem but it's best installed by those who write technical templates. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I didn't know that this template existed. It seems straightforward enough, especially with the test cases, provided. Mason (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, I've gotten in working in the writers template [6] to handle the literature redirects (e.g.,Category:17th-century English writers). Mason (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you also fix Template:Musicians by nationality and century category header - it's also populating redirects. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
will do. Any chance the offending page in for Russian empire categories? Because that one should resolve itself soon once the category template refreshes Mason (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Bishops by country and century category header is also generating multiple cases. Can you fix it and include the redirect resolve by default in all new templates? Timrollpickering (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks for letting me know. I'll implement redirect resolves for those as well. Mason (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Cfds not going through?

Hey there! I wanted to ask if there is a reason why so many Cfds, which have been closed for a while now, aren't going through. Quite a few recent nominations which have been closed as 'merge', 'delete', 'rename' are stil there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No idea. But that's a good question. Could the bot be down? Mason (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it is. I've been checking and a lot of the recent closed Cfds are stalled. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century bishops in Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century bishops in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century bishops in Mexico

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Markos Botsaris on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Excessive categories

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

1 article that supports 4 categories

Looking at Category:UC Merced Golden Bobcats, it looks to me like this category, plus its 3 sub-cats, only between all 4 of them have 1 article. I am actually surprised that there are not more categories in there that this 1 article is supporting. The 1 article is already in University of California, Merced alumni directly. Even at that, that category only has 3 articles and 1 sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Defining characteristics

Do you think the following makes sense? If something does not make enough difference to someone's life that we bother having text about it in the article on the person, we should not have a category on it. If it is so minor that it is buried in a table and not mentioned in the normal text of the article, I do not believe we can say it is defining enough to matter enough to have a category, and we would be best off not categorizing by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a lot of what you're saying makes sense. But I worry, that systematic bias might lead some categories that do meet the criteria for making difference to someone's life, might not be mentioned in the text. I think that your rule works pretty well for non EGRS categories. I'll think about it; its an interesting idea. Mason (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Smasongarrison,

Could you look at the categories added to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion earlier today? There are a bunch of these "male writers by century" and nationality categories that suddenly went empty. It doesn't look like they were emptied manually by adding or removing articles or categories which means that either there have been some changes to a template that fills them or a bundled deletion through CFD.

I know that lately you have been tinkering with some of the templates so I'm hoping if you made a change that emptied out these categories, you could undo it or at least correct it. We have categories for women writers in these same groups so it's logical that we'd have similar categories for male writers. Thanks for looking into this when you have a chance. Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep -- that was definitely me. I made the switch to a more generalized category template, that now works for other male/female/women occupations, but it wasn't entirely seamless. I'll see if I can force some of categories with the template to re-fresh, now that I've fixed it. [7]Mason (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, thank you. I'll untag those categories. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to post in deletion discussion of "nazis who died by suicide in the united states"

I'm responding to your statement "I would strongly encourage you to reconsider using LGBT people as your counter arguments to Nazis. That comparison comes with A LOT OF BAGGAGE, especially when your talking to people from the LGBT community" here on your talk page rather than here to avoid creating a tangent on that discussion.

You say that as if you assume to know whether or not I am LGBT. But you have no way of knowing my sexual orientation or gender identity unless I tell you. For a number of reasons which I would rather not get into here, I try as hard possible to keep my Wikipedia identity (and online identity, in general) as separate as possible from my "real" identity--meaning I avoid saying any details about myself, such as gender, age, sexual orientation, occupation, what country I'm from, etc on Wikipedia discussions. But I feel like I must make an exception to avoid being misunderstood. You have no way of knowing if I am LGBT or not (in fact, I am. The "G" part of LGBT to be specific. And you if you want to add "I" and make it LGBTI, then I have a medical condition which some would consider as "I"; it's on the border of being "I" or not). As I told you already, I also had a close friend who was gay and died by suicide. LGBT people are as diverse as non-LGBT people. We are all individuals and what has "baggage" or is offensive for one of us does not necessarily create the same response to another of us.

For me, I feel as though an encyclopedia is a place that should be completely free of any politics or opinions or emotions in general, and should be 100% objective, regardless of how heavy a topic is or isn't. An encyclopedia should be a place to neutrally document facts, and should not be influenced by culture or society. (An impossible goal to attain, perhaps, but it's an ideal I believe should be striven for) Facts will then speak for themselves (we don't have to tell people "Nazis did horrible things", for example, we just have to say what they did, the horribleness will speak for itself.) I used the LGBT suicide list because it was the first article/list/category/whatever that I could find that I thought was relevant. My argument was in response to the argument that someone shouldn't be included in a Nazi suicide list if their suicide was unrelated to being a Nazi. (Or something like that, I don't remember the exact argument) I used the LGBT list to argue that not all of those persons' suicides were necessarily related to their being LGBT, but that they should still be included in the list. Since wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:NPOV, I didn't think it should matter how "heavy" the issues of LGBT suicide or Nazism may be to some people. Regardless, I searched and found Category:Artists who died by suicide and Category:Farmers who died by suicide by which the same analogies, comparisons, and arguments to the Nazi suicide categories could be made from just as well, if not better, than the LGBT suicide list.

I apologize that you were offended, but personally I find it offensive to assume that all LGBT people will react the same way to something. We are both LGBT but obviously had very different reactions to the same thing. I can talk about Nazis or LGBT suicide at the same time without feeling a strong visceral reaction. But that just goes to show that LGBT people are not a monolithic group.

I hope I didn't say anything that upset you further or that I wrote too lengthily. I just felt I had to respond somehow because I was feeling very misunderstood. I wish you the best. Vontheri (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to clarify. I have had the working assumption that your intentions were good. I appreciate your self-disclosure. I, truly, appreciate your attempt to course correct.
However, I did not say that "all LGBT people will react the same way to something". I was trying to nicely say that I, personally, did not want to continue the conversation. I said that I found the comparison TROUBLING. You asked me to expand on that, so I did. I tried to convey that I did not want to think about that trifecta. That I was not interested in continuing the conversation. You seemed perplexed by that/concerned that I thought you were making an intentionally problematic comparison. I am not saying that all lgbt people will respond the way I did, but what I was saying is that I personally did not want to engage in an added layer of heaviness. And, I felt it was worth elaborating enough to make it clear that if your goal was to reduce the heaviness, you did not succeed in my case. I think that your alternative examples were better. My only goal was to convey that an alternative analogy would have been more effective because you'd be less likely to lose people. Mason (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
FWIW: There's nothing you need to apologize for. Mason (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your response. I have more clarity now. I shouldn't have said that you were implying that all LGBT people would react in the same way, as I know that is not what you said. I feel (think..? feel..? intuit..? believe..? what's the right word?) that human language is so much more simpler than human thought, which is something that frustrates me greatly. I suppose I felt most bothered that I was perceiving that you were assuming to know whether I was LGBT or not when you really had no way of knowing if I was or not. (Specifically, my perception was that the part saying "especially when your talking to people from the LGBT community" implied that I was not LGBT myself. I acknowledge that my perception could have been vastly incorrect, as, again, we are limited by human language, and written-only language at that.)
Anyway, you said quite clearly that you did not want to continue the conversation, and I fully respect that. I have gone on too much already. I appreciate greatly your response to my post here on your talk page and I will not say anything else about this. I also want to thank you greatly for your civility. Not that I have any reason to think you would not be civil, but I see so much incivility, whether directed towards me or towards someone else, on Wikipedia that it has at times made me feel like losing hope in the entire project of Wikipedia.
I do have a habit of writing long posts. Once I get started typing it becomes hard for me to stop. I will stop writing more now and have already shortened this post by about half of what I had originally written. Again, thank you for taking time out of your day to respond to me. No need for additional response unless you just want to. I will assume this issue closed now. Thank you and good luck to you in life and all your endeavors. Vontheri (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Smasongarrison/Archives,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Scholars by language of study has been nominated for merging

Category:Scholars by language of study 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. NLeeuw (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
51 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Charleston in the American Civil War (talk) Add sources
71 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Atlanta in the American Civil War (talk) Add sources
56 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Hans Eisele (physician) (talk) Add sources
34 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C New Orleans in the American Civil War (talk) Add sources
1,876 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Cuban Revolution (talk) Add sources
31 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Quindaro Townsite (talk) Add sources
15 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Esther Orozco (talk) Cleanup
95 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B History of African Americans in Los Angeles (talk) Cleanup
40 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C African Americans in North Carolina (talk) Cleanup
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start John E.P. Daingerfield (talk) Expand
359 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Slave rebellion (talk) Expand
67 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C La Coubre explosion (talk) Expand
31 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Heyward Shepherd monument (talk) Unencyclopaedic
379 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Sequoyah (talk) Unencyclopaedic
22 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Havana Plan Piloto (talk) Unencyclopaedic
254 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Antisemitism in the United States (talk) Merge
340 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Russian occupation of Crimea (talk) Merge
71 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Seventeen (Indonesian band) (talk) Merge
84 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA African-American folktales (talk) Wikify
294 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Marikana massacre (talk) Wikify
39 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Awards (talk) Wikify
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Manuel Fajardo (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Irene Wagner-Döbler (talk) Orphan
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Aerotropism (talk) Orphan
45 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Seven Angry Men (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Samuel Chilton (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Gibson-Todd House (talk) Stub
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub The Last Days of John Brown (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Albert Pullins (talk) Stub
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Taufik Akbar (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Women politicians by nationality and century category header

Template:Women politicians by nationality and century category header does not handle redirects and is creating umpteen redirects - see User:RussBot/category redirect log. Can you please stop sticking these templates in en masse without making sure they cover all circumstances. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So, I did check and resolve this issue, by manually creating redirects for all the categories. And when the template didn't behave as expected, I hand edited each one so that it would work. So please don't assume that I'm doing this without checking and fixing. relevant example diffs [8], and my edit history [9] Mason (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please extend me some good faith here? I'm not doing this thoughtlessly. If you know why

{{Category redirect|{{Title demonym}} women in politics}} does not work with templates, I would love to know. Mason (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foals (band) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Judith of Flanders has been nominated for deletion

Category:Judith of Flanders 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) 13:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Universities and colleges

The Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven is the equivalent of a school or a faculty within a university (a similar thing might be the Munk School at the University of Toronto). Are there other instances of *parts of* universities being categorised as universities? If the category "Universities and colleges" is also intended to include parts of universities and colleges, should it not be renamed to clarify that? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair question. So yes, there are other examples of suborganizations, and the intent is to include parts of universities. Here are some examples from category:Universities and colleges established in 1889: Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Oregon State University College of Engineering, Osgoode Hall Law School, University of Wisconsin–Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. In the US, schools/faculty are often described as Colleges. The category name was broadened from just "Universities" to make the intention clearer that it was to include subdivisions. Do you have suggestions for a clearer name? Mason (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Something like "Tertiary educational institutions" or "Institutions of higher education" would be broad enough to cover universities and their constituent parts. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Writers by nationality and century category header

Hi, I created Category:Medieval Russian writers and this is shown as a parent cat in Category:15th-century Russian writers which is using Template:Writers by nationality and century category header but I do not see this showing. Do you know what the issue could be here? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So the category will be populated eventually, but not immediately. The trick to make a dummy edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:15th-century_Russian_writers&oldid=1214081477 Mason (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I see, thank you! Mellk (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:16th-century Catalan people

Hi Mason, I've been too busy to keep up with CFD discussions recently.

I'm grateful for your work here, but I would have opposed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 6#Category:16th-century Catalan people. Removing this has left a bigger gap in Category:Catalan people by century. Before or instead of deleting poorly-populated categories, I suggest checking whether they can be populated.

In this case Petscan demonstrates that there are 22 articles eligible to be put in the category. Some of them might be debatable if "Count of Barcelona" was an honorary title unrelated to origin or residence, but it looks as if there would be sufficient to reinstate the category. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! that's really helpful information. I'll definitely try additional approaches to populate categories. Mason (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Cheers! – Fayenatic London 20:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobility of, not from

I've just noticed a few "Nobility of" renamed speedily to "Nobility from" – I hope you will not object if I summarily reverse these. We use "of" for nobility, military personnel and political positions, because they are people holding official capacities of the state. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Also long as you leave redirects, that fine. Otherwise, I think it breaks the nobility by nationality and century template Mason (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Good idea! I have added this at Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept. – Fayenatic London 11:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Indenting

Hi, I removed your indent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 12#Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic for clarity – hope you don't mind.

