User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2024/June

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johnpacklambert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Right now 1790 births has 981 articles while 1791 births has 778 births. This is one of the biggest year to year changes, especially by percentage, at least before 1970. I suspect some of the 1790 births are really about 1790.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Others like Montague Ainslie were just plain wrong. His article gives a specific date he was born in 1792. I have moved him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Harvard Extension School alumni 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. Mason (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering that it was a great power in Europe from 1701-1871, when it becsme a greater power by becoming the German Empire, it seems to me that Bankers from the Kingdom of Prussia and Industrialists from the Kingdom of Prussia would be justified categories. However Businesspeople from the Kingdom of Prussia currently only has 50 articles. That is too small to be eorth splitting. So I will hold off on splitting for now. We have far too many narrow categories for me to feel like creating new ones ffor no good reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Circassia 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 13:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Circassia 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. Gjs238 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• • I think Circassia is a distinct topic. It was a country or region for hundreds of years. For other countries/regions we have distinct categories named after the place, such as the Kingdom of Hawaii or the Ottoman Empire. We do not try to conflate categories of the place with those for the ethnic group that once inhabited the place. This is particularly true for Cicassia v Circassians. Since the Circassins left the place under force from the Russian government, a lot of our material on Circassians is either about ethnic Circassian people elsewhere, or Circassian nationalism after the loss of the physical place. These are district topics for articles that cover the place that was Circassia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Circassia and Circassians are 2 seperate articles. I believe this means the burden is on others to show why we would not have 2 seperate categories. We in general have one category that covers the political entity, and another category for people. In the case of Circassians the topic category is covering some things related to the Circassian diaspora. If we do not need all these categories, I think it is the Circassians, not the Cicassia category that we should not keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The article John R. Cocke says that the subjects name is actually spelled John R. Cooke.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Huh. There is a separate, and longer, article about the same person under the title John R. Cooke which is indeed the correct spelling. I slapped merge templates on them. I don't know if there's anything on the John R. Cocke article that isn't already in the correct article. If you want to look into it that'd be fine. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Here goes an estimate {{USDCY|75|1890}} John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't remove people from the century they've already been classified in. For example, when you removed Pavlos Prosalentis, from 19th-century Greek sculptors and 18th-century Greek sculptors, you placed them into sculptors. If you must remove people from the nationality that defines them... please put them in the X-century sculptors, not sculptors. Regardless of whether you agree with the lead that Prosalentis is "the first professional sculptor in modern Greece", he's definitely a 19th-century sculptor. Mason (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Prosalentus was a subject of the Republic of Venice, of France, and then of the United States of the Ionian Islands. The Greek sculptors tree is a set of categories for people who were nationals of Greece. Prosalentus never was a national of Greece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You are missing my point. He's definitely a 19th-century sculptor. Please leave sculptors in the proper century. Mason (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

