Medical dictionary definition articles
Hi! I see you're marking a number of medical articles for deletion because they are only dictionary definition sub-stubs without any longer-term promise of becoming proper articles. While I don't have a problem with that, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, could you please consider marking these pages with {{move to wiktionary}} instead, where dictionary definitions are welcomed? -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly will. I didn't realise I could do that. Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Stubs
Hello Rathfelder, you seems to be a destubator. Thank you for... just removing the stub tag in the articles and not assessing the respective talk. Wikiproject volleyball still have a quality scale and there is a policy for stubs that states that stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub. Also it says for removing the stub template, that Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template and this article for example have not been expanded since the tag were put in place and by the way, it is just two sentences. You are not either completing the destub correctly because you have not done this in any article recently: When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary and you have to.--Osplace 01:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- The policy actually says " stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." I don't think it is appropriate in articles about sports teams to ignore the tabular information about their performance or the members of the squad. The same information could have been presented as prose. There is, in each of the volleyball articles, a lot of information. Far more than could be included in a dictionary article.
I don't see much correlation between the stub classification of articles and that on the talk pages. Many pages marked as stub are marked as start class on the talk page, if they are assessed at all, and many of the stub assessments are clearly outdated. I am working through the 1000 largest stubs. Most of them are clearly no longer stubs. These are all articles with more than 10,000 characters. There are screensful of useful information. I don't edit the assessments on the talk pages because I think they are performing a different function from the stub template on the article. Some articles are marked by several projects and are differently assessed by them. For example: Talk:Swansea District (UK Parliament constituency) is assessed differently by three different projects. Talk:Shamim Ara is Rated Start-class by 3 different projects, but had a stub template on the article itself. I don't feel competent to assess in terms of the projects.
If you disagree with my assessment that is fine, I'm not going to argue with you. It's a subjective decision. But the policy is quite clear:"Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable." And I find it difficult to see what is achieved be leaving these substantial articles in the stub list.Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- You clearly have not read my comment. It does not matter if you do not see any relation between the stub classification of articles and that on the talk pages. The policy clearly says that When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary.
An article should have prose. The prose section is the main reason to promote them in the quality scale. Forget about the size. Is not whatever you want, if every single editor should do whatever it wants taking no consideration to policies what would happen? Stick to the policy. If is a large size it should be a huge stub, nothing else. When removing the tag, update the talk page, you have to. No matter if there is something different, both should read the same, if not you should help correct it, but by the policy, not your own idea. According to your talk page, you have been warned for this before, take that into consideration.--Osplace 18:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have read your comments. But I don't agree with you. I am not part of your project. A project can have its own criteria for the classification of articles which I am not party to. One article may be part of several projects, (Russia women's national under-18 volleyball team is part of 4) and they may all have different criteria. In the case of the articles you reverted most had not been rated at all by the projects they were part of, so there was nothing for me to update. Florida Launch, which I just destubbed was rated start class by the Lacrosse project, but left as a stub. The policies you complain I am not following are not consistent, nor practical, and there is a lot of evidence that they are not often followed. In fact, the reality is that only a small minority of projects are operating at all. If your project is working I will not interfere with it.
NB not every article has prose. Lists don't have prose, and the policy says that lists are not stubs. But I think an article should be judged as a whole. How much information does it contain? That is why the policy says "usually". Of course I could deconstruct the tables and turn them into prose, and I suppose you would then concede that the articles are not stubs. Rathfelder (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Removing stub templates
Hi, I came across your edits today with removing stub templates, thanks for trying to help out with stub management of pages, however, when you do remove a stub template, can you please also change the rating on the talk page too? Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any relationship between assessment of stubs from projects and the general criteria for stubs. Every project can set its own definition, and different projects can and do assess the same article differently. See discussion above on my page under the heading Stubs. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you understood what I was asking, anyway, if you remove an AFL related stub, then can you please update the AFL rating on the talk page because they're directly related. I read the discussion above and I'm just reitirating what Osplace asked "when removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary." Flickerd (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
But they aren't related at all. Projects set their own definition of a stub which may be quite different from the definition used in the encyclopedia, which is exactly what has happened in the case of the Collingwood Football Club articles. They are clearly not stubs within the criteria of the encyclopedia. If WikiProject Australian rules football wants to have their own criteria that is a matter for them. I am afraid I am not going to investigate the criteria used by each project. Especially as the explanation you appear to be using is not what is described on the project page. The status given by the project to an article on its talk page and the status of the article in the encyclopedia are two different things.Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't really be bothered with this, but continue to make your own rules which is evident in other conversations you've had on your talk page. Flickerd (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- If you can't be bothered why did you start a conversation? Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't really be bothered with this, but continue to make your own rules which is evident in other conversations you've had on your talk page. Flickerd (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I see that you've removed stub templates from a few New Zealand election articles. Those articles where that has happened that are on my watchlist have hardly any prose, but long lists of candidates. Therefore, the article cannot possibly be start class, but it's reasonable to assign list class status to them. Going forward, can you please re-rate those NZ election articles as list class when you remove stub tags? Schwede66 08:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- List status is particular to individual projects. Stub status is across the encyclopedia, and the policy, as I understand it, is that lists, however imperfect, are not stubs WP:STUB. I'm afraid I cannot investigate the policies of every project, so I do not interfere with the status assigned by the project (s) on the talk page. Different projects can, and do, assign different status to the same article and adopt different criteria for the same status. That is a matter for them. Rathfelder (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- You are asking me to remember a special procedure for those articles - of which I may see no more for months. I am working through the 1000 longest stubs. There may be no more New Zealand politics articles. I will try, but I may forget.Rathfelder (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Combining CfD nominations
- Start with one category.
- For every next category, add an extra 'propose' line manually.
- Copy the script of the CfD template from the page of the first nominated category to the pages of the other categories, but change |1= into |1=section title. Usually the section title on the CfD page is identical to the first nomination category. For example |1=Category:Malaysian obstetricians.
Hopefully this helps? It's not super user friendly, but it's not super complicated either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
De-stubbing
Thank you for removing stub templates from articles that are no longer considered stubs. As an experienced editor, you ought to know that articles are marked as stubs both using stub templates in the article itself and with article assessments on the talk pages. When de-stubbing, you should also update the assessments on the talk page. WP:DESTUB – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Each project has its own criteria for article status, and I am not in a position to investigate them all. I have a week to work through the 1000 longest stubs. There is not much correlation between the status on the articles and those on the talk pages, and indeed it appears not many projects are actually active. It is quite possible for the same article to have a different status on different projects - like this one New Ross (UK Parliament constituency) - the last one I did. If someone on a project thinks I've got it wrong then please correct me. Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand you position and, having read the discussion above (@Flickerd and Schwede66: courtesy ping), agree to a degree. In principle, each WP has its own assessment scale. In practice however, they seem to agree, especially in the low-end of the scale. I understand that you hesitate to update the ratings because doing so on a lot of pages means it's either prohibitively time consuming or leads to getting some assessments wrong. But what you're doing now is bound to end up with the wrong result every time. Stub templates and WP ratings are not supposed to disagree. While as a WP:VOLUNTEER you don't have to assess on the talk page, the guideline says you should. It's a bit like volunteering to add opening brackets of wls and transclusions but neverminding to close them, to be honest... a job half done that leaves behind a mess.
- I'm not in a position to tell you what to do, other than follow our guidelines, but since this issue has been brought up a couple of times now, something should change. If I were you, I'd WP:BOLDly change each project's Stub rating to Start. If individual projects' members disagree with that assessment, then great, they can revise it to a more accurate one. But right now everyone including you agree that these are not stubs and should not be called Stubs in the assessment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- This should be a two way process. The last article I did Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1924 was rated start class by the project, but left as a stub on the article. 1973 Philadelphia Eagles season was rated start class by three separate projects - all of which left the stub on the article. I think this is a bigger problem than me. I'd like to see the two linked together. But I also find the common criteria for start class "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources." completely subjective. I don't want to get into arguments with people from projects who will not a lot more about these subjects than I do. I'm using very simple criteria - any article in the top 1000 longest stubs is not a stub unless there is something unusual about it - like a big infobox or a blank table.Rathfelder (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree: as long as we have two separate places for tagging article as stubs, there will be discrepancies and I've certainly seen them before. My gut instinct here is simply that if we don't think something is a stub, it's at minimum a start. It's expected that some project members will disagree, but my instinct is that in the vast majority of cases they won't. When they do, you too already agree that the project rating scale should take precedence, so it doesn't really sound like a particularly bitter fight. Personally I wish that ratings below GA will be handled by mw:ORES in the future. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Would you say that It's Like, You Know... is a stub? User:IJBall does - but he's using the project definition of a stub - which is not quite the same as WP:STUB Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- First, I would like to second Finnusertop, above – if you're going to remove stub tags then you also need to change the Talk page assessments at the same time. Second, in general, I find that you have been too aggressive in removing stub tags – you are removing them from articles that are just 1 or 2 sentences long (e.g. Jagger Eaton's Mega Life), or from articles that have just 1 real secondary source (e.g. It's Like, You Know...). Again, as per "all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this [stub] category" (which while not mentioned directly in WP:STUB, is mentioned in pretty much every WP assessment criteria I've ever seen...), we should only be removing 'stub' tags from articles that have 10 or more sentences and at least 2 or 3 good quality secondary sources. For an article like It's Like, You Know..., finding 1 or 2 additional sources shouldn't be that hard – in fact, that has been on my mental "To Do" list (I just haven't gotten around to it...). Just add 1 or 2 more sources to that one, and I agree that it will graduate to 'Start' class. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Would you say that It's Like, You Know... is a stub? User:IJBall does - but he's using the project definition of a stub - which is not quite the same as WP:STUB Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree: as long as we have two separate places for tagging article as stubs, there will be discrepancies and I've certainly seen them before. My gut instinct here is simply that if we don't think something is a stub, it's at minimum a start. It's expected that some project members will disagree, but my instinct is that in the vast majority of cases they won't. When they do, you too already agree that the project rating scale should take precedence, so it doesn't really sound like a particularly bitter fight. Personally I wish that ratings below GA will be handled by mw:ORES in the future. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- This should be a two way process. The last article I did Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1924 was rated start class by the project, but left as a stub on the article. 1973 Philadelphia Eagles season was rated start class by three separate projects - all of which left the stub on the article. I think this is a bigger problem than me. I'd like to see the two linked together. But I also find the common criteria for start class "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources." completely subjective. I don't want to get into arguments with people from projects who will not a lot more about these subjects than I do. I'm using very simple criteria - any article in the top 1000 longest stubs is not a stub unless there is something unusual about it - like a big infobox or a blank table.Rathfelder (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think your approach is consistent with the policy outlined in WP:STUB, which says nothing about quality or references. It is true that that approach is taken by most projects - which is why I think it is right to treat the stub assessment at the bottom of the article as having different criteria from that applied by the projects. And it is quite common to be assessed differently by different projects. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- No – the article assessment and the Talk page assessment should be in harmony. Further, the WP assessments on the Talk page should also be in harmony with each other – the only exception to that might be B-class vs. C-class assessments which might be different for different projects. But if an article is a 'Stub', it should be marked 'Stub' for all the listed WP's on the Talk page; ditto if 'Start' class. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- You can say that they should be, but they often aren't. And I take the WP:STUB policy as taking precedence over the policies of individual projects, each of which is at liberty to determine its own policies. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's an WP:Other stuff exists argument – just because some people are removing stub-tags but not updating the Talk page assessment doesn't mean you should. Frankly, you are probably going to start getting reverted just on the basis of removing stub tags without updating the Talk page assessments. Bottom line: WP:STUB and the WP assessments are supposed to work together – you're not supposed to pay attention to one, while ignoring the other. If an editor changes the WP assessments from 'Stub' to 'Start' on the Talk page, then they're supposed to remove the 'Stub'-tag from the article itself, and visa versa. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- You can say that they should be, but they often aren't. And I take the WP:STUB policy as taking precedence over the policies of individual projects, each of which is at liberty to determine its own policies. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- No – the article assessment and the Talk page assessment should be in harmony. Further, the WP assessments on the Talk page should also be in harmony with each other – the only exception to that might be B-class vs. C-class assessments which might be different for different projects. But if an article is a 'Stub', it should be marked 'Stub' for all the listed WP's on the Talk page; ditto if 'Start' class. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think you want to shoot the messenger. I would say that in a very substantial minority of the stub articles I deal with - and I only deal systematically with the 1000 longest stubs - there are discrepancies between the stub categories on the article and those applied by the various projects. I haven't caused those discrepancies. And I don't actually see any policy which says they should work together, nor any harm if they don't. Each project is free to set its own policies. They are not forced to adopt the WP:STUB policy. Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sadly, I think most of these projects are inactive. I have destubbed at least 10,000 articles and only half a dozen people from projects have ever raised this as an issue. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Articles may be stubs for any of several reasons. Those include both a stub tag on the mainspace page, or a project rating on the talk: page. The overall assessment "Is this a stub?" is subjective, contextual, and depends on whether it's pessimistic or optimistic (can any one of these indicate stubs, or must all indicate stubs?) and also on which projects are seen as both in scope and reasonably up to date. As project ratings are almost never updated, I would place a very low weight on them. There's also the aspect that some projects might have different criteria or rating levels - "unsourced" varies a lot between BLP and others, or the quality of a source is regarded differently between contemporary politics and early medieval politics.
- This issue is utterly trivial and a serious waste of time. If Rathfelder is removing stub tags from articles where they meet some basic level of sourcing, then thankyou for that. If you want to still see these as "only stubs" because you apply your own subjective rating to them based on more particular tests, or just because they have a project rating on the talk: page too, then feel free to judge them how you wish. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- The point of marking articles as stubs is presumeably to help editors prioritise their work. In active projects that seems to work well. But I can't see what is achieved by marking articles with pages of information - however poor - as stubs. But if anyone wants to revert what I do that is up to them. I am not going to fight about it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Community consensus
I think we have reached a consensus along the following line: when a stub tag is removed from an article, any stub assessment on the talk page should at least be upgraded to start class. That would mirror the expectation of those editors who have commented above. If an article is of a higher class than start, that should be attended to by members of the respective Wikiproject. If anyone gives Rathfelder grief about updating an assessment to start class in line with this consensus, this discussion can be referred to. I suggest that captures the essence of what has been discussed.
- Support as nominator. Schwede66 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well that's fine. But does this policy only apply to me? I'd say at least 100 of the 1000 stubs I just worked through had been upgraded to Start status on the talk page, but the article was still marked as a stub. Unless we find a way of tying the two together there is not much point worrying about it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Of course there's no such consensus.
- An editor removing the stub tag(s) might remove such a rating as outdated, they might choose to re-evaluate the article entirely, but stubbiness for either reason is independent. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I dont think my talk page is the place to establish a community concensus. Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely support that. (Note: This is independent of whether I agree with Rathfelder's opinion on upgrading from 'Stub' to 'Start' – but if you're going to remove the stub tag, the Talk page also needs to be updated.) The other option, of course, is for Rathfelder to drop this particular line of editing on their part, and perhaps actually try to tackle some genuine article improvement (e.g. adding sourcing) instead. There are plenty of us that are also keeping an eye on article assessment for various reasons, and we are certainly able to tackle this particular task ourselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Removal from categories
Why are you removing people from the American schoolteachers category entirely, rather than recategorizing them to the state(s) where they taught? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm doing both. They dont get in a schoolteacher category unless teaching was at least part of what makes them notable. WP:NONDEF, "...not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Holocaust survivor and other categories
I reverted your edit at Henri Kichka but think that there is a bigger issue which it might be worth clearing up around the tree of categories around Category:Holocaust survivors and Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors which do not overlap very well. There were plenty of non-Jewish political prisoners held in concentration camps who cannot be described as survivors of the Holocaust which we currently define in the article as "the World War II genocide of the European Jews". This problem is currently replicated across the sub-categories, such as Category:Politicians who died in the Holocaust and Category:Politicians who died in Nazi concentration camps (currently a sub-category). I am not sure what the solution would be.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Category:Holocaust survivors had a note (which I have removed) which referred to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum definition:
- The Museum honors as survivors any persons, Jewish or non-Jewish, who were displaced, persecuted, or discriminated against due to the racial, religious, ethnic, social, and political policies of the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945. In addition to former inmates of concentration camps, ghettos, and prisons, this definition includes, among others, people who were refugees or were in hiding.
- That embraces pretty much the entire population of Eastern Europe. Far too wide for categorisation. But categorisation is imprecise. I dont see how your reversion helps. Henri Kichka was a Buchenwald concentration camp survivor. That is fairly precise, and a subcategory of Holocaust survivors. Categorisation is heirarchical, but it doesnt follow that everything in the lowest subcategory must always meet the full definition of the highest. Rathfelder (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I do not know anything about the definition you quote, but I can quite believe that the USHMM has a remit which extends beyond the Holocaust into other forms of political and racial discrimination during World War II - this would not be particularly unusual, not least since many such centres have subsequently extended their scope to deal with the Rwandan Genocide and other unrelated post-war events (USHMM among them). However, this does not distract from the fact that boundaries of the term Holocaust is not that you have cited. It is hardly a fringe theory to distinguish between different forms of persecution carried out by the same regime (even in the same camps) and attempts to blur the two are often negationist in origin (cf the "Polocaust" saga). My issue is how to address this problem, not whether it exists. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I can only talk about the articles we actually have, and they are at least 95% about Jewish people (as defined by the Nazis). There are not enough about non-Jewish people to justify breaking down the sub-categories into Jewish and not, whatever words you use. I'm really working on the concentration camp survivors and ghetto inmates. I dont think I have seen any articles which describe non-Jewish people as Holocaust survivors, and I dont think including a very small number of non-Jews into the concentration camp survivors categories undermines the point you are making. If anything I am concerned that there dont seem to be articles about the other groups who were persecuted. Rathfelder (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I cannot comment on this but I do not believe it to be correct. Category:Belgian people who died in Nazi concentration camps for example includes 7 names of whom only two are Jewish. However, it is a sub-category of Category:People who died in the Holocaust by nationality and Category:People who died in the Holocaust. Personally, I think the solution would be to create a series of Category:Holocaust survivors from Foo while keeping Category:Foo concentration camp survivors entirely separate and outside the Holocaust category trees. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I havent looked at the categories of people who died. They may be different. But equally Belgium is rather different from Eastern Europe. One of the main points of the subcategories as I see them is that the deal with how people survived, or not. A very different question from nationality. And nationality in Europe between 1933 and 1945 is quite problematic in itself. Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think nationality would have to refer to pre-war nation states ("Holocaust survivors from Poland [in the United States]" rather than "American Holocaust survivors", for example). @Buidhe: do you have a perspective on this? Perhaps we could open this for an RFC.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I havent looked at the categories of people who died. They may be different. But equally Belgium is rather different from Eastern Europe. One of the main points of the subcategories as I see them is that the deal with how people survived, or not. A very different question from nationality. And nationality in Europe between 1933 and 1945 is quite problematic in itself. Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I cannot comment on this but I do not believe it to be correct. Category:Belgian people who died in Nazi concentration camps for example includes 7 names of whom only two are Jewish. However, it is a sub-category of Category:People who died in the Holocaust by nationality and Category:People who died in the Holocaust. Personally, I think the solution would be to create a series of Category:Holocaust survivors from Foo while keeping Category:Foo concentration camp survivors entirely separate and outside the Holocaust category trees. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly think what we have now is a bit of a mess. But I'm not sure what we could put to an RFC. Partly its a mess because in reality its very messy. Full of contested definitions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- The USHMM may use a different definition but I believe the common academic usage of "holocaust survivor" is for Jews only, restricting the word "Holocaust" to the genocide of Jews as opposed to other forms of Nazi persecution and crimes. Also, requiring RS to state someone is a holocaust survivor is also necessary per WP:V. Pre-war nationality is likely more defining than post-war. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- The article, Holocaust survivors, to which we have to adhere, uses the wider definition. "the term includes anyone who was discriminated against, displaced or persecuted as a result of the policies and actions of the Nazis and their allies and, in addition to Jews who were uniquely targeted for complete annihilation, it includes those who were persecuted as a result of the Nazis' racial theories, such as the Romani people and Slavs, along with others who were seen as "undesirables" such as homosexuals, or for political reasons, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Communists."Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, the definition at Holocaust survivor has now been changed by consensus. It's clearly the categorisation now which is the issue. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- It still includes " non-Jews who also experienced collective persecution under the Nazi regime " - much of the population of Eastern Europe. And most of the articles are categorised in Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. Only those without such details are in the residual Category:Holocaust survivors. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
x–y relations and expatriates/emigrants
Hello. You keep removing the "x–y relations" categories from the categories "x expatriates in y" and "x emigrants to y" (e.g. [1]). Other editors also keep adding them back after you've removed them, like User:Good Olfactory here: [2][3][4]. At the moment, we have this many categories that are categorized into the bilateral relations categories:
- 8,033 expatriate
- 189 emigrant (this number is much lower because almost all emigrant categories (3,219 at the moment) are categorized into the "x people of y descent" categories, which are categorized into the "x–y relations" categories)
My opinion is that as migration always has cultural, political and economic effects (and: bilateralism is the conduct of political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states
), those expatriate/emigrant categories fit into the "x–y relations" categories. But as you seem to disagree, I think we should ask others' opinions first, because this concerns thousands of categories (linked above) that have been in this state for years. 87.95.206.253 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think its a pragmatic question. In some situation emigration affects relationships between states. In others it doesnt. But emigrants do not belong in "x people of y descent" categories. That is misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it's misleading. One meaning of a "FOOian person" is a "person from FOO". It doesn't necessarily mean nationality or citizenship. If a person is a "BARian emigrant to FOO", they have become a person from FOO, or a FOOian person. And being from BAR originally, they are of BARian descent. The emigrants categories were really placed in the descent categories for ease of navigation among the bewildering number of related categories. It's not supposed to be an exact one-to-one equivalence in every situation. Categories are meant to be easy to use and help you navigate through articles with related characteristics. Removing these connections is making it more difficult. Now that two users have suggested as much, we should probably pause the removal of these. We should probably have an RFC on the issue of whether the emigrants category should (1) be placed in the person of descent categories; (2) be placed in the bilateral relations category; or (3) be placed in neither. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- A person from Foo is ambiguous. A Fooian person isnt. People dont necessarily become Fooian because they live there. Fooian is a nationality. Some migrants change their nationality but many dont. Very few articles say anything about nationality. Not everyone from BAR is of BARian descent. I dont see how it helps navigation to mix up immigrants from BAR with FOOish people of BARian descent. Rathfelder (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The expatriate categories are dominated by sportspeople. I dont see how they affect bilateral international relations. Rathfelder (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I think you should stop removing these categories until the issue is discussed more broadly. Clearly there is disagreement. I disagree that FOOian means, necessarily, nationality. (And even if it does, many people assume that "nationality" = "citizenship", but it does not. There is a difference between being a national of a country and being a citizen of a country.)
I'm going to start constructing an RfC, so I would appreciate your forbearance until then. I suspect the other users who have talked to you about this would also appreciate it.Actually, I probably won't get to an RfC for a little while. I guess a good place to leave it is for both sides to recognize that there is disagreement as to how the categorization should work with these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)- Not an RfC, but an attempt to get some discussion going. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I think you should stop removing these categories until the issue is discussed more broadly. Clearly there is disagreement. I disagree that FOOian means, necessarily, nationality. (And even if it does, many people assume that "nationality" = "citizenship", but it does not. There is a difference between being a national of a country and being a citizen of a country.)
- I don't think it's misleading. One meaning of a "FOOian person" is a "person from FOO". It doesn't necessarily mean nationality or citizenship. If a person is a "BARian emigrant to FOO", they have become a person from FOO, or a FOOian person. And being from BAR originally, they are of BARian descent. The emigrants categories were really placed in the descent categories for ease of navigation among the bewildering number of related categories. It's not supposed to be an exact one-to-one equivalence in every situation. Categories are meant to be easy to use and help you navigate through articles with related characteristics. Removing these connections is making it more difficult. Now that two users have suggested as much, we should probably pause the removal of these. We should probably have an RFC on the issue of whether the emigrants category should (1) be placed in the person of descent categories; (2) be placed in the bilateral relations category; or (3) be placed in neither. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Categorisation of clergy
I think we need some guidance or policy for dealing with ecclesiastical complexity.
These ideas have come from the work I've done on established churches. I'm not sure how well they would work on other religions or denominations.
We need to distinguish between articles about bishops/archbishops and articles about the dioceses - even though the diocese articles usually contain a list of incumbents.
There is a fairly clear religious hierarchy in established churches: From Category:Christians to Category:Christian clergy to priests (or ministers) to bishops to archbishops and, in the Roman Catholic church, to cardinals and popes. Category:Religious leaders,Category:Priests and Category:Clergy are not confined to Christian denominations. Ordained clergy should not normally be in these wide categories, nor in categories of believers like Category:American Roman Catholics unless they change their faith. It seems sensible to categorise articles by the high point of an ecclesiastical career unless, for example, the different stages were in different countries. So Category:Nigerian cardinals do not also need to be in Category:Nigerian Roman Catholic bishops, though they would be in a diocesan category.
Bishops should primarily be categorised by the country of their diocese, not, normally, their personal nationality, and the same considerations should apply to archbishops. They are both attached to a location and that is what makes them notable. We use Bishops of Blah to indicate that Blah is the name of the diocese. Bishops in Foo means that the diocese is in Foo. We should try to categorise all the bishops and archbishops by diocese, although that is not always practicable (and titular bishops dont really have dioceses), but the country categories should primarily be populated with the diocesan subcategories.
Fooish bishops indicates their personal nationality and can be used for expatriate/migrant bishops. But generally its clearer to categorise migrants as Fooish priests, because generally they are consecrated in their diocese, not in their country of origin. That is not true of cardinals, and they should be categorised by nationality. Lower rank clergy might need to be categorised either by nationality or by location, or sometimes by both. The country to which they are attached should, as far as possible, be the country as it was when they were there, not the country now, because established churches were entangled with the state.
It should not be necessary to prefix all these categories with Roman Catholic/Anglican/ Orthodox unless more than one denomination is possible in that time and place. So we dont need to say Roman Catholic before the 11th century, and in Western European countries not before the reformation affected that country.
Religions do sometimes divide the world in their own way - not using political country divisions - and we may need to use these, but they need to be clearly indicated if they are not to cause confusion.
Marcocapelle, John Pack Lambert, Oculi, Laurel Lodged, Fayenatic, Peterkingiron I would like to know what you think of this attempt to devise a way forward. In particular I would like to find some resolution to the problem of migrant bishops which will not lead back to the confused mess we have now.Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Observation 1 unfortunately some denominations prefer to have their name included in the name of the diocese. See Category:Anglican bishops of Gippsland which is also per the main article - Anglican Diocese of Gippsland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Why would that be a problem? In places where there are two bishops of different denominations it would be necessary anyway. Rathfelder (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- There is not going to be consensus about pursuing this in any of the discussions that are currently open. Once they are closed the best is to ask User:Good Olfactory to revert the merge closure in the very first discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I notice the first discussion is up for deletion review. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree that we should start again. Shall I withdraw those nominations? Rathfelder (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I really think we need to recognize that bishops are a sub-set of priests. Thus the following makes more sense. A-Bishops should be categorized by nationality. They should not be assigned nationality for a place they were only after they became a priest unless we have very compelling evidence otherwise. B-since bishops are a subset of priests, no bishop should be in a by nationality priest category, unless we make the deliberate decision that the category is too small to split out bishops. C-I think we should look at this as a denominational issue, and I see no reason to have transdenominational categories for priests or bishops by nationality. If we do, we should treat pre-reformation categories as seperate. D-If we do not put bishops in by nationality priest categories, this means that placing every bishop in a category by his nationality and a category linked to the diocese(s) where he was bishop is not going to lead to excessive category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I agree with most of that, although we need to recognise that there are enormously more articles about bishops than about priests. Many small countries have a bishop category but no priests. And I dont think we would get agreement to remove transdenominational categories for priests or bishops by nationality.
I think we should exploit the ambiguity of nationality. If we characterise bishops by nationality, so for each country there is a category of Fooish bishops, then we can have a subcategory of Bishops in Foo - where not all the individual bishops will personally be Fooish - if its needed. Those in the superior category will be the Fooish bishops who served somewhere else. The Bishops in Foo can be subcategorised by diocese in Foo. The migrant bishops will be categorised as Fooish bishops but also as Bishops in Bar. If we go about it like that perhaps we only need one superior category - Bishops by nationality.Rathfelder (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
People from Foo
Hi, I note you have been removing "People from City" categories for a number of Belgian articles without discussion. At Oscar Michiels, you said this was because the Category:Royal Military Academy (Belgium) faculty fitted into Category:People from Brussels and I assume the same logic underpins your other deletions. This does not follow at all. It is perfectly possible to teach at a Brussels-based institution without coming from Brussels. At very least, this kind of change to the entire purpose of the category tree should have been discussed! Please revert so it can be dealt with constructively. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Throughout the encyclopedia "People from a city by occupation" includes employees of organisations based in the city. "From" is completely ambiguous. But being born in a place is not, in itself, defining. Categories are supposed to be defining. If members of the faculty are notable that is sufficient to make them people from Brussels. Categories are heirarchical. People should not be in Category:People from Brussels if they are also in a subcategory. Please see WP:SUBCAT. Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I've been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade and have never seen a "People from Foo City" category working as you claim - from may be ambiguous in some senses I accept, but it is obvious that a person does not become from a city simply by virtue of holding a post there. Again, please revert and gain consensus per WP:BRD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Most "People from City" categories have plenty of people who were not born there. It's where they did whatever made them notable that matters. See Category:Academics from London, Category:People from Los Angeles by occupation or Category:People from Berlin by occupation. I'm following a very well established policy. If you think "a person does not become from a city simply by virtue of holding a post there" perhaps you could explain how they do become from a city? Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Here from Wikipedia talk:Categorization. In general, I have typically seen "people from city" used to classify people who were *born* in that city, and "people from city by occupation" subcategories used to split large unwieldy categories (still of people born in that city). Categories used in this way should definitely not be removed. They may also reasonably be used for people with strong non-birth associations with a city, but that does not justify their removal as birth categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Birth is not defining. By occupation from a city clearly does not imply being born there. I am not removing categories. Quite the opposite. But categories are heirarchical. WP:COPPLACE says, very clearly "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual."Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, the place of birth is so clearly defining that a large number of nations use it as the primary determinant of citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- And some dont. But nationality and location are not the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Additionally, the location of childhood plays a large role in determining most people's later lives, not to mention such fundamentals as the dialect that they speak. This may or may not be the same as the location of birth but most biographies don't distinguishing carefully. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- And some dont. But nationality and location are not the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, the place of birth is so clearly defining that a large number of nations use it as the primary determinant of citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to see how these considerations bear on the categorisation of the Royal Military Academy (Belgium) faculty. They were clearly people whose occupation was in Brussels. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I see you are going ahead with edits to this effect in spite of the discussion here. Regardless of the merits of your argument, this behaviour is verging on disruptive. As for your claim above, it is perfectly possible to teach in institution in City A while never living there. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- To say a person is from a city does not mean that they were born there, not that they lived there. It is where they did what made them notable. I am following well established policy. If you want to change that policy this is not the place to do it. Rathfelder (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with Brigade Piron. We have usually used these categories only for people who were born or grew up in a city (i.e. are from there in the usual sense of the term). Changing this to people who may have lived or worked there for a bit is fundamentally changing the whole system of categorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- You may have done that, but plenty dont. Look at Category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty, a subcategory of Category:People from Los Angeles by occupation. How many of those 846 people were born in Los Angeles? There have been plenty of discussions of this issue and it it is clear, and agreed, that "from" is ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that, as is often the case, there may often be a divide here between practice by North American editors and by European/Commonwealth editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- And how many of Category:Academics of the University of Oxford were born or grew up in Oxford? Plenty of editors do not understand the categorisation system, but that does not entitle you to disregard them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that, as is often the case, there may often be a divide here between practice by North American editors and by European/Commonwealth editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Insofar it is desirable at all to categorize people by populated place at all, it is completely reasonable to have Category:Academics of the University of Oxford as a subcategory of Category:People from Oxford. Biographies are interesting from an encyclopedic point of view because of special things that people did or achieved in their life. If teaching at Oxford is the primary reason why people are notable they should be in an Oxford category if any at all. While we also categorize people by place of growing up, that is less relevant - it is (usually) not what makes people special. In any case "from" is ambiguous enough to allow both place of notability and place of growing up. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Rathfelder and Marcocapelle. While users are free to apply such categories in a way that recognizes birthplace and/or place of growing up, I don't see any reason why the concept is not flexible enough to include people who lived in the city because of their occupation. A person can be "from" multiple places. I've seen it used in all these ways quite a bit in WP categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn proposal
Hey, when you withdraw a proposal that did not meanwhile gain support from any other editor, like here, it is ok to speedily close the discussion yourself. The procedure is very simple:
- insert a blank line after the section title and put this bit of script {{subst:cfd top|'''withdrawn'''}} {{subst:nac}} ~~~~ on this line
- put this bit of script {{subst:cfd bottom}} underneath the discussion
- preview whether this looks ok
- save if it looks ok
- and do not forget to remove the CfD tags from the category pages
Instructions are more elaborate on this page. Don't feel you have to do this, it's just nice if you would. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Marc Guéhi
I understand the reasoning; however, multiple nations seem to have a category 'XXX emigrants to England' which include more contemporary persons. There are also some cats for 'XXX emigrants to the *Kingdom of* England' applying before 1707. Based on what you say, seems the categorisation project might have a bit of tidying up to do. Also, what about 'English emigrants to XXX'? Eagleash (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It is indeed a mess. I think it reflects English people's confused ideas about nationality. I thought I'd start with some of the smallest categories.Rathfelder (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose the various subcats will need to be put up for discussion, could be best to bundle if possible. And... then there's 'expatriate (occupation) in England'. Then we come to things like '19xx establishments in England' should that be UK as well? I've seen several instances of articles being moved to the subcat. It's definitely an extended area for discussion and will probably need to be enshrined somewhere as policy; subject to consensus. Eagleash (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed its a big job, which I have been avoiding. I'm pleased to find we agree. I think it will be controversial, but I think the migration case is strong. Migration is about changing nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's one use of it... someone needs to tell all those birds flying south for the winter, that they are now South African... Google search results FWIW. Eagleash (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed its a big job, which I have been avoiding. I'm pleased to find we agree. I think it will be controversial, but I think the migration case is strong. Migration is about changing nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Nondiffusing categories
If Category:British women academics is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:British academics, then presumably Category:Black British women academics (which you've just created) should be a non-diffusing subcat of Category:Black British academics? My head starts to spin about these, and I'm not confident enough about the syntax to just change the code myself. What do you think? As it stands, Carlene Firmin doesn't appear in any parent categories of Category:Black British women academics. Compare Category:African-American women academics, which is non-diffusing subcat of two parent cats, as are Category:Native American women academics and Category:New Zealand Māori women academics. PamD 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I think we need male categories to justify removing the non-diffusing women categories. I think I have managed this with the various categories of singers, but there is a lot more work to be done. Its clear that very large numbers of editors do not understand non-diffusing categories, so we should try to reduce their use. And this problem is even worse when you have intersections of two sorts of non-diffusing categories. Rathfelder (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Nationality
Hello Rathfelder,
I have admired from afar your systematic work of categorizing biographies of Italians, and in this regard I have a question for you: often arrive on articles dedicated to Italians of the past (before 1860) users who, often in perfect good faith, sometimes less, remove the nationality "Italian" by inserting the citizenship of the pre-unification state of the person in question (Tuscan, Neapolitan, Roman, etc.). Now, it is evident that on Wikipedia (as in the real world) there is a consensus to recognize an Italian (or German, other people who reached unification in the nineteenth century) nationality at least since the late Middle Ages, but where is this consensus described? Is there a guideline that allows to avoid debilitating discussions with users (among other things often totally ignorant) who do not know the history of Italians, and of other peoples who have achieved late (or never) their national state? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any general policy. Each historical/geographical entity has to be considered. There does seem to be agreement that we shouldnt call people Belgian before 1800, as the term wasnt generally used. And both Spain and France in the middle ages can be divided fairly easily. But as far as I can see both Italy and Germany were terms in general use long before either was unified. In Germany most of the states were so small as to make it impractical to have 18th century writers from Baden. But the Italian states were bigger and more stable, so I have tried to make some Venetian and Sicilian categories. But we have a general agreement that categories should have at least 5 articles, so its not practical to divide all of them like that - so we have Category:4th-century Italian people and not much attention to division by state until the 12th century. There are certainly enough articles to divide Category:16th-century Italian painters into states, but nobody seems to have tried. I'm afraid this isnt very helpful. You have to use your judgement. And bear in mind that categorisation is a process of successive approximation. Perfection is the enemy of improvement. Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Known mononymously as...
Hi Rathfelder, I'm not sure how many biographical articles you may have removed this lead line from, but the use of "known mononymously as" is a part of MOS:NICK formatting when the professional name is a mononym derived from her personal name.
For any kind of alternative name, use formulations like the following (as applicable):
- Timothy Alan Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen
- Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi (c. 1445 – May 17, 1510), better known as Sandro Botticelli
- Ariadna Thalía Sodi Miranda (born 26 August 1971), known mononymously as Thalía
—DA1 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Its not compulsory - there are three alternatives. Mononym is a very obscure term, not known, for example in the 1967 Oxford English dictionary. Why make the article harder to understand? What additional meaning does it convey? Rathfelder (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's why the term is wikilinked so readers can find out about it. The word "mono" is self-explanatory and clicking the wikilink teaches readers the concept. But what do you mean by 3 alternatives? It says "as applicable". Each of the 3 are different guidelines. —DA1 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- "as applicable" allows editors to use their judgement. Mononymous person is largely about legal names, not stage names. Why do we want to send readers there when its not necessary. "Fred Bloggs, known as Blogger" conveys the meaning quite adequately. In many of the exemplar articles Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva , and Madonna, for example, it is not used. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you look closely, each of the examples are different. I can't mix and match and say "Timothy Alan Dick is known mononymously as Allen" because Allen is not the name he goes by (in terms of notability). However, Thalía is a stage name and that is what she goes by. This is just what the standard MOS is. Your arguments for its change should be made separately to the MOS page itself. We shouldn't have to start a dispute over each individual case, that's what the MOS is meant to reduce in the first place. —DA1 (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- "as applicable" allows editors to use their judgement. Mononymous person is largely about legal names, not stage names. Why do we want to send readers there when its not necessary. "Fred Bloggs, known as Blogger" conveys the meaning quite adequately. In many of the exemplar articles Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva , and Madonna, for example, it is not used. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's why the term is wikilinked so readers can find out about it. The word "mono" is self-explanatory and clicking the wikilink teaches readers the concept. But what do you mean by 3 alternatives? It says "as applicable". Each of the 3 are different guidelines. —DA1 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
What does that add to the meaning which is not conveyed by "known as Thalía", apart from sending most people to find out what mononymously means?Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's not my problem. I'm just here conveying the status quo. You can make the arguments against it on the MOS page. DA1 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
It clearly isnt the status quo. There are thousands of articles about people known by a single name which dont use it, including the exemplar articles. Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Category:x-century people of Safavid Iran and Category:x-century Iranian people