You often seem to indent with *: rather than just * , and this has the appearance of demoting your !vote. I suggest you use just an asterisk at the start of your opinion at CFD, unless you are replying to another editor's statements. Is the colon an artifact of a tool that you use for commenting? – Fayenatic London 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it does have that tendency to downweight my vote. I think it is an artifact of using the beta feature of "Discussion tools". I haven't been very motivated to see if I can pinpoint the problem, but you've just given me a good reason to investigate. :) Mason (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:Indigenous

I saw your question was never answered and I don't know if you found the answer to this. The capitalization of Indigenous and other terms should be applied when talking about people. By calling a organization an Indigenous organization you would be stating it is made of Indigenous people and therefore should be capitalized. --ARoseWolf 13:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Mason (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Academic journals published in the Netherlands

A tag has been placed on Category:Academic journals published in the Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elmer H. Almquist (April 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
no sources?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Smasongarrison! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
34 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Georgia in the American Revolution (talk) Add sources
8 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Job Shattuck (talk) Add sources
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Jussi Mäkinen (talk) Add sources
277 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Urho Kekkonen (talk) Add sources
65 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Von Steuben Day (talk) Add sources
55 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B South Carolina in the American Revolution (talk) Add sources
1,035 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Continental Army (talk) Cleanup
68 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Health in the United States (talk) Cleanup
182 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Hissein Brahim Taha (talk) Cleanup
57 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Prisoners of war in the American Revolutionary War (talk) Expand
102 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Mauno Koivisto (talk) Expand
12 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Luke Day (talk) Expand
163 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Quebec Act (talk) Unencyclopaedic
263 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Finlandization (talk) Unencyclopaedic
12 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Nathan Hale (colonel) (talk) Unencyclopaedic
18 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Fleet captain (talk) Merge
371 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Contraposition (talk) Merge
24 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California (talk) Merge
144 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Transportation safety in the United States (talk) Wikify
39 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Water politics in the Middle East (talk) Wikify
341 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Reagan era (talk) Wikify
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Bob Barry (photographer) (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Cetemmsa (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Caroline Blazovsky (talk) Orphan
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Statue of George Washington (Austin, Texas) (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Seija Toro (talk) Stub
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Washington Monument (West Point) (talk) Stub
7 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Joseph Read (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Peter Stenlund (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Pinketham Eaton (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about your username

Just curious: what does the "s" stand for? Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My legal first name: Sarah. My parents drew inspiration from Sarah Michelle Gellar. Mason (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

All Saints' Church

Can you please tell when I had been told about "changing ... to Kowloon", and elaborate what is wrong to mention Kowloon (given that the territory comprises four components – Kowloon being one of them?) Thanks. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly Wikipedia:HKGW. Mason (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@Underwaterbuffalo and WhisperToMe. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
This is called canvasing. Mason (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Law schools in CA

Hello, curious on this edit. Are these "Lincoln Law Schools" not law schools in California? --Engineerchange (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The page is, but there's not a need to also classify the WP:EPONYMOUS category as well. There were only three other categories in Category:Law schools in California category, and I don't think everything in the category (or its category) was a law school in california (Wikipedia:Overcategorization). Mason (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, I always forget WP:EPONYMOUS. Thanks! --Engineerchange (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

please open a CFD discussion if you're going to be making mass changes to categories and emptying them out

Also, do you disagree with e.g. greek philosophers in the 13th century being byzantine philosophers? because otherwise I can't imagine why you would remove the Greek philosopher categories from the Byzantine one! Psychastes (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert my message, and then start a conversation over here? That seems misleading. Mason (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware how WP:DEFINING works, and I read your message, so I didn't think it was necessary to keep that message on my talk page. You emptying categories out of process, however, is an issue that belongs on your user page. Psychastes (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad to hear that you know how defining works, because it wasn't clear from your categorization. In terms of removal out of process, you're right that I should have thought thru that removing the pages as I inspected them wasn't a good workflow. Mason (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you've added a lot of Byzantine philosophers to Greek philosopher categories, when many of them aren't defined as being Greek, such as John of Damascus. Typically, we only add people to a nationality category if that nationality is WP:DEFINING for the person. Please review how nationality works before making more categories. Mason (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

on John of Damascus's article, it says John is at the end of the Patristic period of dogmatic development, and his contribution is less one of theological innovation than one of a summary of the developments of the centuries before him. In Catholic theology, he is therefore known as the "last of the Greek Fathers" and in my own experience he's referred to as a Greek philosopher as well. I suppose we might disagree on whether that counts as WP:DEFINING or not, but please don't talk to me like I'm somehow unaware of the policy! Psychastes (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
From my perspective it looked like you were massively moving everyone from byzantine philosophers into greek philsophers. Again, I'm glad to know that you know how defining works. Mason (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
more generally, do you disagree that "Byzantine" and "Greek" are somewhat interchangeable terms in the time period? I think there are probably people like John of Damascus who might be on the border of if we want to call them "Byzantine/Greek" at all, but Category:Byzantine people is in Category:Greek people by period, so unless you want to make a massive change to the whole category tree, your edits are almost certainly incorrect. Psychastes (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a very strong opinion on byzantine versus greek. I don't think it is a clear cut issue. But I'd view byztantine as the broader category during its empire's existence. Like I think you could classify anyone in the empire as byztantine, but only people in the area that's now greece as greek. Like I think it would have been more straight forward to place these philosophers into Xth century Byzatine philosophers, instead. Mason (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
well, that's not how the category tree is structured, so if you'd like to change that I'd recommend opening a discussion at CfD. I will probably revert your recent edits based on the fact that they are inconsistent with how all other Byzantine people are categorized currently, unless you want to do so yourself. Psychastes (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I still think it would have been more straight forward if you had created Xth century Byzatine philosophers, instead. FWIW: I already restored the Byzantine categories. Mason (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
im going to restore the people as well. if you want to change the name of the category that's another thing to bring to CFD Psychastes (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Re recent edit Eric Malthouse page

Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland people/artists are all British. Therefore there is a fault with the 20th-century British male artists category as it should contain all Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland artists. It is an insult to some Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish artists to say they are not British. I hope this problem can be resolved. Neutron6 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The Category:20th-century British male artists category does contain all Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland artists. Each of those is a child category, which means in this case that everyone in those categories is also British. The long standing practice is for those categories to be diffused. No one is saying that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish artists are not British. Please review the category structure and how diffusion works. Mason (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1995 disasters in Belgium

A tag has been placed on Category:1995 disasters in Belgium indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Magical thinking on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Alumni by department

I believe degrees are technically granted at the College/school lebrl in a university, not at the department level. So my Wayne State degree is from the Collehe of Arts and Sciences, not the History department. Even at that undergrad alumni often range widely in studies, so it often only really makes sense to sub-divide grad student alumni by college or school, and to unify all undergrad alumni . At least at some US universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep that's my understanding of degrees as well. I do think that we can divide up grad alumni more, which would help a lot with those overcrowded categories. But, I'm not sure unifying all undergrad would be helpful as that seems like it would make the categories even more crowded, especially if they're already divided up by school of engineering etc. But, still, it is an interestiong thought. Mason (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
In the case of Harvard University, all undergrads are in Harvard College. There is 1 unified structure for undergrads. It is different at say the University of Michigan, where they do have undergrads in the College of Engineering, etc. However large size is not the worst possible outcome in categories. We want categories to be relevant. For most sports people the degree they got from the university is not going to be defining, and this is actually true for lots of other people. Grad degrees tend more to be defining, although there are exceptions there. Undergrad degrees tend less so. In my own experience as a grad student at Eastern Michigan University, all the courses I took were through the history department. As an undergrad at Wayne State University and elsewhere I took a lot of course through other departments. At my first university close to half of the courses I took were not from the college that the history department was in, maybe even more than half. In fact at my first university since for a time I was trying to do the education tract, I was on a course to essentially get a dual degree since high school education degrees were jointly from one of 4 colleges (physical and mathematical sciences, life sciences <which changed names> , humanities and basically social sciences (which included history and geography). Actually fine arts had education degrees, and when I was there there was also a college of health and human performance that cosponsored education degrees, physical education has since been moved to the college of education, health education was essentially moved to life sciences, dance education to the extent it existed was basically put in Fine Arts <most dance majors were not dance education>, and then a part went to the business school, that was not education related per se. I really think that in general undergrad degrees are not defining enough to be worth categorizing by. With grad degrees, I think it is mainly specific professional program connections we want to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Category question: human rights agencies

Hi Mason, question for you. Is there a category for human rights government agencies, the ones that are charged with administering human rights laws? There is one for "Human rights organizations", with numerous sub-cats, but those strike me as being about groups that lobby for human rights. I think that human rights commissions or agencies are different from that kind of group, but can't find a category for them? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. But that sounds like a great idea! Mason (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I don’t want to do something that results in a CfD again, like my innocent attempt at categories for pre-Confederation lawyers! Would this work?
  • There is an existing global category :Human Rights.
  • it’s got sub-cats, arranged first by symbols, (which I don’t understand ?), and then alphabetically.
  • could I create a general sub-cat, in the alphabetical list? Something like “Category : Human rights enforcement agencies”?
  • and then within that subcategory, have an additional sub-sub-cat by country? “Category : Human rights enforcement agencies in Canada”, “Category : Human rights enforcement agencies in the United States” and so on?
  • the reason for this approach is that in some countries, notably the US, there will likely be a lot of agencies, so dividing by country will keep it manageable.
Does this sound workable? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha! Makes sense. What you've written here sounds reasonable in terms of structure and styling and nesting. Let me see if I can find a sibling category. Given me about 5 minutes. Mason (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Plausible sibling families could include: Category:Financial regulatory authorities of the United States... O.o!!!! Category:Human rights ministries, might be good to build off of! Mason (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
What are sibling families, please? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Lol, I meant sibling categories. After digging around I like your suggested category structure. I think it fits well. So the main category would be Human rights enforcement agencies, and for the united states that category would be parented by Category : Human rights in the United States, Government agencies of the United States, Human rights organizations based in the United states. Mason (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I’ll try setting it up. Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
sure thing! Happy to help :) Mason (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
There, I've started it. I've got all of the Canadian articles categorised, some of the US. Added in UK and French. Will do India tomorrow; getting late here. Category : Human rights enforcement agencies. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mason, thanks for fixing up my categories. However, I'm afraid I don't understand the changes, and now I can't seem to link the Indian category properly. The Indian category shows up on the parent page as empty, and the three commissions I've tried to do are listed individually on the parent page: Category : Human rights enforcement agencies. Could you take a look? Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to mimic what you did with the piping, but I obviously didn't get it right. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Happy to explain. What aspects don't you understand about the additional categories? Like why I added them? Mason (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
In terms of the piping, so piping is used to change how pages/categories are sorted when you look at a category page. You still need to place the page in the category directly. For example, Category:Human rights enforcement agencies in the United States.
[[Category:Human rights enforcement agencies|united]], uses "united" so that Category:Human rights enforcement agencies in the United States, is sorted by U in that category, so that you can find it compared to the other countries.
[[Category:Government agencies of the United States|Human rights]], uses "Human rights" so that Category:Human rights enforcement agencies in the United States, is sorted by H in that category, so that you can find it compared to the subject of other agencies
[[Category:Human rights in the United States| agencies ]] uses " agencies" with a space, so that Category:Human rights enforcement agencies in the United States, shows up at the top of the category, so that you can find it without having to distinguish it from specific human rights.
[[Category:Human rights organizations based in the United States|agencies ]] uses "agencies" (no space) so that Category:Human rights enforcement agencies in the United States, is sorted by "agency" so that it is intermixed with other organizations. Mason (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with your changes - it's my lack of technical skills! I started editing the Indian commissions, trying to follow the patterns you used for the Canadian entries, but I couldn't make them work for the Indian ones, so I stopped; didn't want to make things worse. I see you've done some edits to the Indian ones; will take a look and try to wrap my head around this coding. I appreciate your help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mason, I was doing other stuff yesterday, and I see you've done all the Indian HRts Commissions. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject Medicine May 2024 Newsletter

Issue 22—May 2024


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter. I was inspired to collect this after seeing several medicine-interested editors nominate their first good article. Please review a GA nomination if you have time, and help support our colleagues' efforts:

Recognized content (since April 1)

National Public Health Laboratory (Sudan) nom. FuzzyMagma, reviewed by Snoteleks
Nighat Arif nom. Launchballer, reviewed by Chiswick Chap




Nominated for review

Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus
Adrenal crisis nom. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath
Exhaustion disorder nom. Draken Bowser
Bite registration nom. Candle1, under review by Esculenta
Charles Wambebe nom. Vanderwaalforces
Polio Undergoing featured article review. You can contribute at the FAR page or the article talk page.

WP:MED News

  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is back in business, with a new process and new coordinators. If you see medicine-related GAs that may no longer meet the GA criteria, feel free to nominate them for attention/reassessment (please, not too many at once, lest we get overwhelmed). I'll incorporate them into the listings above.
  • Maintenance category of the month: Articles with topics of unclear notability (I've listed just the 36 that start with "A"; there are 398 total).
    Note for the curious: 24,211 of the 57,554 articles (42%) tagged as part of WP:MED have some maintenance tag.

Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine at 21:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC).

