User talk:Johnpacklambert

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


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]

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]

1790 v 1791 births[edit]

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)[reply]

Category:Harvard Extension School alumni has been nominated for merging[edit]

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)[reply]

People from the Kingdom of Prussia[edit]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Circassia[edit]

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)[reply]

Category:Circassia has been nominated for merging[edit]

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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

John R. Cocke[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert&oldid=1227204404"