User talk:Johnpacklambert

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Should we have an upper limit of number of categories

Categories are supposed to be defining to the individual. They are supposed to cover the core biographical details. Some articles have over 100 categories. Winston Churchill had that many, at least at one point. I doubt all of them really are defining. I am wondering if we should have an upper limit, or if we just need more vigilance against putting people in trivial ones. The fact that some articles are in multiple categories where that is the only article in the category does not help. One would think small precise categories would lead to less on any given article. For example if domeone is the lone person in 19th-century French classical piccolo players, you would think that would mean less categories than if he was separately in 19th-century French people, classical musicians, and piccolo players. Somehow this does not work in practice. Part of the problem is that maybe he was also a flute player, and he was part of the Romantic movement in music, and he was born in 1870 and lived until 1935 do he is in 2 centuries. I am not sure there is actually a maximum number of categories, and if there is we would want to put in ludicrously high, so maybe such a rule would not help, buy we maybe want to Co sider this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are supposed to help with navigation between pages. I don't think that putting a limit on categories serves that mission. Mason (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Placing people in categories that are utterly trivial and not at all central to what defines them does not either. Limiting the total number of categories might cause people to focus more on these key defining things when creating categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, perhaps a policy to be more intention after you hit a certain number might split the difference. Mason (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a better approach. On the other hand, it might just help if we more consistently did not have overly narrow cats. A hard rule against any category having under 5 articles under any circumstances would cut down the overall number of categories. Another help might be if we had guidance that said "if you are going to place people in multiple occupational categories, care should be taken to not place them in occupational categories that were overly brief to be defining."John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>care should be taken to not place them in occupational categories that were overly brief to be defining
I'm pretty sure that that's the case regardless of how many other categories they are in. Mason (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example Ben Affleck was in a poker players category. I do not think that is significant to him at all and removed him from it. The various places his much earlier ancestors came from in Europe are also not defining to him, so I removed that about a half a dozen categories. That has brought us down to 48 categories. Does it make sense for him to be in both Actors from Cambridge, Massachussetts and Actors from Boston? This seems excessive. I think the 48 categories he is in are far too many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet that is 20 less than the number of categories his wife is in. She is in 68 categories. One of the reasons why is because for reasons I am not convinced make sense we categorize musicians by the label they contracted with. Yet many musicians contracted with multiple labels, Lopez has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I worry that this cut off with disadvantage people who are in more groups naturally. The fact that his wife is in 68 categories, doesn't surprise me because most women are in the women version of the category and the ungendered version of the category. So I'd expect her to have a lot more categories based on that fact alone. Please, think about how this approach would affect different kinds of pages. Mason (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet

I jyst realized we have the article Tibet (1912–1951). We also have various Tibetan categories. I wonder if some of these would better function as nationality categories which we call People from Tibet, Writers from Tibet, Scholars from Tibet, Artists from Tibet, etc. and we state in the header these articles are limited to people who were nationals of the Tibet linked yo in that article. Maybe we should start with People from Tibet (1912-1951) and then see how large it gets. I have to admit I hate using year modifiers in a category named like that, but matching the article name is the best way to ensure we are matching scope and subject. For other cases where a polity name is ambiguous, such as the Kingdom of Naples, Republic of Venice, Republic of Geneva, Republic of Genoa, Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Kingdom of Saxony Kingdom of Bavaria, Kingdom of Prussia, etc. we have articles without year modifiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British North America

In general categories should follow the lead of articles. We have an article British North America we do not have one entitled pre-confederation Canada.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that categories should follow articles? And then shouldn't we be placing these people into Canadian categories because often the lead says that the person is canadian. The lead rarely ever describes someone as British North American. If you want to upend the consensus, please draft a case that other people would find convincing. Mason (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article on a person often is not well vetted. Articles on places are well vetted and based on research. That is the best place to look for information. Articles on places are written using reliable sources about that matter. Articles on people often totally violate the rule that in describing where an event occurred we should use the standard description of that place for that time. John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In categories we over and over again defer to article names. When a name of an article changes we change the name of the category in most cases. We normally match the disambiguation in article names. Thos is because articles on a subject are built on what reliable sources on the subject say. Reliable sources refer to British North America. On the other hand we have a clear rule that in articles events should be decided by using the terms referring to a place when an event occurred. This rule is flagrantly and frequently broken. I do not think we should use what is said in biographical articles to develop our understanding of polity based categories, especially when it goes against what is actually said in those polity based articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a policy? Because this seems like you're saying articles should sometimes be deferred to, but only for non-biographies. Mason (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, up until recently many of these biographical articles Saud the person was born in x place in Ontario or Quebec. Even though it was not in Ontario or Quebwc when they were born there. This is mostly because it is easier to just link to the existing article than to make sure the linking, or double linking properly uses the contemporary names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that seems to be a reflection of what people consider defining. Mason (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twin categoroes