Hi

Hey @Smasongarrison how are you I would like to have a talk with you if you Can help to create notable topic about Translator and journalist , you can see the news on google + here in English and has a multiple coverage Editorinusa (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you have enough resources to make a Wikipedia:Drafts. Mason (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Since I don’t have the same permissions as you, can you create a draft of the article? There are also many sources on Wiki Alpha
and you can see the content there Editorinusa (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
You don't need special permissions to make a draft. You can also just make a draft in your sandbox. Mason (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
“He is a well-known journalist and translator in the Middle East, with extensive coverage in multiple languages.” can you do this favor me this article Editorinusa (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
No I won't make the article for you. You can do it yourself. Asking a well established editor to do it for you is not appropriate as it looks like you're trying to mask that you created it.Mason (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
There are problems that prevent me from creating the article in short, so I told you :) Editorinusa (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no reason why you can't create a draft or edit your own sandbox. Mason (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I know i have problems thank you for your time Editorinusa (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
If you have problems, you can discuss in the tea house. Further, I would be extremely surprised if you couldn't create a sample page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Editorinusa/Sample_page&redirect=no&preload=Help%3AIntroduction%2Fmain_sandbox&summary=Creating+sandbox&veaction=edit Mason (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
ok sorry Editorinusa (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi done can you add the sources ? here Editorinusa (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
No. Clearly you are capable of doing this yourself. Mason (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive Editorinusa (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome to go to the teahouse to get more advice. Perhaps they can help you figure out why you're being filtered. Mason (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Secularism/Irreligion in Nigeria

Hello Mason, I trust you're doing great. I respect you a lot :) and really appreciate your contributions here. I saw you rolled back an edit made by an IP here and here. I want to acknowledge that I actually saw those edits by the IP and they actually made the categorisation make more sense which I didn't revert them. I respect you and do not want to revert your edit without letting you know. Do you mind undoing yourself or I revert you? (I honestly don't want to, lmao). Regards, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for reaching out, and saying such nice things :D That's good to know you think that the restructure makes more sense. To be honest, my response was more based on experience with the IP who refuses to engage and slow edit wars without engaging in any conversation. If you think the restructure makes more sense, then I think you reverting my changes with a link to this convo (or something like that), would be some I very much support. It would make it clear that you've had a productive role in the conversation, and that other folks have considered the issue. Mason (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll do some of them, but I'd appreciate it if you could help rollout the change elsewhere. I've encouraged a wrinkle. So if I revert both changes then one of the categories is no longer nested within Nigeria. Hmmm... do you have a suggestion for how to fix that? Mason (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it makes more sense now, like, Category:Secularism in Nigeria being a subcat of Category:Irreligion in Nigeria, since originally, the topic secularism is a subset of irreligion. It was the other way around before, but the IP just corrected it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I just realised that the IP actually did the wrong thing, lol, they're playing on my intelligence, lol. The ideal thing is Category:Irreligion in Nigeria being a subcat of Category:Secularism in Nigeria because irreligion is a subclass of secularism. That was what I did originally, lol. Wikidata says it all irreligion (Q58721) too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
That means, you've to revert yourself again, oh no, I'm so sorry about this, lol. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
lol no worries. 😂😂 I only made the change for Nigeria. Ok... So Secularism should be the parent of irreligion. Also that's a great strategy for see what wikidata has, I hand't thought to look at that. Mason (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Phew… thank god, haha. Thank you so much :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
15 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Episcopal Diocese of Albany (talk) Add sources
24 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start J. L. Wilkinson (talk) Add sources
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub José Isabel Jiménez (talk) Add sources
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Alejo Peralta (talk) Add sources
172 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Mississippi State Bulldogs football (talk) Add sources
48 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Mississippi State Bulldogs men's basketball (talk) Add sources
12 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Disability and women's health (talk) Cleanup
103 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Multisensory integration (talk) Cleanup
460 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Tuskegee University (talk) Cleanup
105 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Invisible disability (talk) Expand
28 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame (talk) Expand
677 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Dysgraphia (talk) Expand
259 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Batting order (baseball) (talk) Unencyclopaedic
312 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Tri-Cities, Washington (talk) Unencyclopaedic
353 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Anglican Church in North America (talk) Unencyclopaedic
5,364 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Asperger syndrome (talk) Merge
25 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Wood production (talk) Merge
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Nepali Dhoti Diwas (talk) Merge
8 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C National Telecommuting Institute (talk) Wikify
13 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Louise Hansson (talk) Wikify
33 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Charlie Keller (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Anne-Françoise Pypaert (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Captain Tomba (talk) Orphan
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Chris Rynning (talk) Orphan
175 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Francis I of the Two Sicilies (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start 1962–63 Mississippi State Bulldogs men's basketball team (talk) Stub
36 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Josh Gibson Jr. (talk) Stub
47 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Dirt cake (talk) Stub
14 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Return to the Valley of the Go-Go's (talk) Stub
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start 1980 Mississippi State Bulldogs football team (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Last Extension School categories

Hey there! So I did a quick search and found two other similar categories which I think you should nominate. Category:La Salle Extension University alumni and Category:Harvard Extension School faculty. I think we can allow the faculty category because teaching there can be considered defining but I will leave that up to you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Great find! I'll add La Salle to the nom. I'm on the fence about faculty for the reason you noted. Maybe have that as a followup nom depending on how this nom pans out. Mason (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Good idea! I'm on the fence about it myself so I agree that we should wait for the alumni one to close before proceeding with the faculty one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Phonologists

The Spanksh phonological Category has 1 article. A few others are also under 5. I think if we are going to rename them we probably should also upmerge the small ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages

Hello, Mason,

For some reason, you are creating talk pages for categories that have been deleted. These categories have already been deleted and so they don't need talk pages which just have to be deleted a second time. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'll dig into this to figure out how that happened... weird. Thanks! Mason (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice

I noticed That you worked on some of the articles which I created and therefore I want to Thank you. Another thing I saw your picture on google and I must admit you are very pretty. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks :) Mason (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Emmeline M. D. Woolley

Thanks for your interest in this Australian woman pianist. I hesitate to revert your categories as Woolley was a British subject, but she grew up and made her name in Australia. Would an artist in America pre-1770 be categorized as British? I don't know. I refrain from creating a new parent category during the current Category discussions. Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I added the category based on fact that the lead says she was an "English-born Australian pianist", my interpretation is that she'd be in both the Australian version of the category and the English version (and that she'd be in the British category if an english verison didn't exist.) My general impression is that someone who's defined as being an american before 1770 would still be categorized as an American, but that's not the same thing as what's happening here. Mason (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

i need help

article: Macro social work

  • please expand the article
  • please find good sources for the article
  • please fix any grammar spelling issues with the article

-thank you RJJ4y7 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out about your draft Draft:Macro_social_work. I encourage you to do this yourself. As a general policy, I don't take requests like this. Mason (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century Sudanese engineers

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Mistaken edit, please undo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:British_Christian_universalists&diff=next&oldid=828660220 Univeralism is not a denomination. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The highest order parent category classifies Universalism as a denomination. If it's not a denomination, then what is it? 2600:1700:944:9810:508:ABE8:D33:5842 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Just a broad movement. There has been the Universalist Church of America, which was explicitly a denomination, but needless to say, no 13th century Britons belong to it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a fair point.... I was basing it off of the fact that the higher level categories place it with other denominations, and that's been a stable edit since 2016[10]. Perhaps a better solution would be to bring the parent category to a CFD to get some wisdom on how the Universalism should be handled more broadly. Mason (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
100% sensible. Are you going to post to CfD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Would you? I'm a little fried from a long day of prepping for a conference next week, and you seem to have a much clearer grasp of some of the nuances of Universalism. Mason (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha. Get some rest, comrade. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Mason (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

Thanks for revert - your right, not sure what I was thinking. Ceoil (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

lol, no worries! Mason (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Categorisation Barnstar
Congrats on the big 600 thousand edits! A categorisation barnstar for what I always see you doing.. categorizing! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 08:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Mason (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Smiley You're welcome! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 08:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:18th century in Mozambique has been nominated for merging

Category:18th century in Mozambique has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Innkeepers from Wallachia

There was a CfD on innkeeprs from Wallachia. CfDs have so little participation that it is hard to see 1 as very useful. When that was started there was no Innkeepers category at all. There now is. So the idea of upmerging the overly small category to its parents was not adequately discussed. Beyond that, there was no American innkeepers category. There had also been no one exhaustively go through articles to see how many articles could go in the innkeeper category, and no one discussed the fact that "innkeeper" is a term that one can find reliable sources applying to owners of modern international hotel chains, maybe in a slightly poetic form, but it is pretty clear that people do not think "inns are something different from modern hotels", there are dozens of modern hotel chains and thousands of modern hotels, or maybe in some cases motels, that use "inn" in their name. Many modern hotels have restaurants as integral parts of their operation. I do not think we can adequately define the difference between hotel and inn, especially since it appears that in the case of Hotellier we include people who operated motels as well as hotels (although I am not sure we have any articles on anyone anywhere who only operated motels, most hotelliers from the 20th-century are owners of large systems, some of which also include motels, but I think almost all had at least some hotels even if they had motels). I think this is a case of unshared name between hotelliers and innkeepers, and I think to the extent there is something distinct about inns, innkeeper is a shared name category, where we have people there because the text calls them an innkeeper or says they operated an inn, but in many cases if the thing is called an inn or a hotel it is not about any actual trait of the establishment, just what the person called it, or which word some writer or editor, either in Wikipedia or in another source felt to use. I do not think there is a strong and universally agreed upon difference between a "hotellier" and an "innkeeper", at least not on a level where we can gaurantee that a reliable source calling a person an "innkeeper" will clearly mean something different than if the source called that person a "hotellier".John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ministers of the Church of Scotland

The thing is, virtually every single person in the Category:Ministers of the Church of Scotland (also also Category:Ministers of the Free Church of Scotland) subcats now need to be added to Category:Scottish Presbyterian ministers. Are you prepared to do that? StAnselm (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. Let me make a template first for Presbyterian ministers so we can diffuse by century while we're at it. Mason (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Inuit and First Nations

I just noticed Natar Ungalaaq. There are three groups of Indigenous peoples in Canada. They are Inuit, First Nations in Canada and Métis. Under law and by culture they are different groups. So Natar Ungalaaq is not First Nations and an IP corrected it later. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Mason (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Australian taxonomists (and related issues) like Mueller is something well worth having clarified re the appropriate cats. Thanks. JarrahTree 11:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

sure thing! Mason (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:19th-century sportspeople by sport has been nominated for deletion

Category:19th-century sportspeople by sport 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:19th-century sportspeople by sport has been nominated for deletion

Category:19th-century sportspeople by sport 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century sportspeople by sport has been nominated for deletion

Category:20th-century sportspeople by sport 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century cricketers has been nominated for deletion

Category:20th-century cricketers 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century English cricketers has been nominated for deletion

Category:20th-century English cricketers 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century FIBA World Championship players has been nominated for deletion

Category:20th-century FIBA World Championship players 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century FIFA World Cup players has been nominated for deletion

Category:20th-century FIFA World Cup players 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:21st-century sportspeople by sport has been nominated for deletion

Category:21st-century sportspeople by sport 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:21st-century cricketers has been nominated for deletion