we categorize by ethnicity, not race. For this reason I think we should highly scrutinize placing anyone in a Native American Category. That is categorizing by race, not ethnicity. We need to doubly scrutinize in the pre-1850 time period. Pocahontas is not an undifferentiated Native America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean here. Mason (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Categorization by ethnicity means the people in the Category see themselves as part of an ethnic group. The Ethnic group an Ojibwe person would have saw themselves as part of in 1801 would have Bern Ojibwe. Not "Native American" or another name referring to such a large grouping. We should respect this in Categorizing, and not place them in categories that group them based on such broad groupings thry would not self identify with. An Ojibwe writer active in 1989 might well see himself as a Native American writer and belong in that category. However especially artists who use traditional artistic practices of their eth ic group, such as Hopi basket weavers, I think we need to be Co scions of the categorizing by ethnicity and not race rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Please run this by folks who are active in the native american projects. Your interpretation seems extremely inconsistent with how these categories have been treated.Mason (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I've read through your comments on the native american pages. I think that it is great that you're seeking input! However, I'm not sure that folks over there will really understand what you're getting at, as many people consider native american people to be both a parent nationality and an ethnicity. I encourage you to move slowly (if at all) on this issue because I think it would be extremely problematic if you unilaterally declared that Native American people weren't Americans. Tribal sovereignty, nationality, and ethnicity is very complicated. I think that unless you get a resounding yes in support, you should leave the status quo intact. (I'm trying to avoid another situation like when you removed American women writers from American writers.) Mason (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think you are understanding. A Bavajo who dies in 1845 is clearly not an American. If the person lived in Tucson or Santa Fe and died in that year they would be clearly Mexican, and go in the Mexican Category. As I mention a Wampanoag whaler from Massachusetts who died in 1845 would clearly be American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am understanding your point, but I am trying to urge you to be cautious on this issue given the subject matter. Mason (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We really should not have anyone who died in 1820 or earlier in a Mexican Category. Yes, there was a Mexico in 1820 and before, and so dome were called Mexican. However it was the city of Mexico and the state right around it. Yucatan, Guadalajara, even Puebla, let alone Tampico or Hermosillo or Tijuana are not part of Mexican. Since we almost never use demonymns for sub-national entities it makes no sense for pre-1821 State of Mexico. All the more so because when we are referring to something totally distinct with a demonym we should be clear. In 1819 there was a New Mexico, but it was distinct and different from Mexico. With many other places like San Luis Potosi between them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't empty the categories out of process. You can draft a proposal/suggest a rename. But please don't gut the categories. It's disruptive. Mason (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have a solution for this. I would not feel comfortable upmerging to New Spain as this stretched from the Philippines to the Caribbean. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yep that was in part my concern as well. The folks in the current Mexican categories are more similar to each other than to the parent of New Spain. Perhaps, a disclaimer stating something to the effect that this category is maps onto Early modern mexico or something to that effect? Mason (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Actually if you look at Captaincies of the Spanish Empire you realize that the core of New Spain is different than the outlying captaincies. The main result of this is that we seem to lack a clear Category for People from the Captsincy of Yucatan, and we do not have one yet for thr Provincias Intenas, which was formed in 1776, but the core of New Spain could be a Category to put articles in, and we would just categorize those from the outer areas separately. On the other hand you have noticeable movement between the various areas of New Spain, so we want to treat such based on what it really is, and not anachronistically label it based on later boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am wondering what year we should switch from 13 Colonies to US in place names for events. I am thinking 1776 makes sense. However it is not until 1783 the post-war boundaries are somewhat fixed, although Detroit is de facto British until 1796. A lot of articles just use city and state, which avoids the issue. It looks like editors have either used 1776 maybe ignored things and used US earlier. I think for now I will not change any until I get to an event before July 4, 1776, although I will let stand post-1776 uses of British America or other terms at least in cases where it can be argued the place at the time of the event was actually under British control. I am reviewing 1779 births, so I will not find any even potential conflicts for a little bit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has way too many categories that are too small. We really need to move away from the idea that every career needs to be subdivided by nationality. We really should come up with a minimum size todiffuse, not just a minimum size after diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fabulists only has around 100 articles. I think this is too few to justify a split by nationality. I think we should upmerge are the article to the parent category, Fabulists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should be a last year of birth we put people in the United Empire Loyalists category. I just found someone born in 1779 in that category. That seems too young. United Empire Loyalists are people who support the cause of a united British Empire during the American revolution. The revolution ends in 1783. I would say the minimum age for inclusion should be greater than 4.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• The specific person I was just looking at was born in Nova Scotia in 1779. So the decisions about loyalty were actually primarily made not just without his consultation, but before his birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We currently have 94 articles in each the Viceroyalty of Peru people, Viceroyalty of New Granada people and People from the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Barons from the Austrian Empire 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi John. You've removed cats here describing him as Austrian. Since he clearly WAS Austrian, can you explain why? Ingratis (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Nigg was a subject of the Austrian Empire. He is in the Painters from the Austrian Empire category. Austrian while a term used pre-1918 means something totally different pre-1918. It makes no sense to put people pre-1918 in categories that are just named Austrian. These make sense only as a by nationality category for the nation of Austria formed in 1918. We have categories for people from Austria-Hungary, from the Austrian Empire, from the Habsburg Monarchy and from the Holy Roman Empire that cover earlier periods of history and that it makes sense to place these people in based on where they actually lived and were a subject of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Additionally since the Austrian Empire only existed in the 19th-century, Austrian Empire categories are sub-cats of the relevant 19th-century category, so Nigg does not need to be placed in those categories since he is already in a sub-cateogry of it. At present the category he is in Painters from the Austrian Empire, is a listed sub-cat of 19th-century Austrian painters (which probably does not really make sense as a category name since there was no Austria in the 19th-century, it was either the Holy Roman Empire (pre-1804 so not really that relevant for people categories), the Austrian Empire (1804-1867) or Austria-Hungary (1867-1918). However this means he was not structurally removed from Austrian categories but placed in a sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"There was no Austria in the 19th-century"? See the cat tree Category:Austrian people by century, which starts with the 12th century, and runs up to the present. This apparently directly contradicts your statement. Are you intending to dismantle the whole of that? Ingratis (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That whole tree should be dismantled. I would encoraging nominating it for dismantlement. The issues are a bit different pre-1800 when we do not have many sub-cats specifically for the Archduchy of Austria. I would argue that for occupational things categorizing by the Holy Roman Empire is most relevant. However that is seperate from the issue with Nigg. We do have a category for painters from the Austrian Empire, which also conviently only existed during the 19th-century, so he is under the 19th-century Austrian painters tree by virtue of that. How to treat painters from pre-1800 areas is a seperate issue that may have other implications. However that does not impact the fact that the categorization here works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• The categories as they exist at present are clearly too small, and in some cases seem to state things that the article does not support. Der von Kürenberg is for example in the 12th-century Austrian poets category. Why? I am not at all sure. He wrote in German, but is known it seems from a manuscript from held in Switzerland, and the article gives no real indication of where exactly he lived, which might well mean we do not know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Der von Kürenberg is generally thought to be Austrian on linguistic groubds, or so I understand. For the rest, [[Category:Austrian people by century]] is actually very helpful, Austria being rather more than a 20th-century political construct. Ingratis (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We should not be categorizing people on vague "linguistic" grounds. While there is an Austria pre-1918, it is very, very different than modern Austria. To apply the same name to all Austrias is at best a categorization by shared name, not actual shared status. In 1855 Austrians could be from areas very far beyond the modern boundaries. Before 1800 and more so as you move back from that you also run into the added issue that there are no real coherent ways to differentiate on a national origin level those from Austria from other places in the Holy Roman Empire. This is really pronounced when we move back to say the 12th-century. For the 18th-century is is less than clear that if the Holy Roman Empire designation is not useful, any designation more specific that People from the Habsburg Monarchy, really makes sense. Austria is only one of several Areas in the Holy Roman Empire directly controlled by the Habsburgs. In the 18th-century the largest and most important such area, especially if we limit our discussion to more or less contiguous areas in the south-east of the Holy Roman Empire, was the Kingdom of Bohemia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you should write up these ideas as an essay to get feedback. Mason (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: I'm curious why you're deleting state burial categories as "not defining." I mean, why does the category exist if not to list people buried in a particular state when there's no suitable subcategory? Under what conditions do you think a state burial category CAN be used? Regards, Billmckern (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  There was a discussion about this in Category discussions. It was determined that categories of burial for anything above the level of a Cemetery are not defining, and are container categories. They exist to group together categories of people buried by cemetery.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is closely related to the fact we do not categorize people by place of death. We do have categories that sub-divide cause of death by place. We probably have too many of those categories. A Category like deaths in Delaware or deaths in Fiji exists only to hold these sub-catrgories subdividing cause of death by place. For most people the only death related Category they will belong in is the year of death cateCategory.

er:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I also am not certain on what grounds for most people the Cemetery thry are buried in is defining. I really think we need to take a look at this. I think it might be more likely that some places are defined by who is buried there, than that the people are defined by where thry were buried. So lists of dignificant people buried there might be more useful than categories in dome cases. Some cemeteries I believe limit who can be buried there in a way that it might be an award. The question is is it an award that meets categorization by award rules. In some cases it might be, but I think it is worth reviewing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't delete categories out of process. Mason (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Burial by state such as Burials in Pennsylvania are container categories. Removing articles from such categories is highly encouraged. The category has lots of sub-categories. Some of those may be defining. I have Grave doubts, pun intended, that all of them are defining. If I could participate in AfD discussions I would open such a discussion on a Cemetery. However it has been previously determined that the state of burial is a cilontainer level Category. We have city of burial categories that in the name make it clear they are to dort various places in the city where people are buried. I have no idea why we do not have state level categories named in the sane way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  The language here is imprecise. There are 50 by state burial categories. No Category has been deleted. Categories have been removed from articles. That is justified based in the decision that burial categories are container categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I meant burial by state. Burial by Cemetery, or place that is functionally like a Cemetery is allowed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have seen cases where the category for a certain Fooian booers in the 20th and 21st century have the exact same articles. This seems to be a case of excessively creating categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Miguel is the only article in either 20th or 21st century Belizean male actors. The whole Belizean male actors tree only has q article but 3 categories. This is excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

