Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I meant to place my statement above, here. Sorry I misplaced it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure which discussion this refers to, but you must be aware that Kazakh refers to people of Kazakh ethnicity, while Kazakhstani refers to people from Kazakhstan. See e.g. the introduction of Demographics of Kazakhstan. Place Clichy (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In about 1960 only 30% of the population of the Kazakh Soviet Republic was Kazakh. Ethnic Russians were 42% of the population, with notable numbers of ethnic Ukrainians, ethnic Uzbeks and others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Johnpacklambert: we do not diffuse French lawyers by kingdom of France, French Empire and French Republic. By what logic would New South Wales be different? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Prior to 1901 there is no political structure less than the British Empire that the lawyers are operating in. The Colony of New South Wales is a separate political entity where the lawyers are operating. After 1901 they are integrated into the Australian legal system, but there is no Australua wide legal system pre-1901.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We also found not divide French judges by what government thry served under, yet we have Colony of New South Wales judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My biggest point though is that these people clearly fir the rubric of the Colony of New South Wales people Category, are there is absolutely no reason to remove them from it as long as that Category exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: it will be done by an administrator, probably within a couple of days. You do not need to do something. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I am completely unfamiliar with this process; learning as I go along. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• @Doniago: I do not have a firm opinion about it right now. Probably you will get the question: why would you single out comedy film directors and not nominate any sibling categories in Category:Film directors by genre? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • @Doniago: you will probably get more outspoken opinions about this at WT:FILM. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Outspoken opinions may be what I was hoping to avoid. :p But I'll take it under advisement. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Category:American English-language television shows has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Qwerfjkl: if you have no objection, I'll reverse the renaming of that one on the same grounds as Israeli. May I document this as an addition to your closure? – Fayenatic London 22:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express an opinion in general: It is completely erroneous to rename the categories of "secularists" as "critics of religion" for all nations. For defending secularism and criticising a religion or the concept of religion itself are two different actions. There should be two separate categories for these two subjects. Aybeg (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london, I have no objection. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: maybe your problem is that Category:1860s disestablishments in Canada East already exists but was redirected by its page creator Tutwakhamoe to Category:1860s disestablishments in Canada. Canada East lasted until 1867. In the final decade of the history of a territory etc, we can either have a separate category for the decade in that territory, or use the decade category for the successor – practice varies from case to case according to what seems most useful. If you think an 1860s category for Canada East will be useful, either because there is plenty to put in it or because the distinction is important, then edit the redirected page and overwrite it based on the 1850s category. ( – TPS) – Fayenatic London 22:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but I don’t know how to do that. I think it makes sense to keep Canada East as a separate category because it is more accurate historically. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:  Done, I reinstated the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks very much! I find the syntax for categories rather confusing, and appreciate the help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to populate such categories promptly, otherwise Liz tags them as empty. – Fayenatic London 11:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve listed the two that I’m aware of, off the top of my head (Montreal and Quebec electoral districts). I expect I will have more as I continue working on my project in this area. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Trystan and Fayenatic london: would this call for direct administrator intervention? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would to delete all the categories, which can probably be speedied under G6. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Following up at User talk:Giovanni 0331#CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 2 § LGBT people by sexual orientation and nationality. – Fayenatic London 11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Republic of Geneva has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• @ContributingHelperOnTheSide: the only way I can think of is that you enter "life insurance money" in the search bar. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And baby farming? The category’s already wiped, can I get the names back? Somehow find the users who removed the category from each article? The list will be in their edit history. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ContributingHelperOnTheSide:the processing of CfD outcomes is done by User:JJMC89 bot III. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the clarification. As you can see, another user is gracious enough to have helped out, so I’ll be creating lists soon. I’ll still try to reach the users for the final category, I figure I’ll have to speak with them directly to get answers, so I’ll go back to the deletion discussion for it. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ContributingHelperOnTheSide, the contents were Rhoda Willis, Ada Williams (baby farmer), Margaret Waters, Amelia Sach and Annie Walters, Hilda Nilsson, John and Sarah Makin, Frances Knorr, Miyuki Ishikawa, Helene Auguste Geisen-Volk, Amelia Dyer, Minnie Dean, Luísa de Jesus, and Baby farming. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Qwerfjkl Thank you so much! Can you perchance get me in touch with the users who handled the deletion of the insurance murder category? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @ContributingHelperOnTheSide:maybe I wasn't clear about it earlier, but the processing of all CfD outcomes is done by a bot: User:JJMC89 bot III. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Oh. My apologies. Well, I can speak with the users in the discussion and maybe get the bot’s name, maybe there’s an edit history. I misunderstood, not your fault. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      ContributingHelperOnTheSide, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      To @Qwerfjkl: I was hoping to speak with the users who debated the category’s deletion. I wondered if they knew if a bot or a user had an edit history that showed which pages the category name was erased from. That would give a list of articles! I meant to type “name” instead of “mane”, my apologies for the typo. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      ContributingHelperOnTheSide, I used the script User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Baby_farming
      which produced this. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Qwerfjkl, that’s a bit out of my league. Where do I put the coding? If this’ll carry on for a while, let’s move the messages to my talk, so it doesn’t fill @Marcocapelle‘s page. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────┘
ContributingHelperOnTheSide, add