Category:21st-century cricketers 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Why did you put Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year in both Category:Olympic competitors by year and its parent category Category:Olympic competitors? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought people might want to directly navigate to the specific century especially if they weren't aware that the categories were first grouped by century. Mason (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Then I'd recommend making a category by century and putting that under Category:Olympic competitors. It's generally not a good idea to break the navigation like that by having somehting in both Category:foo and Category:foo by bar simultaneously. The entire point of making "foo by bar" is to not have categories be directly in Category:foo. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I think its fine to have some categories that aren't fully diffused. Creating 3 more categories just seems like an unnecessary layer that would just make more mess for the fooianth century sportspeople categories. Mason (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Please take these categories out of both their parent and child categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome to create the categories, but I don't think it's a good idea to just create redundant layers.Category:21st-century Olympic competitors would only have the one child category. It seems unnecessary. Mason (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
What? What are you talking about? I'm asking you to not put a category in both Category:Olympic competitors by year and its parent Category:Olympic competitors. Please undo that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
"Then I'd recommend making a category by century" is what I'm responding to. I'm nicely saying I won't remove the category from the parent. Mason (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
So you're saying that you're contradicting WP:DIFFUSE without any prior consensus and refusing to undo this because of your personal preference, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I think that having the category in both is helpful for navigation, and that creating additional categories by century is not a good idea, per the many CFDs about 20th/21st century sportspeople. You are welcome to disagree, as you clearly do. I have nothing more to say in this conversation. Mason (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
per WP:DIFFUSE "It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused—some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category." Mason (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Setting aside any by century categories, there is no consensus for this change you've made, correct? And you are keeping this change to the navigation scheme based on your personal preference, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I have already laid out my reasons for the edits I made, and noted the CFDs for why I'm not adding the redundant category layer you have suggested. Mason (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
So you are refusing to answer my simple yes or no questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I have nothing more to say in this conversation. Mason (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, well it would be very simple in principle to say if there were prior consensus, but I've seen how willing you are to seek out consensus and work with others. I'll continue discussion at an appropriate forum since you seem unmotivated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
 – ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I have already said that I disagree with you. You have painted it as "personal preference" when I clearly said otherwise. Mason (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I apologize if I am confused here: are you saying that there was some prior consensus to make this change in particular? I'm confused by your framing. It's either the case that there was a prior consensus or there was not. If there was not, then it's a matter of personal preference. What am I missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Personal preference implies that there's no reason behind the changes. I have given you reasons for the choices, noting why your suggestion isn't workable. I don't want to create redudant categories. I have restated my reasons clearly indicating that its not merely a preference. I have pointed you toward consensuses about why I don't want to make a redundant layer that would fully diffuse the category by century.
There's not a consensus of this very very specific change, but I have told you why your suggestion isn't a solution. I have nothing more to say because there is no point repeating myself. You can call that unmotivated or unwilling to seek consensus, but from where I am standing you're the one who isn't seeking consensus. Mason (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus for what exactly? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
About creating 21st-century Olympic competitors etc. Here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 12#20th/21st-century sportspeople Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:20th-century sportspeople by nationality Mason (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
And how am I opposing that consensus? What is the cryptic point you are trying to make? If you think that Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year should be deleted, then please write that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
You are saying that we should create 21st-century Olympic competitors as a category. I didn't say that we should delete Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year. I'm saying that your suggestion of making categories without "by year" at the end such as Category:21st-century Olympic competitors, would be unhelpful. Mason (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating these all for deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
What "these" are you talking about? Mason (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Yep, clearly you're the one who's not seeking consensus here. Mason (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
By explicitly seeking consensus, you think I'm not seeking consensus? I'm asking for a category that I created to be deleted. What in the world are you talking about now? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. My comment was snarky, and uncalled for. I was actually about to delete it but you got to it first. Mason (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, please go back through the categories you nominated and link the cfds. You really out to ping the participants in the recent cfds. Mason (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Stuff takes time, so I don't know why you needed to comment in the middle of the nominations, but I have done the courtesy ping you asked. What CfD linking are you talking about? Also, please explain at the CfD 1.) what your vote means and 2.) why you recreated deleted material with no (apparent) consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I made my comment when it looked like you had made your nominattions. There are numerous CFDs for the categories you nominated that are on their respective talk pages. While you're at it how about you stop misgendering me? Mason (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
So it appears that you'll be making more snarky comments. I apologize for using an gender-neutral "he" when it is evidently the case that this is not the way you would prefer to be referred to, so please inform of your preference and I will humbly and happily fix my error. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Asking for you to stop misgendering me is not snarky.
My pronouns are she/they and have been on my user profile for quiet some time. My gender is no secret. For the record, 'they' is gender-neutral, as is 'he or she'. But 'he' alone is not. Mason (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
"Asking for you to stop misgendering me is not snarky." That's true. I apologize. I did not look at your userpage prior to posting here and I don't know you personally. I made no assumption about your gender or sex. See en:wikt:he#Pronoun, as "he" is used as a gender-neutral pronoun. I'm surprised you haven't encountered this before. I appreciate if you don't want that word applied to you, so I'll make it a point to not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I get misgendered often on wikipedia. (From a base rate standpoint it doesn't surprise me) However, I don't think I've ever had someone argue in good faith that 'he' is gender neutral. (I'm going to assume that your argument is good faith.) The note your linked to mentions that he as neutral has been out of fashion for quiet some time.
I suggest that you consider that the more neutral gender neutral is "they" or "he or she". That way you won't have to link to style guides to avoid offense. Mason (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your graciousness and feedback. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure thing! Mason (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Savoyard state

We have distinct articles on Savoyard state and Savoy. These are not overlapping topics. One is a cultural/historical region in Italy. The other was an independent country that existed from 1003-1861. They are not the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else the people from the Savoyard state are from a sovereign state. The People from Savoy are in the main people from the area after it looses sovereignty. That is a clear distinction. People from Savoy would also be limited to modern Savoy. A map from 1700 or 1600 or 1500 will shoe a Savoy that is much bigger. For the same reason we have People from the Kingdom of Bavria separate from People from Bavaria, People from the Kingdom of Saxony separate from People from Saxony and many other cases. Savoy in 1700 had its capitol in Turin, which is not in present Savoy. It was vaguely part of Italy, as the term then was vague. It was most definitely not part of France. Someone who lived from 1620 to 1680 as a subject of Savoy could have spent his whole life in Turin. He would not have thought he was French, because he did not live in France, which had borders he was outside of. He did not even live in the modern borders of France. Savoyard state is a separate article, because it is a separate thing, and as it was a major independent state especially in the 17th-centry, there is no good reason we should not have a Category to group together its subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Jurists from Denmark–Norway

Jurists from Denmark-Norway now has 6 articles. It was a unified country so especially for a career like jurists that is very toed to legal country such a category makes a lot of sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

well, I have added several more articles to the category, and there are more still. A key factor is Denmark-Norway was a real union. The article on such says "Real union is a union of two or more states, which share some state institutions." At this level in would seem that politicians and jurists would have a close connection to the real union. This state existed from 1524-1814, so it outlasted many peoples lives. It is essentially the same type of political system as Austria-Hungary and the Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth. We have a large number of categories for people from those states. There is no particular reason that we should not for Denmark-Norway. All the more so because people from Schleswig in the time from 1524-1814 would have been subjects of this state, but we have no easy to use demonym for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Why didn't you do this in the first place when you made the category? Mason (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header

Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header has been nominated for merging with Template:Drummers by nationality and century category header. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Guitarists by nationality and century category header

Template:Guitarists by nationality and century category header has been nominated for merging with Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Pianists by nationality and century category header

Template:Pianists by nationality and century category header has been nominated for merging with Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Violinists by nationality and century category header

Template:Violinists by nationality and century category header has been nominated for merging with Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sports overcategorization

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

  • To be fair the word "professional" above means any level of paid baseball, even in this case A level minors. We have never even agreed that all these levels of playing baseball are notable, even when we were our most generous in granting notability to sportspeople. 18 different teams is just ludicrous. It comes very close to performer by performance level of teams. I am thinking at some point this violates the rule against categorizing performer by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The Abbott article is 16 paragraphs plus tables and other things long. It still does not mention Winston-Salem Warthogs or several other teams that he is categorized by. I am not sure why all 18 teams cannot be expected to be mentioned in his article, but if we cannot expect them to be mentioned in the article, I am not sure at all why we should categorize by them.13:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. Discuss the matter at one place only, per WP:MULTI. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Overcategorization as that is fairly central, and has attracted three replies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
26 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Isaac Jefferson (talk) Add sources
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Losantiville Country Club (talk) Add sources
8 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C KIT (AM) (talk) Add sources
17 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Walter Beverly Pearson (talk) Add sources
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Highlandtown Lake (talk) Add sources
90 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Randolph family of Virginia (talk) Add sources
289 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Stephenson's Rocket (talk) Cleanup
45 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Cumberland School of Law (talk) Cleanup
15 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Bowes Railway (talk) Cleanup
17 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway (talk) Expand
29 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Slavery at American colleges and universities (talk) Expand
30 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Russia at the 2014 Winter Olympics (talk) Expand
32 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Dean Cemetery (talk) Unencyclopaedic
8 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C St. Sukie de la Croix (talk) Unencyclopaedic
47 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Danton's Death (talk) Unencyclopaedic
131 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar (talk) Merge
1,063 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA Rohingya genocide (talk) Merge
319 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Johnny Test (2021 TV series) (talk) Merge
41 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Joseph Martin Kraus (talk) Wikify
394 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Louise of Hesse-Kassel (talk) Wikify
53 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Luciana (singer) (talk) Wikify
1 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Jean Claveret (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Stub Vernon François (talk) Orphan
36 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Ouidad Wise (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Rima Abdelli (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Daria Pikalova (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Alexander Nevolin-Svetov (talk) Stub
74 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start David C. Weiss (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Aleš Kisý (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Hamed Amiri (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Accordionist by nationality

21 of the 43 sub-categories here have less than 5 articles. Quite a few have 1. This seems excessive. The fact that some of the sub-categories are further divided also seems excessive. While it looks like there are enough accordionist to justify some division by nationality, I think we would be better off if we limited such to categories with at least 5 articles. I think based on the size we should not subdivide them further by either century or musical genera. Classical accordionist, jazz accordionist and as needed various x century accordionist categories can be applied to articles, but I do not think we have enough of a structure to justify further subdivision. These small categories are not helping navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't do more subdivsion. But I also don't know is this is merely an underpopulated category. Mason (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
At some level that does not matter. If it massively expands we can reconsider. My general impression is it is not. Musicians tend to be in a large number of categories. So I expect we have most articles where this applies there at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I did a search for the word accordionist on all Wikipedia articles after having gone through every article under the accordionist tree and made sure thry were in appropriate by nationality categories. There are after this 19 sub-cats of accordionists by nationality that have less than 5 articles. Further down Accordionists from Northern Ireland and accordionists from Reunion each have 1 article. The by century categories have huge overlap because it is not well into the 20th-century we get many accordionists. We only have 2 people in the 19th-century accordionists Category, 1 of whom is Saif to have invented the accordion. I really do not think this instrument has the length of historic use to justify by vmcentury categories. At this point I would say the numbers are close to all potential Articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for doing homework on this! Mason (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Cyril Burt

Presumably you mean take this disagreement to the talk page in your edit description. The first two subjects are only about his fraud and the fraud is mentioned 25 times throughout the whole talk page. So unless you or others can bring any new research to the matter the main reason he is well known in the UK is because of the fraud he perpetrated. Will await your reply but I plan to revert when able. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 21:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Two people have reverted you. Please take your concerns to the page's talk page not my talk page. Don't revert the consensus without discussion. Mason (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, obviously will do but misunderstood your edit statement. And you are the first to revert me; I was not the person that referenced his actions as discredited originally. I will bring it up on the talk page for the 26th time. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 22:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking of the change you undid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyril_Burt&diff=prev&oldid=1231120157. From the talk page it looks like it is debatable whether everything was fraudulent. I think the adjective isn't neutral, and shouldn't be added because there is no way to give context in a short summary. Mason (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobility vs. royalty

Hello! Nobility is not the same thing as royalty. Please don't do this! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Aren't Duchesseses nobility? Mason (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
This has come up before, see User talk:Smasongarrison/Archives/2023#Royalty are not nobility from last year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know similar convos have happened. I thought duchesses were nobility because that's a title, which is why I asked. Mason (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
There are duchesses of nobility and royal duchesses. Two different things. She was mainly a princess of Sweden. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

patrolling categories

are categories patrollable? --MikutoH talk! 21:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Technically, I think that every page in any namespace are patrolable. But, there's not really a system for categories. (I just press the patrol button when a category page says that I can mark it as patrolled). Mason (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Explorers from the Tsardom of Russia

The person in this category shoukd at a minimu also be upmerged to People from the Tsardom of Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just added him to a more specific child category, 17th-century Russian people. Mason (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

People of the 80 years war

I think our problem is we are focusing on the wrong thing. In war we should place people in a category based on the army thry served in period. If they in some way were nationals of a different place then the army they served for, we can reflect that in other categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something like Dutch military personnel of the Sanish Rmpire, or Military personnel of the Spanish Empire from the Netherlands. Then hatnote that we are using Netherlands to describe the region regardless of tthe area. Except Spanish Empire is often used to meant the Spanish colonial Empire. I am not convinced we want to limit this to the 80 years war. I am thinking what we really want to the scope to be in Military personnel from the Netherlands region who served in the military of Habsburg Spain. We want to include everyone from the Netherlands region, be they Dutch, Flemish, Frisian, Walloon or something else. And at least initially we want them from the whole period any of the Netherlands are under Spanish control. Which coincides with Hubsvurg rule of Spain. I am also now thinking we have two potential trees. Say Military personnel of Germany and German military personnel. One is those who were in the military of Germany, those here would not need yo gavd been German. The other is those who were German (by nationality) serving in any military. Most military members are nationals of the country they serve, but not all. This along with spies and diplomats are the 3 trickiest categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Currently our military personnel categories mix things up it looks like. German military personnel is mainly people who served in the Gean military. However it has German people in the Continental Army. So it includes Germans who went abroad to serve in other militaries, maybe some Germans who went about and then joined a military. We really need to find wording to make these two concepts distinct. At the same time we need to deploy overlap cat rules. Sort of like how we do not put people in German writers and German-language writers. I think here we place people in military personnel of Germany as the main. We only place them in Military personnel from Germsmy if they served in a military other than the German military.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    >We really need to find wording to make these two concepts distinct.
    I agree. Perhaps using from Germany versus in Germany? Mason (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Note on Wikipedia:Categorization

