User talk:Johnpacklambert

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Franz Ernst Neumann[edit]

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kara-Kyrgyz Khanate[edit]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use too many demonyms[edit]

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

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

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

17th-century Puerto Rican people has 2 articles. There is no article in People from Colonial Puerto Rico on a 17th-century person. 18th-century Puerto Rican people has 8 people. Of the 75 articles in People from Puerto Rico, 72 were born in 1800 or later. 2 were born in the 1790s. I in 1784. I think with this distribution we should just upmurge all to People from Colonial Puerto Rico. I also think that is a very wrong name. There is no coherent way to argue Puerto Rico was less Colonial in 1905 than in 1895. The issue is who controls the island, not an independent v. Colonial issue. So I think we should rename the category to People from Spanish Puerto Rico.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger problem is that lots of people from 19th-century Puerto Rico, or at least some have bern incorwctly placed is American categories. This might be because the Puerto Rican category thry were once in was upmerged. Tgis illustrates why placing people in categories that do not properly acknoeleledge the political status of the place they are from is unwise. If we need the 19th, 18th and 17th century categories, which does not really seem needed based on the actual category sizes, I think we should call them People from 19th-century Spanish Puerto Rico, etc. In other cases where a century category refers to people from a past polity we use the past polity's name, such as 19th-century writers from the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, some editors have argued that People by nationality by century categories really should be container categories. With 19th-century American writers, 19th-century American actresses, 19th-century American lawyers, etc. we have the limiting principal that the person has to have been a writer, actress, lawyer etc. During that century. With the general people categories there is no limiting factor. Which leads to lots more category duplication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be honest, I'm struggling to follow your answer here. Can you please just not depopulate categories out of process? Mason (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having reviewed People from Colonial Puerto Rico, none of the articles there fir in either the 17th or 18th century categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I already moved them. Can you please just not depopulate categories out of process? Mason (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not true. I have never edited either of the articles in 17th-century Puerto Rican people. That category has had 2 articles period. It is an overly small category that has no good reason to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of the 17th-century Puerto Rican people are among the 7 articles in 18th-century Puerto Rican people. So if we just put them in People from Colonial Puerto Rico we would have fewer categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added people to other centuries. I'm not saying you put them there originally. My request is that if you have a problem with the Puerto Rican by century categories you can draft a proposal for consideration. But until then, please don't remove folks from the century categories because you don't like the category. Mason (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have too many century categories[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just plain wrong and wrong-headed century categories[edit]

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

I've found this as well. Think that those are fine to remove. My rule of thumb for those folks is whether they were defining/notable in that century. Mason (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that we need far less by century categories, period. They are a key cause of Category clutter. For example with American politicians we subdivide them almost universally by office held. Also by part. Yet for hard to understand reasons we have 19th-century American politicians. Lots of people are in that category and categories for parties that only existed in the 19th century. This is unneccesatmry and duplicative. 19th-century American legislators should have no direct articles for people who served in any Territorial Legislature that existed only in the 19th-century. Yet huge numbers of articles are in say Members of the Wisconsin Territorial Legislature and in 19th-century American legislators. I do not think any article on a legislator was undercategorized before this, we have categories for every state Legislature. And with congress we even have subcats for Y party members of Congress. Plus most legislators are also categorized by pre-political career and much else. The 19th-century American legislators just leads to Category clutter. The one good is we have not yet categorized members of Congress by each congress thry served in, as we do for some other members of legislators. That is the number one cause of over categorization. At least since we actually in general do not allow performer by performance. The other leading cause of overcategorization is we categorize sports people and coaches by every team thry played on or coached, with no real limits to it. We do not require any prose in the article mentioning it, as Ling as it is in some table. I think we even include teams where someone was on a practice squad but dropped before ever playing a formal game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With coaching we have dome people who coached football at half a dozen or more colleges. Are all these colleges defining. In some cases we only have 1 or 2 articles for coaches at that college. On the other hand we have some coaches who coached half a dozen different doorts at one college. In a few cases thry literally coached all sports at once. Do we really need them in all those categories? Wikipedia pelrobably has more categories than articles, and there are tens of thousands of 1 article categories, and probably hundreds of thousands below 5 articles, which is general considered the absolute minimum to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Ed Winters[edit]

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

We should end 19th-cdntury Austrian categories[edit]

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 29[edit]

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

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

Bankers excessively divided by category[edit]

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

Category:Dominican bankers[edit]

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

  • Dominican itself is a disambiguation page. The nation called Dominca is not the first thing listed there, so I am not sure why in the world anyone would think "Dominican bankers" are bankers from Dominica as opposed to from the Dominican Republic, which is listed higher up in that aricle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert&oldid=1226455822"