JPL you know that's not acceptable to empty categories. Please revert the other edits you have made like this. Mason (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you reverted the emptying? Mason (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What emptying? What other edits like this? I do not know of any others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Your edit comment for Belizean male actors mentioned other categories. It was really clear that you removed him from the category with the goal of it being deleted. I don't have the bandwidth to check your edits. You've been asked to not do this repeatedly. Yet, you still do it. Why?

Why, do you think it's acceptable to circumvent the standard category process? I don't understand. If you can't follow this basic process, I don't think you'll ever get support to have your deletion discussion privileges restored. Mason (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry. I made one edit and I was wrong. I am sorry. I made a mistake.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a one time mistake. You have done this repeatedly. You've been removing people from burials, that's circumventing the process. You did this for women children's book writers. Mason (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

My point is that this is something you do often, whether you intent it or not. Mason (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry about the Women's children's books author issue. That was months ago. In almost all cases the burial categories I am removing people from are meant to be container categories. Removing Biographical articles from container categories is acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I know your sorry. But, the fact that you were sorry about doing it months ago did not seem to prevent you from doing it to the Belizean male actors category recently. I don't want an apology; I want to see you change your behavior. I would like you to be able to get your deletion discussion privileges back. I think you have a lot of good contributions on Wikipedia. But, I also think that you take too rigid of a definition of nationality that leads you to remove a lot of categories that pages belong to. I think that until you can actually respect the reasonable requests of Wikipedians, you won't get those editing privileges back. Mason (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I will consider what you say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for considering it. Mason (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you're making use of the talk page for discussing categories that you don't think fit. I hope you keep doing it.😁😁 Mason (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I still think that by century categories are a recipe for disaster. They are also imposing arbiter artificial breaks in groups and least to very high overlap. At least when applied to people in most careers. People in most careers live to long to make by century categories work. Often there are more clear breaks than by century. A huge number of articles we have for example say the person was active in the long 19th-century. I have seen so many misapplicatuins of these categories. Something needs to be done to fix this. I think we need to start insisting that A. The polity in question existed for well over 200 years. B. That the profession has existed long enough to have 3 century categories. We should not have any profession that did not existed before 1900 with any by century categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think in many cases this holds, such as models, most athletes, etc. Do you have examples of modern occupations that are diffused by century like this? Mason (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

screenwriters for starters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not empty categories out of process. Like you have been doing for numerous underpopulated categoies. Eg Nigel Miguel is a 21st-century Belizean male actors. Just because he is the only person in the category does not mean you should remove him to get the category deleted. Mason (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. I will not do this again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think your time is better spent adding people to categories rather than removing people form categories. Mason (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