I placed an explanation of the mess that is currently the category Draghtsmen in Wikipedia"Categorization on its talk page. You might want to have a look at what I wrote and see what you think of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Will do! You might want to add a link to the category's talk page for folks who might be interested. Mason (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century women landowners

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 09:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Drat! The template's not behaving Mason (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Smasongarrison,
What was up with all of these "women" (especially medieval women) categories that were empty and then were not? Like we had all of these Mozambique categories that I tagged as empty and now they are just gone from the Empty Categories category. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for any confusion this caused! I recently overhauled the category header templates, specifically Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header and Template:Diffusing_occupation_by_nationality_and_century_category_header, to improve their structure and functionality. I reorganizing the logic to handle category-specific checks and content more effectively. These templates are used by all specific occupation categories, including those for women.
However, I accidentally missed one of the subpages. It only affected the Template:Diffusing_occupation_by_nationality_and_century_category_header that all the women's categories, rely on. This caused some categories, especially medieval women categories, to get emptied. Once you sent the message, I was able to figure out which subpage hadn't been updated from the sandbox version[11]. After correcting the template the categories were repopulated. Mason (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

LGBT people by nationality and century category header

Your recent edit to {{LGBT people by nationality and century category header}} has had the undesirable side effect of causing every category it's used on to become directly filed as a first-level subcategory of Category:LGBT people by nationality, in addition to the appropriate "[Country] LGBT people" subcategory that it was already in. Obviously this isn't what we want, however, so could you please fix it? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I suspect it has to do more with how this template interacts with the new changes to occupation category header, than the edit I made. But I'll figure out what's not behaving. Mason (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Korean, North Korean and South Korwan

The Korean categories are meant for articles on people from an undifferentiated pre-dividion Korea. Your placing categories on North Koreans and South Koreans under the Korean categories is creating a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The parenting is extremely well-established. There is even a template on every korean page explaining it. You removing them has created a mess. Please seek consensus for making such drastic changes like this. Make a post on a relevant talk page to get feedback. I'm reverting your changes to the consensus. Mason (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Per the template: "People of the Korean peninsula who would be categorised as actors solely due to activities or status after 1948 normally do not belong in this category, but should be placed in the subcategories Category:North Korean actors or Category:South Korean actors based on their nationality, place of origin, or place of residence." Mason (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century Korean male actors

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I got distracted by the korean parenting convo Mason (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lämel School (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Smasongarrison! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Fictional people from the Austro-Hungarian Empire

I might be misremrmbering the category name. It only has 1 article though. It is on a work, not a character. I am guessing we could put it is Fiction set in Europe, unless we have Fiction set in Austria-Hungary as a cat, in which case that is where it should go. These is no reason to keep a 1 article Category, especially when the 1 article does not fit the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I figured that if folks wanted to keep and populate it, we might was well rename it in the cfd. Mason (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Screwed up formatting

Hi Mason, I tried to add a new proposal at Categories for Discussion, but screwed up the formatting somehow; it doesn't look like the others. Could you take a look? Hope all's well with you. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed! You were really close. I suggest reading through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#How to use CfD as it gives templates that you can use.
All's well with me :) Mason (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I do try, but wiki-formatting is not my métier.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Expatriates from the Kingdom of Prussia in Congress Poland

This category was made back in fall 2022. I have since realized the disadvantage of such small categories. However I do not think we should merge it. The one person in it was not an expatriate, she was an emigrate. She lived in Congress Poland from its formation in 1815 until she died in 1855. So we can place her in People from Congress Poland and it's subcats as applicable. She was not an expatriate and immigrated to neither there nor the Russian Empire. She might go in Russian Empire cats for some things we lack Congress Poland cats for. She would best be placed in Emigrants from the Kingdom of Prussia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I did see that this was a less recent creation. Thanks for the merge suggestions!! Mason (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Damon Weaver (July 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that all people who attend a high school are residents of that place

Whether it's Category:Princeton High School (New Jersey) alumni or Category:Pompton Lakes High School alumni as examples, not all students who have attended the school have been residents of those places. To this day, Princeton High School (New Jersey) includes students from Cranbury Township, New Jersey, while Pompton Lakes High School has also served students from Wayne, New Jersey. As examples, these two schools verifiably are located in Princeton and Pompton Lakes, respectively, which is why they have been in the categories for those places, but the change to say that all students past and present are residents is unjustified. You cannot assume that all people who attend a high school are residents of that place. Other such category changes will be reverted. Alansohn (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say that People from FOO are residences of the area? Please don't revert until this is discussed. Mason (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • You have to at some point have been a resident of a place to be "from" there. It makes no sense otherwise. With private schools, charter schools, and schools that allow enrollment across district lines this becomes even more important. For example Harper Woods High School in Michigan despite being in Harper Woods, Michigan and officially having a district coextensive with Harper Woods, has a majority of Detroit residents in its student body, and has other students from outside Harper Woods who have never lived in the city. The same is true of River Rouge High School and probably a few others in Metro Detroit. Then there are high schools in many states that are located in a city or town but take in people from far into the rural surrouding areas. At least in Michigan these rural surrounding area districts often cross county lines, so even saying the people are from the county where the school is is not based on fact. Beyond this if someone came to a boarding school and lived in the school city on campus, but had lived their whole life elsewhere, I do not think we would say that that alone was enough to qualify them as from there. I do not think we want to say that all University of Michigan alumni are from Ann Arbor, or all Columbia University alumni are from New York City, all Yale University alumni from New Haven, all University of California, Berkeley alumni from Berkeley, California, all Harvard University alumni from Cambridge, Massachusetts. The same sort of issues apply to people by high school, especially since some people went to multiple high schools. For example I know someone who went to Boston University Academy for 2 years, and another high school in Lexington Massachusetts for 2 years, or maybe it was 3 and 1 I do not recall. However during that time her family lived in Weston and Lincoln Massachusetts, and she had previously lived in Texas and Oregon, and moved to Utah on graduation and has lived there or California ever since. She was never a resident of either Boston nor Lexington, and did not even spent 4 years as a student in either place. Being a high school student at a place does not make you "from" there, any more than being a college student does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:YouTubers of Jewish descent

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:YouTubers of Jewish descent. 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. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Platon Oyunsky (talk) Add sources
206 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Vel Phillips (talk) Add sources
54 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Hastings Russell, 12th Duke of Bedford (talk) Add sources
68 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Dolgan language (talk) Add sources
21 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The Link (UK organization) (talk) Add sources
184 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Californios (talk) Add sources
122 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Hockey Night in Canada (talk) Cleanup
63 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Culbert Olson (talk) Cleanup
28 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Alexander Raven Thomson (talk) Cleanup
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start 2014 Wisconsin elections (talk) Expand
227 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA 2016 United States Senate election in Wisconsin (talk) Expand
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Mayoral elections in Madison, Wisconsin (talk) Expand
48 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Kingston Frontenacs (talk) Unencyclopaedic
2,324 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B 2020 United States presidential election in Wisconsin (talk) Unencyclopaedic
51 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Khadija Ismayilova (talk) Unencyclopaedic
38 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C David Cobb (activist) (talk) Merge
6 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Alan Gertner (talk) Merge
162 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Canoga Park, Los Angeles (talk) Merge
156 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Ranchos of California (talk) Wikify
17 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Madison Metropolitan School District (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Jon Litscher (talk) Wikify
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Kush Bottles (talk) Orphan
2,050 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Pablo González Yagüe (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Where's Weed (talk) Orphan
5 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Henry Huber (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sheldon Wasserman (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Dan Meyer (Wisconsin politician) (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Earl Gilson (talk) Stub
19 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start State Assembly of the Republic of Bashkortostan (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Philip Sansom (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

tm:writers by nationality and century category header fix

Hi Mason! Hope you are doing well. Would you be able to take a look at {{writers by nationality and century category header}}? It is currently preventing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#Category:19th-century Uzbekistani people by occupation from being implemented, because Category:19th-century Uzbekistani writers‎ cannot be removed from Category:19th-century Uzbekistani people by occupation. I think there is some fix requiring {{Occupation by nationality and century category header}}, but that template is above my pay grade. Perhaps some ifexist checking somewhere? The ability to automatically determine if we have a "by occupation" category seems like it would be useful beyond this specific CfD. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing! It's probably some quirk of how the category handles demonyms, when they're not automatically detected. "Uzbekistani" is one of them. The templates definitely check for ifexists, but you're right that the ifexist probably isn't behaving smartly. I'll implement a short-term fix that should help while I think through how to make the template be smarter, Mason (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you!! HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You're most welcome! Mason (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:18th-century governors

A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century governors indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emily D. Baker has been accepted

Emily D. Baker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

New message from Lost in Quebec

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Hello, Smasongarrison. You have new messages at Lost in Quebec's talk page.
Message added 22:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Come on over. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have summoned an administrator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? I am literally only asking for you to discuss an interpretation of policy. Mason (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Players of a Sportsteam don't get classified Sportspeople from that city either. Why don't you fix the hundred plus edits you have made?Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Lost in Quebec Why won't you engage me is an actual discussion about the difference between pages and categories? If you want me to make a large number of changes, you're going to have to actually engage me in a conversation instead of whatever this is. Mason (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Three different editors have said you're wrong. You can't accept it. Explain to me how 'People from' categories suitable for burial in a cemetery page? The editing of yours and refusing to fix it is disruptive. Why would a alumni category page be suitable for a people from category when we don't list those persons in the location's Notable People section? Give me a logical explanation for saying somebody is a resident of Foo because they are buried six feet under there. You actually added[12] it to a military cemetery page. Person from Illinois, killed in South Korea, and buried in San Diego. That makes them from San Diego? I'm waiting for that explanation. What I also saw what you saw is you overturning dozens of another editor's work and without even looking and in my opinion not thinking either. First time accident[13], second time coincidence[14], third time enemy action[15] Goldfinger said in the Ian Fleming novel. 4 times in a row adding a redlink category is saying something. Here's a category editor who was considered disruptive.[16]Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
It's clear that you are unwilling to engage me in a respectful conversation. I'm always willing to change my opinion. I'd encourage you to assume good faith, but its clear that you aren't willing to do that. Mason (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
You can't answer the question, so you take a shot at me. A conversation isn't going to do anything because you can't engage in one.Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I attempted to engage you repeatedly, you refused. Now you give me a wall of text claiming to be interested. And yet, 90% of your message is combative. You described once of my edits as an "enemy action". I don't see the point in taking the time to write out how keeping some of these categories in the people from tree makes sense. I agree that burials doesn't really make sense if you assume that "from" is to denote residence, but I think that's a shakey premise. Mason (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Two editors before me said your edits were wrong, but you continued. I came into the picture and after you were told again you were wrong, you repeated the behavior once more. How is it a conversation if one of the parties is repeatedly not listening?
From doesn't denote residence, tell me how? I'm wondering if there are hundreds more wrong edits that are waiting to be discovered. Something tells me your editing needs lots of scrutiny.Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
If you can't write a single comment without a ton of snark, I have zero interest in this. Mason (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
If the truth is snark.....Just like being buried in a cemetery makes that person from a place. JFK is from Arlington Virginia by your logic.Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Yep, we're done here. Mason (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere. No further edits should be made to this section.