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

to this page. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl, would doing both simultaneously cause problems or just conduct the same function regardless? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ContributingHelperOnTheSide, both what? You seem to have correctly added the script. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also gone to the “gadgets” menu mentioned in the same article. I don’t know if both those things conflict with each other. Even so, I didn’t find the history of the category. Am I doing something wrong? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Habst: that is a bit of a grey area. Have you tried the talk page of the editor who reverted? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It's not "super common" and it's a 24/7 disease. No, not often in adulthood: often during puberty, and not in old age. We have an article on it, Johnpacklambert, Type 1 diabetes; you should read it. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The above was a typo on my part. I meant to say Type 2 diabetes. My point is I do not think type 2 diabetes is defining. I think at a more fundamental level Type 2 and type 1 diabetes really are totally different things. So much so I think we need to end "deaths from diabetes" as a Category because it is grouping unlike things. Deaths from type 1 diabetes are so different from deaths from type 2 diabetes, because the diseases are not at all the same, thry just have a shared name, that we are violating the not categorizing by shared name rule when we put deaths from these two different diseases in one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neural circuits has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• @Mikeatnip: it may be a fringe sort of Protestantism but never considered as a separate denominational family next to Protestantism and Catholicism. Radical Reformation still is in Category:Protestant Reformation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An inconsistency exists across Wikipedia (and literature in general) about whether to include Anabaptists and other Radical Reformation groups in with Protestantism. Within Anabaptists, most consider themselves a distinct movement (after all, their martyr book Martyrs Mirror includes hundreds or thousands of people killed by Protestants!) even if parts of the Radical Reformation germinated within Protestantism. Terms like "the third wing of the Reformation" are used by some people. So, I guess to get everyone on the same page, so to speak, would require a thorough purging of Wikipedia, something that I certainly do not have time to do at the moment. And, others would disagree, as well. So I will just let it ride for now. Thanks for the response. Mikeatnip (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Independent Mexico — the 19th century history of Mexico from 1810 to 1876.

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

• Covering the period from the 1810 start of the Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821) through to the inauguration of Porfirio Díaz in 1876 and Porfiriato government (1876-1910).

• For the preceding Spanish colonial

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

As far as I can tell we have no article named Independent Mexico. The period is covered in 3 sections in our article on Mexico's history. We do have articles on things like the First Mexican Republic. The name itself is even more odd because some of Mexico was ruled by outside forces during that time during the French intervention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should rename people of Mexican Texas to people from Mexican Texas, since we renamed categories related to former US territories. Mexican Texas was much smaller than modern Texas. A large chuck was effectively in the Comancheria, El Paso and much of the far west was in Chihuahua, Coahuila went to the Nueces and I believe had its capital at Laredo, and everything South of the Nueces just a bit east of there was in Tamalipas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British local historians has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

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

• +1, CfD wouldn't be the same without you. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Marco,

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

• @Liz: you are right, it is up for discussion now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was populated by faulty code in templates (Template:Synagogues completed in decade category header etc). Never mind, it's gone now. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_23#Category:Post–World_War_II_synagogue_architecture – Fayenatic London 08:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Smpad: I do not know either. Better ask this on a general help requests page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• I do not recall this specifically, but monarchs aren't politicians indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suppose there would have been some articles about 15th-century monarchs in the category before the category was depopulated. 83.229.61.201 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: It contained a category called Category:15th-century Indian monarchs Mason (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A tag has been placed on Category:1622 establishments in China indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There is nothing in the article that hints at this. The actor is said to be Chinese. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's explicitly stated in the article that he was an actor of the late Jurchen dynasty era. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears I completely misunderstood you. The question was about a Jurchen Empire but this concerns a Chinese dynasty of Jurchen descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

instead of

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

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

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

• @HouseBlaster: I am pretty certain this only applies to articles and not to maintenance pages. For example at WP:CFDS entries are separated by a blank line as soon as there is discussion about them. It is just so much easier to find back a specific entry when you open the editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It applies to maintenance pages, too. Per WP:MOS, provisions related to accessibility apply across the entire project, not just to articles. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Marcocapelle,

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

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

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

• @Euphoria: you are confusing me with the IP user who edited after me. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]