we should not refer to any event as happening in the US/USA before July 4, 1776. This is a largely observed rule. The majority of event listing just use say Hartford, Connecticut. Most that do not list say Albany, Province of New York, British America. The relevant polity is British America for which we have an article. It is more a conceptual than an organized area, but we categorize by conceptual area elsewhere with Ancient Greece, Al-Andalus and more. I am not sure if from British America or from the 13 Colonies is better for categories. Some have tried to make Colonial American that group anyone anywhere in the modern US together. This is a horrible example of essential icing the present on the past. Which is just egregious if used in cases like Santa Fe, Nueva Mexico or San Antonio, Texas. This is essentially taking "Manifest Destiny" as literally true, which considering Polk's campaign slogan was 54'40'' of fight, yet he settled for the 49th parallel, and how much Mexican territory to take was heavily debated, it is clear that American maximalists in the 1840s did not get all thry dreamed of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think getting some insight from folks at the American History project would be really really helpful here. Mason (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we have some cause of death categories that really are not justified. One example is pneumonia. I do not think pneumonia is a defining cause of death. In far too many cases it is an incidental infection caused really by something else. I do not believe those who died from pneumonia are a coherent group and I do not think we should categorize people by this cause of death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Belizean male actors has 2 subcats. Between this category and its 2 subcat, so in the total of 3 categories, there is only 1 actual article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The above is slightly misleading. There is 1 total article in the 3 categories. What I wrote above might cause some to think there are redirects. There are no redirects there at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have excessively searched though Wikipedia for atleticles on innkeepers. I found way more on people who had a parent who was an innkeeper, or who had the role in a TV show as an innkeeper than actual innkeepers. The other thing I realized is that the term innkeeper seems to at times be applied to owners of large modern hotel chains. Right now we have Wallachian Innkeepers (which has 3 articles, based Ilona parent and sister categories it probably should be called Innkeepers from the Principality of Wallachia), American Innkeepers and the general parent Category. I have to admit I am not at all happy with this structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there are only 65 articles under innkeepers. I think we probably should merge everything into innkeepers. Also merge to the various by nationality sub-categories for the current nationality sub-cats. I know the 21 or so Category American innkeepers is big enough to keep, but I think having just the American Category is excessive, and the Wallachian Category is too small to justify keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI. There's already been a cfd on Innkeepers from the Principality of Wallachia. Mason (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We need an actually enforceable minimum Category size in Wikipedia. We have literally tens of thousands of categories with one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure this is very doable, but I think it is something that we need. We need a minimum Category size before diffusing a Category. I have thought about this for occupation categories. We have some that are broken out by country so much that most sub-cateogries have under 2 articles. Well at least under 5. I am thinking we need an agreed upon minimum.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A few months ago I was trying to diffuse deaths by cancer by country and state by cause of cancer. There were a few causes that after I had reviewed the while by country tree I found we had not reached 5 cases of deaths by that cancer. So I tried to revert the articles back to the parent categories but another editor came along and insisted thry were valid categories. So my removing was reverted. I now think I probably should start writing lists and not even start creating a carmtegory until I know I will be able to find at least 5 articles to place in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

One odd thing about categories is that it takes a lot of work to trace their build up. One can easily find the exitor who first made it, but tracing who placed the articles there takes efgort. There is also no easy way to see how the category has chsnged in size over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

José Darragueira is an article with a notice that it has no sources. That notice was placed December 2009. That was over 14 years ago. Something is not working here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I am now back to 1771 births in my going backward through time through articles by year of birth. I am running into people who I am torn about whether they go in French categories or not. I made a comment on the talk page of one article I found that he probably did, but I did not place him there. He was born in what was then the Republic of Venice. He was mayor of Split when it was part of France. Then the area became the Austrian Empire. I have found another case. Pierre David (mayor) who evidently was Mayor of a certain city both while it was in France. And then over 20 years later when it was in Belgium. I am thinking that he would go in Mayors of places in France. The issue here is that in theory we would place him in a Peiple from the First French Empire Category. The problem is that was such a shirt lived state it seems excessive to categorize people from there. We have the same problem come up for David's time as a subject of the Netherlands. The especially problem here is that we are not dealing with the French colonial Empire. From any reasonable perspective Brussels was just as much a part of France in 1807 as was Bordeaux or Marseilles. Yet the problem is that this status only lasts about 18 years. Anyone born in Brussels under French rule would really be too young when it ended to be categorized by it, unless they moved at some point and stayed in France longer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that I am to 1771 I am startling to see articles in the "People from Colonial Pennsylvania" Category and ones for the other 12 colonies. I removed a few people born later, but I do not want to act rashly here. I am thinking over the implications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

My general thought is most people are not defined by politics that ceased to exist before they were maybe 15. If thry are a child actor/actress/musicoan or somehow else notable than we could make an exception. If thry emigrate threy can be in an emigrate category no matter how young. I know there is no hard and fast rule. It does not help that even deciding if we end Colonial Pennsylvania in 1776 or 1783 is something best avoided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Angelis Gatsos illustrates why we may need to rethink how we categorize people from the early 19th-century Ottoman Empire. He is being labeled a "slavophone Greek", which boils down to "the Ottoman authorities classed him as a Greek, because they really did not have separate categories to apply to him." For now I have added him to People from the Ottoman Empire. There might be more specific categories to put him in, but I remain unconvinced that he really fits as Greek people from the Ottoman Empire. A generalized Slavic speakers from the Ottoman Empire might apply, but I am not sure this is an ethnic group, it seems more like several realted ethnic groups, and if he was Bulgarian or Macedonian Slav seems to be potentially an unsolved dispute.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Expatriates in the Republic of Genoa 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 14:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)