18th-century Carniolan painters

Since the Duchy of Carniola was one of the territories in the Holy Roman Empire under direct Habsburg rule (thry had ruled there longer than as emperors) should not this category also be urnerged to Category:18th-century painters from the Holy Roman Empire ?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point! Mason (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:18th-century clergy from the Holy Roman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century clergy from the Holy Roman 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

LOQ

Thanks for the heads up on Lost on Quebec. I didn't realize they were hostile/uncompromising. Will be careful if I ever come across them afterwards. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. They might be more open-minded to you because you didn't mistake them for a different editor at the beginning of the exchange. But as you can see from the exchange, there was no point for me to explain how removing people from the full people from tree could be problematic. They have a point related to burials, but I don't think faculty, alumni, and sportspeople would follow the same logic. Having members of a sports team in the category "sportspeople from FOO" would make it extremely easy to remove sportspeople who weren't local. Mason (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what they are on about. I'm guess they think working in a place doesn't mean you're from that place, correct? Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Yep, that's my understanding of what they interpret "from" to be. But that's not how defining works for cities/populated places. We'd have to remove pretty much every occupation from FOO subcategory if that held. Mason (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that is too strict an interpretation of that rule.
BTW, can I ask why JohnPackLambert was banned from Cfds? They told me they were a while back. I notice they were very active before. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, you can definitely ask! You can probably also ask him. JPL's ban was before I become active in CFD, but from what I have gathered they were banned for repeated [17] behavioral/communication issues at the arbitration committee Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. It's hard to really summarize, but I think he's made a lot of progress on both those fronts. I think he's gotten better at respecting consensus that he thinks is wrong. There are a few sticking points related to nationalities and centuries that I butt up against him on, but he's receptive to consider alternative viewpoints. Often he does add an alternative perspective that makes him a net positive. It can just require a lot of time/patience to really walk him thru the problem and to really understand the heart of the difference between viewpoints. Heck, he's gotten me to come around to the HRE and some other large empire categories. Mason (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah alright! I asked because he has a lot to say about a lot. Like "no breaks in paragraphs" a lot! So I was surprised to learn they were banned. Well if he's getting better from their previous argumentative attitude, that's good! A lot of people don't. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting. It gets annoying quickly when someone tries to force their own interpretation onto others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Yep. LOQ is just not willing to have a civil conversation or wait until a discussion actually occurs. It's annoying indeed. There's no way to have a reasonable conversation if you approach an edit from "wrong" versus right. Mason (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Sigh, fyi, the reporting wasn't sufficient. It needs to effectively be 4 reverts. Mason (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
If they act up again, report them immediately. Their lack of control over reverts and unwillingness to compromise is a bit much. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement/sanity check. I think that the path of least resistance might be for you to initiate a CFD for the parenting of sportsplayers and other occupations. I don't think I would be an effective medium given my brief history with them, but I'm happy to take a strong supporting role. Mason (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure thing! If you just guide a bit on how and where to start a parenting convo on occupation categories, I'll do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course! So I'm thinking thru what I would do.... and I think I'd probably start with a post at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion asking for interpretation/sanity check on the policy as well as guidance on if we need a CFD on the topic. I'd probably also to point to the recent conversations (including this one). Like to me that seems to be an easy/low stakes approach to get more eyes on the issue, and more wisdom on the path forward. Mason (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay so I've started a discussion on the talk page here. Since you were in the main discussion, you should further elaborate the exact dispute. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate you starting the discussion, truly. Mason (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 26 § Category:Agriculture ministers of Bangladesh

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 August 26 § Category:Agriculture ministers of Bangladesh on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HueMan1 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Engravers from the Holy Roman Empire

There was a recent discussion of Category:Engravers from the Holy Roman Empire on my talk page. The other editor has A-removed this as a sub-cat of German engravers. B-decided to add everyone from that category back into German engravers, at least a sub-cat that that editor feels is in some way "German" (I am not sure what definition of German this editor is using, since in the 18th-century it was often called the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" there is no historically realistic definition of Germany in the 18th-century that does not include the whole HRE. You may want to consider the implications here. I have no idea if this editor is going to try to remove all HRE cats from being sub-cats of the German cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  • It appears that most HRE cats are not under the German cats. However I think overlap cat applies here. I think this is similar to why we do not put people in both German-language singers (or writers) categories and German singers or writers categories. Even if we accept that German and the HRE are not exactly the same thing at any given time (I would argue there are no German nationals outside the HRE structure in 1790, ethnic German subjects of the Kingdom of Prussia and Denmark-Norway who live beyond the boundaries of the HRE in 1790 are ethnic Germans who are not nationals of a Germany, because the only Germany for them to be nationals is the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation), true it is hard to call people from Brussels in 1790 "German", but there are also lots of people who lived at times in the Netherlands who would not ever be called "Dutch", which may means we should rename "Dutch artists" to "Artists from the Netherlands", but does not mean we should create a "Dutch artists" cat, place all artists who call themselves Dutch in it, and then create a new "artists from the Netherlands" cat, and place all those Dutch artists in it, as well as Frisians, and also Flemish and Walloon artists active in the Netherlands in the 1815-1830 time frame. We should choose one or the other not both. Now if we went with "Artists from the Netherlands" we maybe should then create "Artists from the Dutch Republic" as a distinct category, but we should not place all artists seen as Dutch (as opposed to Frisian, etc.) in that category, and in the Dutch artists category. For the same reasons we do not have "white American writers" or "American writers of European descent" as a sister category to "African-American writers". We should not have a schema where the vast majority of people in a place get in two categories automatically, and we should not have 2 categories that have very close to the same contents and scope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
In nearly all these articles, excluding the few where you changed it recently, they were called German (lead section), all categories were for German, all sources call them German... but you remove the lead info, remove the categories, and then add your new cat incorrectly as a subcat of German anyway, making the whole exercise completely pointless: if you consider all HRE engravers to be German engravers (which you explicitly do by making the HRE cat a subcat of the German cat), then what was the point of moving them all out of the German cat in the first place? All you have achieved is incorrectly adding those HRE people who were not German incorrectly into a German parent cat. Fram (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
FYI my take is that HRE should be a parent category for certain german centuries. My hope was that by adding HRE as a parent category JPL would be comfortable leaving the people defined as german in the german category. Mason (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert I think a constructive comprise would be for you to diffuse by century WITHIN the German category (as in you add people to the FOOian century German engravers etc, and then add the relevant HRE parent category). @Fram has a point regarding the bigger issue. Most folks consider German to be a defining category for those centuries. Even if you don't agree with it, you're well aware that most folks consider them "German". It doesn't look good when you only make a tiny change, like moving to a different category but still moving German people into HRE categories.( There are some categories that I don't agree with, but I still add people to them.) Mason (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, also for your edits re: these categories. Fram (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure thing! I'm just happy that diffusing by century seems to have struck the balance between Germany and the HRE that everyone can live with. Mason (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and when you know that these edits are opposed, then simply doing the same for a parallel cat (violinists instead of engravers) is very poor form. Fram (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Talk:List of undefeated mixed martial artists on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Enamellers

Edits like this are terrible! Your new "artisans" category is a big mistake, which should be deleted. What about George Stubbs, whose paintings fetch millions, makes him an "artisan"? It is an inappropriate term for about half the people in the category. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I just don't know what you expect to happen in this conversation. Calling an edit terrible, saying that the artisan tree is somehow new and that it's mine, as well as assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable. Like what's your goal with this comment? Mason (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, pursuading you to stop doing doing more along these lines, mainly. Cfds will I think have to follow. And more broadly, discouraging you from doing sweeping re-organizations of category schemes without much thought, or apparently looking at the articles concerned. The category concerned was just created by you. Why are you accusing me of "assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable". Obviously, in the case of a major painter like Stubbs, that will be the case financially. You are the one expanding the dubious "artisan" tree! Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, your goal is to be persuasive, then you really really missed the mark. Your statement "What about George Stubbs, whose paintings fetch millions, makes him an "artisan"? " is what I'm responding to with the statement "assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable", as it implies that people whose work make money can't be artisans. To be the money/value aspect isn't remotely relevant to the category tree.
My core point is that your approach here was extremely ineffective. I read your comment as making broad sweeping statements without substance in an attempt to get me to stop, without explaining what your concern actually was. I'm always open to feedback and reconsidering my view, but I need to actually understand what your concern is. (Also assuming that I'm not thinking... also not effective at getting me to lay out my reasoning.) To be clear, I'm telling you this because I respect your knowledge and expertise in this domain, and my hope is that this conversation will help us both efficiently and effectively improve the project. Mason (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Genuinely, I don't know how to respond to this. Enamellers seems to be nested under both artists and artisans. Would you care to explain why it shouldn't be nested under both? Ideally, in a constructive way? I'm open to feedback, but I'd prefer it be constructive rather than your typical MO of just calling everything bad/terrible/ignorant etc. Mason (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Generally, notable enamellers will be better just under artists. That probably goes for most of the people caught under "artisans" - carvers etc. If you really are just what can fairly be called an "artisan", you won't be notable, unless for success in building a large business, as with some potters (who for some reason don't seem to be in the artisan tree at all). At various periods, for people like Stubbs, enamel painting was just another painting medium. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok that's helpful for you to lay out your thinking. Thank you. I'm not sure that I agree that, by definition, someone who is notable as an artisan is probably not an artisan. My take is more that if someone is regularly described as a artisan, they're probably an artisan. However, if they're notable for the artistic works, then they'd probably be under both. I need to think about it a bit. Mason (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
You might try looking through the "artisan" categories to see how many people could neither really be called "artists" (decorative or otherwise) nor businesspeople, engineers etc. I expect there are some, but pehaps not too many. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Good suggestion! I imagine that you're probably right. It'll probably end up being parent categories rather than have many people directly in them. (My goal with filling out the artisan category, is to connect the incomplete stretches that have been floating around.) Mason (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
There are of course also people who are notable for something else entirely, like being a politician or writer, but whose CV included a period in an "artisan" occupation - eg Raimundo Arruda Sobrinho, a writer who had been a gardener and book-seller. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Jumping in ahead of Johnbod here, but Category:Enamellers should probably be within a Category:Decorative artists which hasn't been created, and that in turn would probably be within Category:Artists. Possibly calligraphers, ceramists, enamellists, glass artists and jewellers all belong in a decorative artists category rather than in Category:Artisans. Category:Decorative arts and Category:Catholic decorative artists do exist. Ham II (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The parenting tree you've laid out here makes sense to me. Thanks for laying it out. My immediate inclination would be to have decorative artists parented by both artisans and artists. However that parenting would be more reflective of the medium they're working in rather than the person/artistic output themselves. Does that make sense? I'm happy to defer to the folks who know more about the content area, like yourselves. But I'd figure I'd lay out my thinking. Mason (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree with that. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:15th-century painters from the Holy Roman Empire

I'm afraid this is another category, and probably tree, we shouldn't have. Art history sources never group German, Italian, Netherlandish, Bohemian etc etc painters this way, & nor should we. Most should already be in Category:Early Netherlandish painters, which could be added and split by century I suppose. But the category is pointless. You've included a (presumed) German - the Upper Rhenish Master - in the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That category tree is a compromise. If you can convince JPL to stop removing people from german/austrian categories, without this level, I'm happy to reconsider my position. But it's existence, seems to allow the child categories, which are defining, to exist without large disruptions. Mason (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough! Even I doubt my pursuasive charm is up to that. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Yep yep! I'd be extremely impressed, but regardless, I'm pleased enough that I've gotten to experience your more charming side 😁 Mason (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove The Cottage School from the category of Special Education in the US?

Hi, I saw your contribution to the page of the Cottage School and I'm wondering what your reasoning is for removing it from the special education in the US category after you moved it into that category from special education. I am a current student and can vouch for TCS' status as a special education school, and the school's mission statement and other materials reflects that as well. Tylermack999 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I moved it into a more specific state category. Mason (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Ahhh ok, I see what you're confused by. So I was in the process of cleaning up several category trees. The page was and still is in "Special schools in the United States ,which is a more specific category than special education. Mason (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see, see I was confused by the removal from special education but I now see that it was just making it more specific, thanks for the clarification. Out of curiosity, how did you stumble upon The Cottage School's page? Tylermack999 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I came across in when I saw it in Category:Special education., Mason (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Ambassadors of France

There are currently 27 1 article sub-categories of Ambassadors of France (there are others at 2, this is just 1 article sub-cats). There are 6 articles directly in the category, so we have not actually made Ambassadors of France a container category. Ambassadors are not default notable, they only get articles of they meet GNG or are defsult notable for other reasons. So there is no reason to assume all these categories will grow in the future. So I think upmergimg these 27 would be wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambassadors to the Kingdom of England

This category has 2 1 article sub-cats. It also has about 9 direct biographical articles, so it is clearly not a place we insist on dispersing everything. I think these 2 categories (Piland and Portugal) should be upmerged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambassadors of Denmark

Hans Klingenberg is in 9 different categories for Ambassadors from Denmark. Each has either 1 or 2 entries (I think he held multiple of these ambassadorships at once). I really think all 9 categories should be upmerged. I am not sure of all 9 appointments are mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambassadors to Oman

14 of the sub-categories of this category have 1 article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambassadors of Ivory Coast

The category Ambassadors of Ivort Coast only has 5 articles in the permanent Representatives to the UN category. Every other category has 2 or less articles. I think they should all be upmerged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambassadors to Yugoslavia

This category has 20 1 article sub-cats. Since Yugoslavia has not existed for over 20 years these categories seem even less likely to grow than some others. I think this is a really good place to start upmerging. The number of categories with just 1 article we have here is staggering. It probably runs into the thousands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Making me a list like this is extremely helpful! I'm going to check them out once I get a better sense of how the community feels about the first 3 I proposed. Mason (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
It is like shooting fish in a barrel. Basically any country has multiple 1 article ambassadors from categories and multiple 1 article ambassadors to categories. Well except South Ossetia where there is only 1 article currently categorized as someone who was an ambassador there, but he simultaneously was ambassafor to Russia and Armenia and is not clear he ever even visited South Ossetia. The fact that this scheme ends up including not just past countries but countries with limited diplomatic recognition makes it even more potentially large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Ambassadors to the United States has only 1 sun-cat with 1 article (the to South Yemen cat) and 2 with 2 articles. However it has 70 direct articles. I do not know how many of those direct articles are examples of not proper dispersion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Women designers