I just came across a very well known singer and saw that he was in the twin category. We recently removed all articles on individuals from the triplet category. I am seeing no reason why we have articles on individuals in the twin category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the twin category is supposed to include all flavors of multiples, rather than triples aren't defining while twins are. Mason (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is defining at all to individual articles that the subject had another sibbling born at the same time as them. I think in almost all cases this is a trivial detail that we should not be categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But people are often described as twins, which seems to be the definition of defining even if you consider it to be an important detail.Mason (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are also often described as a first-born son, and lots of other things that we do not categorize by. Also, the person in question I just can across a statement that it is common knowledge he was hisparents only son, yet he had a twin brother. So sometimes being a twin is so trivial it is not even widely known. We do not categorize people by being posthumous births, or method of birth, or number of siblings. I really do not think we should categorize people for being twins. If we have an article on a set of twins that makes sense. I think the same reasons that we do not categorize people for being one in a set of triplets absolutely apply to not categorizing one person in a set of twins.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ernst Neumann

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]

NPOV language

I am thinking that there is no good reason we should ever directly call someone a "hero". That is a very much Point-of-view and non-neutral statement. We can say that sources regularly call people heroes. However I do not think we should do it directly. Especially in cases where people were a hero of a revolution/independence movement. In those cases there is another side in the conflict that would view the situation very differently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nethelands

I think we should replace categories that use "Dutch" as the name of a nationality with "People from the Netherlands", "Writers from the Netherlands", "Scientists from the Netherlands", etc. Those from the Netherlands from 1815 on a clearly defined group (maybe even earlier), but whether "Dutch" is the best word for them all is open to dispute. Especially from 1815-1830, but there are sizeable groups within the Netherlands to this day that are not ethnically Dutch, there is a sizeable Frisian population, and Dutch is more an exterior English imposed name, not what they call themselves. With the articles at "The Netherlands", etc, I think it would be more clear what we mean if we used "People from the Netherlands", etc. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials at sea

I am not seeing how being buried at sea is at all defining. We already have another category for people who died at sea, so many people end up in both. If the country, state, county, province, region or city of burial is not defining, I see no reason that burial at sea would be defining at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eeltsje Hiddes Halbertsma, he is not described as Dutch in the article, but we end up putting him in Dutch categories because we have named the categories for people from the Netherlands "Dutch", even though there are many people who are subjects of the Netherlands who identify as things like Frisian (that is the case here) and not Dutch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Carletonville, Michigan

Howdy, sorry to bother you. If I shouldn’t be contacting you directly then feel free to tell me off and delete this. I was recently looking through the orphaned articles category and found this from 2018. I tried to find some online sources about it but all I could find were websites quoting the Wikipedia article directly. After reading WP:NGEO, I’m not really sure if it meets the WP notability guidelines and if it should be removed. I’d just like any input you have before tagging it. Cowinatree (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is based solely on Romig. The mention of it there is about 1 or 2 lines. That says it was a place that was named, but does not tell us what if any legal status the place every had. I am hesitant to say anything else since I am under a topic ban related to participating in deletion, which extends even to articles I created and have been the only substantial editor of. I hope even saying that much has not triggered a negative reaction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxa named by issue

I do not believe we should place "taxa named by person x" under the fooian taxonomists tree. This is close to implying nationality to taxa, which should not be, and especially not by the person who named them. Additionally we have far too many 1 articles fooian taxonomists categories, or ones with only a taxa name by person x subcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kara-Kyrgyz Khanate

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

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?

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]

We have too many century categories

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

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]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnpacklambert"