Index
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
19th-century Austrians versus austrian empire versus austrin
Can you please stop removing people from Austrian FOO, when you think they are only from the Austrian Empire? Removing them from the austrian parent category, makes it extremely difficult to gauge whether there are enough people to support the creature of a more specific FOO from the Austrian Empire category. It's extremely disruptive. For example, there are more than enough botanists to support the creation of a Botanists from the austrian empire, but you would never know it from the state of the categories because you removed all of them from the austrian botanists tree. PLEASE keep them in a category that reflects that they are in the austrian botanists tree. Mason (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's just not a good use of anyone's time for you to keep removing people from the austrian parent category.
I don't understand why this request is so difficult.Removing them wastes other people's time and makes it harder to justify the creation of austrian empire categories. Mason (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have not removed anyone from the any Austrian category that they were not being placed in an Austrian Empire category for for several weeks at least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great! As you're going through biographies, do add them back or create more specific austrian empire occupation categories. Mason (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- One person though you added back to German categries. German is meant for nationals of Germany, not ethnic Germans who lived outside Germany. He lived in the Austrian Empire. I do not think he needs to be in German categories at all. I have for now placed him in an Austrian Empire category. It might be worth creating a category German people from the Austrian Empire, but I think not, for the same reason we have African-American writers and not European-American writers, the ethnic Germans were the ruling class and dominant culture of the Austrian Empire. People from the Austrian Empire are default thought of as German speakers, just the same way the European-American writers, if we are using European to do the same work as African in African-American writers, writers who have known or perceived ancestry to Europe at some distance, not just children or grandchildren of immigrants, would be not a workable category. Plus realistically it would be Anglo-American writers, so we would exclude people who were in obvious ways French, Spanish or Itialian, or even German, but include people who were part of the dominant Anglo culture even if they had no English ancestry, we do not do this because we do not categorize by being in the dominant culture, and that is what we would be doing with Germans from the Austrian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mason (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- One person though you added back to German categries. German is meant for nationals of Germany, not ethnic Germans who lived outside Germany. He lived in the Austrian Empire. I do not think he needs to be in German categories at all. I have for now placed him in an Austrian Empire category. It might be worth creating a category German people from the Austrian Empire, but I think not, for the same reason we have African-American writers and not European-American writers, the ethnic Germans were the ruling class and dominant culture of the Austrian Empire. People from the Austrian Empire are default thought of as German speakers, just the same way the European-American writers, if we are using European to do the same work as African in African-American writers, writers who have known or perceived ancestry to Europe at some distance, not just children or grandchildren of immigrants, would be not a workable category. Plus realistically it would be Anglo-American writers, so we would exclude people who were in obvious ways French, Spanish or Itialian, or even German, but include people who were part of the dominant Anglo culture even if they had no English ancestry, we do not do this because we do not categorize by being in the dominant culture, and that is what we would be doing with Germans from the Austrian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:20th-century South Korean actresses
Please don't remove the Korean parent categories. There is a long standing consensus that Korean foo are parents of South and North Korean categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasongarrison (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- What consensus? The headers themselves clearly state the category is for people from a unified Korea. There are huge issues with creating bad signals as to what category should be used that this creates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC).
- As the category headers suggest, Korean is the designation for nationals of Korea. Korea is a nation that de jure ended no later than 1948. Placing someone born in 1949 (or actually slightly earlier but that is another story) in a Korean Category makes no more sense than placing someone born in Minsk in 1993 in a Soviet Category, someone botmrn in Sarajevo in 1997 in a Yugoslav category, or someone born in Ismir in 1930 in an Ottoman Empire category. We also do not make Brlarusian people a subcat of Soviet people, Turkish people a subcat of People from the Ottoman Empire or Croatian people a sub-cat of Yugoslav people. The new countries are distinct and different from the old. If we have an article on a theatre director born and lived in Skopeje all his life born in 1995 and one on a theatre director born and kuved in Zagred all her life born in 2000, and those are our only theatre detractors from what was when I was young Yugoslavia, we do not place them in Yugoslav theatre directors as an alternate to 1 article categories. That is an option presented by the parenting. Nor if we have 5 theatre directors from Croatia and 7 from North Macadonia, all post-1992, do we place the two categories under Yugoslav theatre directors. We should not do the same thing for Korea that we refuse to do for Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union or any other dead country. Just because over the last 65 yrkears North Korea and South Korea use Korea in their name, does not mean there is still a Korea. We categorize by what is, not by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- JPL, as I stated elsewhere, the norm is to use Korea as the parent category for both north and south korea. Please do not be intentionally disruptive. Mason (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Duchy of Lucca year categories
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Duchy of Lucca year categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:South Korean physicians, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Why did you remove this after we discussed this? Mason (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please seek consensus before making massive changes to parenting. Seeking consensus in advance is a good habit for you to cultivate because it is a way to demonstrate that you understand and can respect decisions you disagree with. Mason (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will keep this in mind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for considering it! Mason (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will keep this in mind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
fl.
I just came across an article that gave fl. And the dates 1730-1743. Someone who clearly had never read the article put the subject in 1730 births. The article said the man first published a book around 1730. Just because it is a children's book does not mean the puublisher is a child.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Burials in Virginia
In the interest of clarity, shouldn't this shell category really be called "Burial Places in Virginia"? Burials are graves, which is why bio articles are being added here. Shouldn't an encyclopedia be clear? Cmacauley (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It really should be "Burials by cemetery in Virginia". The guidelines suggest that we can add bio articles to a category like "Burials at Arlington National Cemetery". However they also state in general this can be covered by a list on the article on the Cemetery. Only cemeteries where such a list would be unwieldy should we create a category for. Because of this we have "Burials by place in Philadelphia", etc. The problem is "place" is a fuzzy term. When it is subdividing a city it is clear that we mean a Cemetery or place that functions like a Cemetery. When we go to the state level people might interpret "place" to mean city. I think we would be best served by calling the state level articles "Burials in Virginia by cemetery" etc. , and then attaching a note saying that by cemetery we also mean castles, large estates and other similar specific locations where people are buried. Although part of me thinks it might be better to scrap all the Burials at X cemetery categories, and either merge their contents onto a list in the article on the cemetery (or specific place where people are buried that is not technically a cemetery), or in a case like Arlington National Cemetery and others of that order create a list-article just of people buried there. I really do not think even the cemetery someone is buried in is defining to an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)