It looks to me like your objection is actually against the designers category. I would agree that it is not a good category, it is essentially grouping together stage designers, fashion designers and some other people just because they all happen to be called "designers" without there being any actual thing that makes them as a group distinct from artists who are not designers. However I think this would mean that we should not have any designer categories, and we should put the various designer categories directly in the artists categories, in all cases, not just for women designers. I would think this would also mean that all articles currently in a "designers" category should be moved up to an artist category until we can justify a specific type of designer category. So we might have a person in "fashion designers" and then in "Tongan artists", "Ghanaian artists" etc. in cases were there are not enough fashion designers from that country to justify its own subcat. This looks to me like an issue with the whole tree though, and not just the women cat, so I am thinking we should solve it at the whole tree level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
190 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Examples of feudalism (talk) Add sources
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Ellen Hagan (talk) Add sources
55 Quality: High, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: GA Piri Mehmed Pasha (talk) Add sources
98 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Mfantsipim School (talk) Add sources
81 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sanjak of Bosnia (talk) Add sources
60 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Jōdō (talk) Add sources
218 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B University of Ghana (talk) Cleanup
9 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Lucy Quist (talk) Cleanup
41 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Sanjak of Herzegovina (talk) Cleanup
24 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Ghana Oil Company (talk) Expand
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start The Mystery of San Nicandro (talk) Expand
1,820 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Turkish War of Independence (talk) Expand
232 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B History of construction (talk) Unencyclopaedic
8 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Joe Lartey (talk) Unencyclopaedic
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Hackinger (talk) Unencyclopaedic
391 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation (talk) Merge
231 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor (talk) Merge
32 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Booch method (talk) Merge
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Lawrence Mukomberanwa (talk) Wikify
267 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Mustafa III (talk) Wikify
241 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Wall (talk) Wikify
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Anthony Dzamefe (talk) Orphan
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Esther Cobbah (talk) Orphan
16 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Beatrice Agyeman Abbey (talk) Orphan
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sandra Ankobiah (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Isaac Kaledzi (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Nesbert Mukomberanwa (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Cinq colonnes à la une (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Tendai Mukomberanwa (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Society for Appraisal and Women Empowerment in Rural Areas (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Luthiers from Genoa

Category:Luthiers from Genoa has 1 article. It is a person born in 1889, so not even actually a stand-in for Luthiers from the Republic of Genoa. I do not think we need a by city occupational category to hold one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out, once I get back home from work. Mason (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQ people by nationality

The problem is the categories that it transcludes onto the pages that use it, several of which were turned from existing bluelinked "LGBT in X" that exist to non-existing redlinked "LGBTQ in X" categories that don't exist. (For example, it prematurely moved several categories from Category:21st-century LGBT people by nationality to Category:21st-century LGBTQ people by nationality, where they obviously can't be until it exists.) Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm.... ok, so I think I'm missing something because the template doesn't use LGBT in FOO like at all. The template shouldn't send anything to "LGBTQ" unless the category name includes LGBTQ. Can you point to a specific example of a page that redlinked, so I can try to understand what the issue actually looks like. Mason (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Drawing artists has been nominated for merging

Category:Drawing artists 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. Fram (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

CFD

Hello, Mason,

Thank you for bringing some of the categories created by DinosaursLoveExistence to CFD. This editor has been driving me a little crazy for years now. They typically show up, once a month, create dozens and dozens of empty categories over the course of a day, on a wide range of subjects, I tag them CSD C1 and then, over the course of the next week, IP editors from Nottingham, UK fill most of the empty categories up and I untag them all or Shellwood does. It's a really peculiar division of labor by this editor.

I've rarely had success communicating with an IP editor on a User talk page and DinosaursLoveExistence has never responded to any messages on their User talk page that I've left, neither templates nor personal messages. They have been editing like this for years and years without engaging even when there was a discussion about them on ANI. I'm not optimistic that CFD discussions will draw them out but who knows, maybe eventually we will hear from them. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. I think DLE has made like 3 edits to people's talk pages. So I'm not optimistic on that front either. But at least now there's a record of linking the two together via the sock puppet investigation. Is blocking them from creating categories until they actually engage with editors something that's doable? It might draw them out. Mason (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Christian, Duke of Saxe-Eisenberg

Christian, Duke of Saxe-Eisenberg is the only biogrsphicak article in the Dukes of Saxe-Eisenberg category. I think we should either delete that category or upmerge in to Dukes of the Holy Roman Empire. The later we should also probably rename to Dukes in the Holy Roman Empire. They were Dukes of specific, by the 17th-century if not slightly ealier often becoming smaller and smaller states. There may have been a title that could be rendered Duke of the Holy Roman Empire in English but it is not clear all people who held the title of Duke in the Holy Roman Empire could be called Duke of the Holy Roman Empire. The in category is accurate, so I think we should go with it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, could there be more dukes? Usually dukes last at least two generations. We might be able to populate this one Mason (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ahh, per the page." Established in 1680 for Christian, fifth son of Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Gotha, the Duchy consisted of Eisenberg and the towns of Ronneburg, Roda and Camburg. Upon his death in April 1707, as he had no male heirs, the lands were passed to Saxe-Hildburghausen" There's only 1 duke Mason (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for keeping me company and giving concrete advice during my (now overturned) perma-ban. That's certainly not something to simply expect from an editor as productive in the content arena as yourself. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Kongo people bycentury

Two things. 1-I think we need to also upmerge to Kongo people. 2-I think we should rename that to People from the Kingdom of Kongo. This is probably the Kingdom in Africa, at least south of Egypt where we have the most potential from articles from the 15th-17th centuries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Drawing artists

The Drawing artists should not be merged to daughtsmen. That term is A-ambiguous, B-toiblesome because it ends in -men and c. Introduces an Emglish variation issue that could be solved by using a different term. If you look up the article Draughtsman you will find there are 6 different occupations that are covered there. The current draughtsman tree is at least to some extent merging the Drawing artist and the drafter terms and has some people who are both. That is only the first problem. The second is that the term ends in -men. We generally avoid using a term that ends in that way. In fact this may be the only Category where a term ends in -men and is not actually gender specific. Fisherman are called fishers, businessmen, which at one point was so unmbiquitous is businesspeople unless we have specific men, policemen, firemen, postman and so on we avoid using. The best term is actually drawers. The problem is that is the same word used for A-parts of a dresser, cabinet or desk, b-an item of clothing and c-people who take water out of a well. So even Drawers (people) would be potentially ambiguous. The best we could do is drawers (artists) which might be better than the current name. C. Even if we ignore that draughtsman is both ambiguous and potentially excluding some of the content, we have the issue that in the US and some other places that use English the preferred spelling is draftsman. Lastly having looked at the sources "draughtsman" or "draftsman" is also not always how these people are described. Many reliable sources just say the person was an artist and mention that thry had notable drawings without ever trying to use a word to say what they were doing. Either "drawing artist" or "Drawers (artists)" is about the best we can do. Either will be far clearer and less ambiguous than the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Draughtsman is not a great name. I tried to get it changed, but unfortunately other folks liked the name. Mason (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Nobody LIKES the name; it has all the issues JPL sets out. But it IS the standard term in art history, & attempts to make wp the base for reforming the English language are doomed. I think I suggested "Artists notable for their drawings" in an earlier discussion, but that was not liked. The alternative is something using "graphics", but that is even more ambiguous. Many category names have unavoidably to make an ENGVAR choice; that is no issue. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
That's fair. "Likes" really doesn't convey the nuance of the issue/cfd. Thanks for chiming in! Mason (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The last proposal was to rename the category to drafters, and failed because most of the content are not drafters, but drawers (artists). The current category is grouping people in at least 2 different professions. At present it is a clear violation of the shared name rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
This is not an issue of "liking". It is an issue of having a term that can be used to create a coherent category that groups people in a clear way. If the term was so overwhelmingly the only choice from art history that we had to use it, it would not be a disambiguation page. My term drawers (artists) is by far the best and no one has ever explained why it is not. Avoiding Engvar issues should be one of our considerations in such things. What we have n9w is categories that are grouping together people in two totally different professions that should not be. We need to consider what needs to be done in category names to make them adequately usable. I also do not think this name really meets common name use. Especially in present works. My sense from reading recent obituaries of artists who draw is that draughtsman/draftsman is not the current term for them. No one has really explained why drawing artist is a bad term, and people just ignore my suggestion for drawer (artist). Wikipedia should use terms that will be familiar and clear to reads, and unambiguous. This is why we have a whole tree using "writer", although "author" is a far more common term. The problem is "author" has an at times unclear limit, does it cover all writers, or only a sub-set, such as maybe totally excluding screenwriters and essayists. Also "author" is often used for people we would not call writers. However never as an occupational description, more as a statement of what thry do. Draftsman has six definitions. So at a minimum if we keep draftsman we absolute need to disambiguation the term so people stopped butting in drafters and other people who are not drawers (artists). It would be most helpful if drawer was a term. Basically everywhere else we use the most common term for singers, painters, writers, etc. We do not say "vocal performers" or any other term, and we do not call the other "authors", although that is the far, far more common term. The problem is that as I outlined above drawer is an ambiguous term. So we have to in dome way disambiguation it. We disambiguate publishers (people) and a few other occupations so that is doable. "Artists notable for their drawings" is the worst idea ever. We do not have "Artists notable for their paintings" etc. We just have a convention that we only put people in categories for which it is defining. This applies to those who paint, sculpt, draw, write, illustrate, sing, dance, juggle, act, drum, and so on. The issue is that unlike painter, sculptor, writer, illustrator, singer, dancer, juggler, actor, drummer and many other terms drawer has multiple other meanings and so we cannot assume that we can have a category for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Actor and Writer are actual articles. Painter appears to be a redirect. It might help a lot if we created an article drawer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • OK, drawer is an article on the part of a dresser, cabinet or desk. However at drawer (disambiguation) is has a line that says drawer is "someone who engages in drawing".
  • I did find this discussion. [18] The common name rule means we should consider how words are actually used by people actually using them. It is clear from this source that "drawer" and "drawing artist" are actual words people use to describe, well, drawing artists. It is clear that there is not a default belief among people actually speaking and writing that "draftsman" is the correct term for this. It is even more clear that the claim that "drawing artist" was made up for use in Wikipedia is not true.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    • If that is all you can find, it goes rather effectively to disprove your point! All three uses are from manuals, and grammatically "drawing artist" refers to "the artist [ie reader] who is in the process of drawing", rather than an "artist who is known for drawing", which is what we need a category for. There do appear to be some uses of the latter in the context of Native American/First Nations/Inuit art (from the previous discussion) but that doesn't justify a global category using the term. Try to find a source describing say Raphael, Michelangelo or Guercino as a "drawing artist". Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a case for not categorising artists by this medium at all? Just categorising them by the other media they worked in, and having them in "artists" categories if drawing was their only medium? Ham II (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A weak one perhaps. There is a relatively small number of artists for whom their production of very high quality drawings is properly defining, & I'm not convinced that the category system can't cope with this. There are also a number of less important artists whose sold work includes a high proportion of drawings - Augustus John for example, who banged out commissioned portrait drawings at a great rate. Rather inevitably, none of the four artists I've just mentioned have any drawing-related categories! What are the actual objections to "Category:Artists notable for their drawings"? Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Torridon

Will take it to the talk page tomorrow, as you helpfully suggest. Meanwhile, please let me soon if you are going to scour every one of my edits as it's nearly my bedtime. Ta. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You take a draconian deletionist approach instead of trying to improve the project. Mason (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

question

Is there a policy regarding having only the wikidata commons link on a page? For example, your removal of an alternative link to Commons here:[19]. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Your link is to a category, not a wikicommons link. But the general policies are Wikipedia:Overcategorization, WP:Defining. Mason (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The norm is not to add everything with the same name to a category per Wikipedia:SHAREDNAME Mason (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Miroslav Lajčák

Miroslav Lajčák is in 4 Ambassador categories. He is the only person in any of the 4 categories. In the case of Slovak Ambassadors to Serbia and Montenegro, since that country only existed 3 years he may be the only person who ever held that position. Under Ambassadors from the Ivory Coast there are 5 or more empty catrgories because 1 article was deleted. I am going to go create a count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to count all the 1 article ambassador categories. I got to 2300 some, and was at Mexico, but I lost count. There are over 3000 maybe over 4000, and that is ignoring all the 2 articles ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
thanks! it sounds like there's a lot of potential for cleaning up these categories! Mason (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the nomination to remove the political categories

I would not remove the categories of the people I made because they have many districts that are tied to them. Also many of them were present in their constituencies for a record number of time spent and have numerous dates and places named after them. Some of them also put forward and co-sponsored very important bills. I wouldn’t remove them. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to express your opinion at the CFD, but you really really need to review how defining works because those things you have listed don't belong in the category. Mason (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
You can find numerous linked resources on the warnings I gave you on your talk page. Mason (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambassadors

Now that the Prussian one closed the Ivory Coast might be a good place yo go next. I think there may be more sub-cats than there are total articles on ambassadors there because several had appointments to multiple countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for nudging me :) Mason (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate parameter error

Hello, your recent edit to {{Occupation by nationality and century category header/nationality}} has caused templates that integrate it to generate a duplicate parameter error in other categories, which in turn has caused 12,254 categories to show up in the Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls error category. Can you have a look ate the code you added please and clear the error. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

absolutely! Mason (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that this is edit should fix it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Occupation_by_nationality_and_century_category_header/nationality&oldid=1245330091) Mason (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Yep, that's fixed it. Just need it to percolate through the system now. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Computer business people

Since the Pakistanumi computer budinesspeople has only 3 articles it would be probably best to upmerge that as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if that one can be populated Mason (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambassadors

23 of the 38 categories under Ambassadors of Zimbabwe have only 1 article. Several more only have 2 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at populating them once I finish working on the occupation template. Mason (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I highly doubt they can be populated. In fact right now we have 7 Ivorian Ambassador sub-cats that are empty. Hynek Kmoníček a Czech diplomat is emblematic of the craziness of this situation. He is in 15 ambassador categories, 12 of them he is the only article in. He had 2 appointments where he was simultaneously Czech ambassador to 5 or more countries. It is not clear from the article he ever did much at all with some of these countries. People who were Ambassadors have in general been categorized as such, we have however set up a system with far too many narrow intersection categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I do try to populate categories before I nominate them. Mason (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Then there is Lionel Luckhoo who is in 6 ambassador catrgories, all of which have 1 or 2 articles. However because he was ambassador from 2 counties to 3 countries, all at the same time. So upmerging would place him in 5 categories instead of 6.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Smasongarrison. I noticed that you're reverting my edits related to categories even though I had a clear yet unexplained reasons why I removed a category from each one. You should think things through before you revert a bunch of someone's edits.

