User talk:Johnpacklambert

Archives (Index)

2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September 2024/October 2024/November 2024/December 2025/January 2025/February 2025/March 2025/April 2025/May 2025/June 2025/July

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

You added Architects from the Kingdom of Hungary to Category:19th-century Hungarian architects. Which centuries do you want this to cover? I think... I've mentioned before but you can tell me what the era you'd like it to cover and I can add it to be handled automatically by the template.^SMason_Garrison 22:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not about what I want. Per our article Kingdom of Hungary the entity existed from 1000-1918. So any century from the 11th to the 19th should be placed in this category. It is much more extensive than the modern Hungary, including Slovakia, Croatia, a large part of what is now Romania, and also an area that is now in Ukraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like you're missing the point of my question. I'm trying to tell you that I'm happy to update the template to be more accurate if you tell me what it needs to include. If you just add the category without letting me know you did it and why you did it, I can't improve the template. So please tell me when you do these kinds of things, so that I can improve the template and it can benefit from your knowledge. So you think it should include 11th to the 19th? ^SMason_Garrison 15:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok it should be working now. Thanks! For helping users navigate, can you please add Hungarian FOO as a parent whenever you make a Hungarian Kingdom category? Otherwise users won't know it exists. I've been adding ";" as a sort key to distinguish it. ^SMason_Garrison 15:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnpacklambert, I don't think you should remove valid redlinks for Olympic competitors as in Special:Diff/1303690414, Special:Diff/1303690658, Special:Diff/1303692382, etc.

While some Olympic competitors are not by default notable, sources can be presumed likely to exist for those that have won medals or other major championships per WP:NSPORT. Regardless, redirects don't have to meet the same notability criteria as articles. Every single Olympian has a valid redirect target on Wikipedia, and redirects should exist for each one because they provide a useful navigational aid. So having a redlink in this context sometimes just means that a redirect should be created, not necessarily an article. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you are wrong. What you are really trying to do is preserve the appearance of us having articles on every Olympian. There are actually over 100 Olympians whose name is not known. Nsport requires that substantial sources exist Mass creating of links to non-articles can often lead to the creation of false articles. Some of these redlinks lead to articles that have been removed. When multiple large scale discussions have decided a group is not presumed notable mass leaving in place redlinks for people in that group is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnpacklambert, I'm not trying to do that at all. I think the number of unknown Olympians is closer to 1000 than 100. I agree with you about WP:NSPORT and respect your contributions. Many of the redlinks are intended for redirects, not articles, so the notability standards are different. Habst (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert removing them isn't helpful. No one is saying that we need to have articles for every Olympian. ^SMason_Garrison 17:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clean up the categories you make by populating, adding sort keys, and parenting them with the modern nation-state. The last one is important for other users' navigation, even if it's not a perfect match. That includes the Russian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of England, and the Austrian Empire. When you don't do this, it makes it harder for other users to find these people.^SMason_Garrison 18:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from the Dutch Republic to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 23:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'''Merge''' There are 195 nations, and that is not counting several non-contiguous dependencies that we consider to have nationality status. Some of these are extremely small, but that means dividing every possible occupation by every possible nationality will lead to huge numbers of tiny categories that hinder navigation. 15 is a very small set of sub-categories by nationality, we have some occupations with over 200 sub-categories by nationality. The only reasonable standard is minimum size. 5 is generally seen as a good guideline, but I think we need more developed guidelines to stop overly small categories. 1 is thus not only too small but not even close to minimum. The other thing is we already have 36 nutritionists not in by nationality categories. These categories do not exist because every possible by nationality Category exists, but because some editor arbitrarily felt like creating these, while other editors who wanted to uphold thd usefulness of navigation with categories did not create other possible single member categories. Wikipedia has probably thousands of article Category but pretty much everyone that has been brought to Categories for Discussion since Narrow Category has become the main guideline on this matter has been upmerged. Narrow cat replaced Smallcat because smallcat while claiming to limit small cats was written in a way that encouraged editors to create 1 article cats and never face up to if they could be expanded. Smallcat is a former guideline and should not be used in Category discussions. It has been deprecated. I have not always understood categories, and so created lots of one article categories I wish I could now upmerge. It is also not always easy to find new articles to build a category, so sometimes I create ones hoping I will find more articles. I probably should start creating potential lists of category members off Wikipedia and then only creating categories when I have enough articles on the lists. Realistically we should upmerge any Category with 4 or less members, at a minimum, and there are some categories that really are not big enough to subdivide at all. One thing to keep in mind is we should not have situations where an editor is prevented from removing an article from a category because the category is wrong. We might not be able to fully avoid this problem. However there was a case where an article was in I think Ambassadors of Libia to Spain. The subject never was an Ambassador, but since she was the only article in the category, the categorization of the specific case had to go to CfD. Article talk pages not CfD are the best venue to discuss if person x is really a fooian booer. There are rare cases where we might have 5 articles of a fooian booer where none of them are really fooian booer, but instead a fooian something else or maybe not actual fooian, but incorrectly called fooian. Those would be rarer. Too often we end up with CfD discussions that can be summarized as "purge the one article and delete. Not because the character of being a fooian booer is something we would not categorize, but because we have 1 article and he is not actually fooian, not actually a booer. Or was only a booer at times or in ways that are not modified by being a fooer, such as a child who emigrated from Foo long before he became a booer, or a person who stopped being g a booer before he emigrated to foo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> I probably should start creating potential lists of category members off Wikipedia and then only creating categories when I have enough articles on the lists.

I like this idea, in theory. Obviously it has to be sustainable for you. One tweak would be to make a subpage with list of potential categories you're considering and then circle back to see if you can find folks in the parent categories who would fit? ^SMason_Garrison 00:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sometimes works. There are some hard cases. For example in the case of people by French province abolished in 1790 the applicable articles for some categories need to be searched across close to all subcategories of Category:French people. In the case of merchants we have a severe lack of having categorized articles. This even more Aries to innkeepers and some other occupations. In building the innkeeper Category and a few others I did a search for that word. With innkeepers only maybe a fifth of what I go was innkeepers. I also got fictional innkeepers works with fictional innkeepers, people who played innkeepers, children of innkeepers, and location articles using the word. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, ok yeah I guess the tricky part is finding the people again, not the category. "people by French province abolished in 1790" is really tricky. You could add them to the modern province category as an interim step. That would make it easier to navigate back to them later. You could also consider making a subpage in your userspace, and link to the articles you're considering. Or perhaps add them to the notable people sections of articles about the province? Or hmmm, maybe redlink to the province page for the biographies themselves? One of them might work well in your workflow. (or maybe none of them 🤷)^SMason_Garrison 02:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of England 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. ^SMason_Garrison 04:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't recreate categories like this. The CFD was less than two years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_5#Category:Expatriates_of_the_Kingdom_of_England ^SMason_Garrison 04:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]