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

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.

I have noticed a lot of people in x century in Boston categories. Also a few in x decade in y country categories. These seem irregular. Normally we only put people in x century fooian people or x century people from Foo categories. Is there any good reason to leave these articles in the Foo in y century cats? How about the Foo in y decade cats. It would seem people live in too many decades for such a scheme to actually be reasonable. Since there are other non'-Biographical articles on these categories this is not an issue of deleting them, only of excluding bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An example of what is going on is Ernst Frederik Walterstorff. He is in 3 different x decade in the Danish West Indies categories. He is also in the governors of the Danish West Indies category. We generally do not create by decade categories for people, because people normally have several decades in which they do defining things. Basically we break people by century, of by things that are not really year related. Some categories for political terms mention years, but they related to political terms. We do not have 1910s American writers, 1990s American actresses, 1940s American artists, 1950s American women singers, or as far as I know any such categories. I am really thinking people should not be placed in these by decade categories, which are mainly meant for events that generally happen in a certain year, or establishments in a year. We do not subdivide births by place of birth, so we would have to place people in every decade in which they have a defining part of their life. Many people would go in 5 or more categories, and a few would go in at least 8. I can name probably a half dozen or more actors and actresses who could without any question go in at least 5 such categories without even trying. I do think we want to start categorizing people this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Savoyard state 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) 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Ling title that is too short. To start with, I do not think it would make sense to categorize any characters in some works this way. Star Wars starts as a film. It's core cast all belongs in such a category. However I am not sure it is defining to such characters. On the other hand in Harry Potter most characters start in the books. So we would need Film series (but why series and not just film?) characters originally introduced in a film, in a book, in a play, in a comic book, in a radio show, in a video game, adapted from folklore/oral stories and maybe more. Including film series characters adapted from real people/historical people. Down this road lies madness. Is the origin of a character defining? Many characters have 1 article for their existence in multiple media. Lastly, are we sure what to call some characters. Names change somewhat at times, but is it a new character or just a name change. At what point does artistic license break a character from their original work. Do we want parallel structures for TV characters, comic characters, novel characters, etc. The fact that some characters exist as one character in multiple media, such as Jim Kirk and many others on star trek with continuity in TV series and film series would make this a truly complex scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major 17th-century state. We should have a Category for people from this state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jurists from Denmark–Norway 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) 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized we have a category Drawing artists. I put one person who is so described there. However from past discussions it appears that our category draughtsmen is merging drawing artists and people who created techical diagrams. I think we should move those who were drawing artists to that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really defining? That people had ancestors who came from New England to Nova Scotia in around 1755-1765 or so? The first article I checked was on someone born in 1854. I am thinking that we do not need to categorize people by the exact specific reasons their ancestors came to Canada.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just had this note connected with an edit reversion. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry. This is just plain wrong practice. If we cannot be bothered to mention something in the text of an article, it is too trivial to categorize by. Categories are supposed to lead people through somewhat similar articles. A minimum expectation is that the information be mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair the word "professional" above means any level of paid baseball, even in this case A level minors. We have never even agreed that all these levels of playing baseball are notable, even when we were our most generous in granting notability to sportspeople. 18 different teams is just ludicrous. It comes very close to performer by performance level of teams. I am thinking at some point this violates the rule against categorizing performer by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Abbott article is 16 paragraphs plus tables and other things long. It still does not mention Winston-Salem Warthogs or several other teams that he is categorized by. I am not sure why all 18 teams cannot be expected to be mentioned in his article, but if we cannot expect them to be mentioned in the article, I am not sure at all why we should categorize by them.13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think we should limit categories to things that are mentioned in the article. If it is not defining enough to mention in the article I do not think it is defining enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. Discuss the matter at one place only, per WP:MULTI. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Overcategorization as that is fairly central, and has attracted three replies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion we have enough articles on people who are described as merchants to justify sub-dividing them by US state. The American Merchant tree looks to have about 400 or just a few less articles, but lots and lots and lots of people who the article says were merchants are not yet categorized as such. Most of these people it is in the lead, often the first thing said in the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On further reflection I do not think there are enough articles that describe the subject as a merchant. They also tend towards pre-1900, and so I doubt we could divide for all states. I will hold off at least until it is clearer we have enough articles to make all 50 states have big enough to justify categories, which is not the case yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear friend Johnpacklambert. Please remove the red label from article Rakan Daqar. And tell me how can I create article? Thanks. ZzFra (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriates from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Dutch Republic 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) 14:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]