Category:Mad Max doesn't fit under Category:Wikipedia categories named after games as Mad Max is a film franchise and not a game.

Category:Tomb Raider games shouldn't really fit under Category:Single-player video games because some games in series had additional multiplayer modes.

Category:Infogrames games shouldn't fit under Category:Video games developed in France. It is a category for video games published by a French company however dozens of video games in this category were not developed in France.

Boss key could fit under Category:Video game terminology however this just the name of a keyboard shortcut for hiding programs or whatever. It is not considered a video game-specific concept according to article, similar to Sprite (computer graphics). QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I did revert those changes because your reasons aren't reflective of how categorization works. For example, even though there are some multiple player modes for Tomb Raider Games, the DEFINING feature of the Tomb Raider franchise is that the games are single player. I've looked at your talk page and it's clear that this is a much larger problem. Mason (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
In your edit summary of your most recent revert of Category:Mad Max, you mentioned that you re-added Category:Wikipedia categories named after games because "there is not a more specific category", however you may have been thinking of a category titled Category:Wikipedia categories named after video games which I have created, so it may fit there instead. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I was referring to the lack of a Mad Max video game category Mason (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Phediuk had previously removed Category:Video games developed in France from Category:Infogrames games over the fact the many of video games in this article weren't developed in France but it was reverted by another editor in the next edi a year after. Why would it be eligible to fit into that category ignoring Phediuk's following logic? Why just to indicate where the company is? If so, then you may consider replacing the category with Category:Video games by French companies rather instead. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Please review of defining categories work. If you thought that Video games by French companies was a better fit, you should have replaced that category instead of merely removing it. Mason (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
OK I just did. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
And, you reviewed defining? Mason (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Mason,

Did you notice that Dinosaurs got indefinitely blocked? They had been editing here since 2005, despite their eccentricities, I never thought this would happen. I think that most of their activity was productive as they created a lot of categories that are still in use, their problem was that they refused to communicate even when they were brought to ANI. In that case, the problem was with some stub articles they were creating which is what they used to do before them moved on to categories. Any way, for me, this was definitely a surprise as because of the work I do tagging empty categories, I used to follow their editing pretty closely.

Hope you are doing well. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz! Yes, I did notice that DNE got blocked. I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, a chunk of their category creation was good, but on the other hand, they were not engaging with editor concerns, not explaining their reasoning, and not altering their behavior based on the concerns for the categories that were less than good. All of which are an important parts of wikipedia. My goal had been to get them to engage with the community. DNE is capable of responding on talk pages; they'd done it at least twice. I'd support unblocking them if they engaged. Mason (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:19th-century Mauritian people

A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century Mauritian people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

an open source educational resource

i reacently found a website (started by a social worker academic) which is a database of freely available, open source social work textbooks on every course a social worker would need to take from entry all the way to an advnced practice degree. will be useful for building Wikipedia articles. also please spread the word if any social workers you know would benefit. URL: https://opensocialwork.org/textbooks/ RJJ4y7 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Trinidad and Tobago writers by century empty?

Hallo, I got a watchlist notice telling me that Category:Trinidad and Tobago writers by century was up for deletion as an empty category.

Looking into its history I see I created it on 24 September 2023 as part of work on Ayanna Lloyd Banwo, when I added Category:21st-century Trinidad and Tobago women writers and created the parent cats Category:21st-century Trinidad and Tobago writers and Category:Trinidad and Tobago writers by century in the existing hierarchy. Your edit in March 2024, using a template instead of explicit cats, seems to have broken the chain, so that Category:21st-century Trinidad and Tobago writers is no longer in Category:Trinidad and Tobago writers by century or any other Trinidad and Tobago category. Was this intended, or accidental? I'm puzzled. You seem immersed in categories so I hope you can clarify what's going on here. (The same thing seems to have happened to the 20th century cats after this edit.) Is it a problem with {{Writers by nationality and century category header}}, which I see you've just been editing, or is it a policy decision somewhere? Thanks. PamD 08:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reinstated the container cat for the two T&T writers-by-century cats, and removed the CSD, on the assumption that this was a mistake and not a policy decision.
Is T&T alone, or has this been done for other countries? PamD 09:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Is seems more widespread: Category:20th-century Jordanian writers is not in a Jordan hierarchy, etc. @Liz: for info as an editor interested in empty cats - there may be a lot which have been emptied this way. PamD 09:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
So the template should add in the FOOth-century BAR by century. Let me see what happened Mason (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so I think I know what happened. I'll fix it in a bit. I'm sorry about that. Mason (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
My apologies when I added the additional option to how non-diffusing child categories, I accidentally removed a "}}" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Writers_by_nationality_and_century_category_header&diff=prev&oldid=1246670758] when I was adding in the option. I've checked the other categories I implemented the changes in, and it looks like this is the only one that I goofed on. My apologies. Mason (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it - so glad I noticed and could trace the problem back to you. I wonder how many other CSD nominations there were for emptied categories? These things happen, and Wikipedia's setup of alerts worked well in that Liz notified me of the CSD which prompted me to check the history of the cat. Thanks. PamD 12:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Just seeing this discussion thread after leaving my own message on the subject. PamD, thanks for seeing the problem and coming here. I didn't know why the categories were suddenly empty, it can be a mystery when it's a template error. Everything is back to normal now, all the empty categories have been filled and untagged. Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Writers by nationality and century category header

Hello, Mason,

Please be very very careful when editing these templates. This is not the first time that your changes to a template have caused categories to empty out and then be refilled once the mistake has been corrected. It's not only a waste of time for those editors untagging the categories for CSD C1 speedy deletion but it can be a mystery for editors to try to figure out why the categories are suddenly empty.

You do an amazing amount of work here on the project, I just like to encourage you, when working with templates, to check your changes after they are made to make sure the edits didn't have any inadvertent consequences. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I totally agree! (And I think you did a really really good job of striking the balance between mason you do good work, but clearly breaking stuff isn't so good). I clearly need to build more time in on the checking after the change is implemented. On the positive side, the rollout I set up for this change, was designed to do so really slowly, so that it didn't break *everything*. Regardless, clearly, I need to do more during the window between implementation and template updating. Mason (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:14th-century scientists from the Holy Roman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:14th-century scientists from the Holy Roman 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 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:13th-century scientists from the Holy Roman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:13th-century scientists from the Holy Roman 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 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I fixed the 2nd brain fart that's causing this cascade. I'm going to start vetting these changes in an external software to make sure that I don't miss a }} Mason (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hey, Mason,

I hope you are having a good weekend. I came across a category in Category:Films about time travel that was empty (but now is filled) and was wondering, do we really need time travel films broken down by year? This seems like an awfully limited categorization. Are other genres of movies broken down by years of the films? Is this ripe for a visit to CFD? You are kind of the king of category nominations so I thought I'd run it by you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Howdy!
I think that there are some film categories broken down by year, but those are mostly broad genres, like Category:Science fiction films by year. There are some that are more narrow, like Category:Superhero films by decade, but even those aren't that well populated. My instinct is that there's probably not enough to justify diffusion by year, but it's an open question. Mason (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, thank you for offering me your opinion. Long ago, I use to participate in CFD discussion but I don't really frequent that area much any more except to scold nominators who empty categories they have nominated. Being a good CFD participant really calls for having an encyclopedic memory of previous discussions. I might try to help out with some more obvious closures. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure thing! It's definitely a unique skillset, and reminds me a lot of case law. Mason (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:483 BC births

A tag has been placed on Category:483 BC births indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your note

Hi there. I saw your note here. They're new, so I assume it's just a learning curve an the detailed messages hopefully help. I'm not actively tracking that editor, aside from that one page showing up on my watchlist,. You can followup at an appropriate noticeboard if it should persist, but hopefully it's not needed. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Call of Duty levels

Stop reverting my edits on Category:Call of Duty levels - as only 2 out of 4 of the articles within the category are multiplayer maps while All Ghillied Up and No Russian are clearly not. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

By your logic, only 2 of the 4 categories aren't maps... I wouldn't have to revert your edits if you discussed them on the category talk page or actually engaged in discussion. Mason (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey thanks for cleaning up and adding further category trees for the labor disputes by country! I appreciate it, it took a while to properly cover all of them (and some have since become defunct due to deleted pages). I understand it was automated/using hotcat but it was still very appreciated! - LoomCreek (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually didn't have time to check all of them, so it would be great if you could double check to make sure that each category was placed in the Labor in FOO tree. However, I think that many of them are going to need to be merged because there's just not enough content to justify diffusing them all by country. Mason (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
4,074 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Antisemitism (talk) Add sources
142 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C University of Limerick (talk) Add sources
258 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (talk) Add sources
35 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Motorcycle ambulance (talk) Add sources
122 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C José Carlos Mariátegui (talk) Add sources
37 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Conservative Laestadianism (talk) Add sources
581 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Yad Vashem (talk) Cleanup
4 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Robert Michael (historian) (talk) Cleanup
16 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Anti-Jewish boycotts (talk) Cleanup
299 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Skin (musician) (talk) Expand
84 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Daniel Goldhagen (talk) Expand
184 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B International response to the Holocaust (talk) Expand
122 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Functionalism–intentionalism debate (talk) Unencyclopaedic
420 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust (talk) Unencyclopaedic
16 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The Abandonment of the Jews (talk) Unencyclopaedic
1,454 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Tufts University (talk) Merge
58 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Universities and antisemitism (talk) Merge
144 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Lilu (mythology) (talk) Merge
188 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Whittier College (talk) Wikify
70 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Fitchburg State University (talk) Wikify
51 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College (talk) Wikify
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Mullins trailer (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C William Federspiel (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Bankhaus Adolph Meyer (talk) Orphan
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Open College of the Arts (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Under His Very Windows (talk) Stub
60 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start National Socialist German Students' League (talk) Stub
6 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Dan Michman (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Susanne Heim (talk) Stub
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub The Greater German Reich and the Jews (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:German abbesses has been nominated for merging

Category:German abbesses has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking in after Storm

Hello,

I know you're in North Carolina from user page, just messaging to ask if you're okay after the storm. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I got very lucky in Winston. We barely got any rain/damage, everyone to the west of us got clobbered. Mason (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Scientists by nationality and century

There seems to be something wrong with your recent edits to {{Scientists by nationality and century category header}}, which is causing all of the categories that are using it to get detected as "uncategorized" by Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories even though they do have categories on them. It's only that specific header doing this, and not any of the other similar headers for other occupations, so it's clearly a problem with that one specific template rather than the core concept of using header templates to transclude categories, and they've survived two weekly updates of the report, so it's not just a temporary blip — so I wanted to ask if you could look into what has to be done to fix it, so that they clear off that report since they don't need to be there. Thanks.

(Glad to see from the post above this that you're okay and didn't get too heavily affected by the hurricane, by the way.) Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! I thought I was just losing my mind because they're kinda showing up in other cartegories, but every time I looked, the categories were on the page. I'll definitely take a look! Mason (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
So I've reverted to an older change that doesn't add any non-diffusing parent tags. I want to see if reverting gets them off the report. Then I can slowly add in the non-diffusing parent tag to see if that breaks it. Mason (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the problem is that the report only updates once a week, which means it won't be until next week that we can determine whether it cleared them or not. But thanks for the effort, I'll let you know when the report updates if it worked. 02:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smasongarrison/Archives/2024&oldid=1256401482"