Hi Rathfelder. Sorry, but I don't agree with connecting these two categories together. You can be Iranian but not live in (Safavid) Iran. I think changes such as these should also be discussed first. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- They were already connected, but several century categories were circular. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The people of Safavid Iran categories are subcategories of the Iranian ones. Rathfelder (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dangit, I mean't don't*, fixed my comment. Regardless, I don't think that should be the case, since Iranian =/= Living in (Safavid) Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- That isnt anything I've done. They were already like that. Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you again, could you please explain your reasoning behind this [5]? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- We made Category:10th-century Persian-language writers a sub-category of Category:10th-century Iranian people, so if its clear they wrote in Persian - and sometimes its not - they dont need to also be in Category:10th-century Iranian writers. This does of course assume that most 10th-century Persian-language writers were in Iran, at least for part of their lives. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- But that's wrong, writing in Persian does not equal being of Iranian descent, or even living in Iran. Sorry, but this is making this worse and more messy. I think Category:x-century Iranian people should stay for people of Iranian ethnicity and nationality (when nationality was actually a proper concept) instead of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- We made Category:10th-century Persian-language writers a sub-category of Category:10th-century Iranian people, so if its clear they wrote in Persian - and sometimes its not - they dont need to also be in Category:10th-century Iranian writers. This does of course assume that most 10th-century Persian-language writers were in Iran, at least for part of their lives. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you again, could you please explain your reasoning behind this [5]? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- That isnt anything I've done. They were already like that. Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dangit, I mean't don't*, fixed my comment. Regardless, I don't think that should be the case, since Iranian =/= Living in (Safavid) Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course writing in a language does not necessarily imply anything about descent or locality, but in fact for these 10th century writers they are all described as Persian. Categorisation is not an exact science. Rathfelder (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Categorisation is not a place for probability/guessing either. Respectfully, this is not improving the area. Please open a discussion for this if you want to do it this way, as you’re changing the status quo. HistoryofIran (talk)
- That is the way categorisation works - that is the status quo. People in one category are not necessarily all proper fits in all the superior categories. Category: Writers from London, for example, are certainly not all British citizens. NB This is the result of the compromise agreed in the renaming of Persian categories to Iranian. Its not my decision. But if any of the Persian-language writers are not Iranian they can be put in the appropriate national category. As it is I am using the Category:11th-century Iranian writers for Iranians who didnt writer in Persian. Rathfelder (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that example doesnt make much sense. Nothing about this was mentioned in the agreement. Kindly dont remove anymore x-Iranian categories without any discussion. HistoryofIran (talk)
- What was agreed was that all the Persian writer and poet categories should be renamed as Persian-language categories, after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Category:Medieval Persian writers I cant change that decision. But we can construct new categories if you think they are needed. Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that example doesnt make much sense. Nothing about this was mentioned in the agreement. Kindly dont remove anymore x-Iranian categories without any discussion. HistoryofIran (talk)
- That is the way categorisation works - that is the status quo. People in one category are not necessarily all proper fits in all the superior categories. Category: Writers from London, for example, are certainly not all British citizens. NB This is the result of the compromise agreed in the renaming of Persian categories to Iranian. Its not my decision. But if any of the Persian-language writers are not Iranian they can be put in the appropriate national category. As it is I am using the Category:11th-century Iranian writers for Iranians who didnt writer in Persian. Rathfelder (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are categories like Category:British writers in French, but they are only used for writers who do not use the language of their own country, or, perhaps more relevant, like Category:Indian writers by language where nationality does not predict language. Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- What does that discussion have to do with what youre doing now? I see no correlation. Even if that was the case, this needs a larger discussion. I have been supporting all your suggestions, but no so that you make it like Persian speaker=Iranian. HistoryofIran (talk)
- All the articles about 10th-century Persian-language writers seem to be about people who are described as Persian people. I'm following your lead in saying that Persian people are Iranian people. If we find Persian-language writers who are not Iranian - probably for later centuries - we could set up something like Category:Indian writers by languageRathfelder (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Even so that may be, this is still not helping. Also, making something akin to Category:Indian writers by language (which was seemingly made due to the fact that there are dozens of languages in India) is just gonna make it even more messy. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually it is less messy than I expected. But there was no agreement to rename the Persian writer categories as Iranian writers. We could have Iranian writers in Arabic and Iranian writers in Persian as subcategories of the Iranian writer categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again, please don't make decisions without any consensus. That's all I have to say. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to follow the agreed policies of categorisation. I am very happy to work with you to try to make sure they dont distort the picture of Iranian history. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is simply following your own personal decisions, not anything remotely based on consensus (see also WP:CON). Please stop this [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to follow the agreed policies of categorisation. I am very happy to work with you to try to make sure they dont distort the picture of Iranian history. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again, please don't make decisions without any consensus. That's all I have to say. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually it is less messy than I expected. But there was no agreement to rename the Persian writer categories as Iranian writers. We could have Iranian writers in Arabic and Iranian writers in Persian as subcategories of the Iranian writer categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Categorisation is heirarchical. As Category:11th-century Persian-language writers is a subcategory of Category:11th-century Iranian people articles should not be in both categories. That is a very clear and well-established policy, not my decision. Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Which is something which you added yourself. They shouldn't be connected. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you dont like it please devise a better solution and change it. But as the Persian language seems to be what Identifies them as Iranian in this period I cannot see how they can not be linked. Rathfelder (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have already come with one - restoring the status quo. I'll gladly restore it myself, as long as you don't revert it back.
But as the Persian language seems to be what Identifies them as Iranian in this period I cannot see how they can not be linked.
According to whom? Do you have a source on this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- I read the articles. All those biographies say the subjects are Persian, regardless of where they were. NB You cant restore the status quo without overturning what was agreed about the Iranian categories. Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
'I read the articles. All those biographies say the subjects are Persian, regardless of where they were.'
So.. which one of them supports what you just said? I.e. Persian speaker = Iranian. Can you throw a quote? This also seems like another decision done solely by yourself. I can restore it, because no agreement was reached about this in the first place. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- Gardizi is said to come from Afganistan but is described as Persian. Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Afghanistan didn't exist back then, and that still doesn't mean Persian speaker = Iranian. I'm still waiting for a source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gardizi is said to come from Afganistan but is described as Persian. Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I read the articles. All those biographies say the subjects are Persian, regardless of where they were. NB You cant restore the status quo without overturning what was agreed about the Iranian categories. Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have already come with one - restoring the status quo. I'll gladly restore it myself, as long as you don't revert it back.
- You need to explain what you mean by Persian then. Rathfelder (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I said Persian-speaker, not Persian. Sorry, but the fact that you've changed so many of these categories and don't fully understand the subject is really concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The question is about how we categorise the articles that exist, not how the terms are defined academically. Rathfelder (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- So just ignore the actual meaning of these terms and go with whatever you personally like? Not how it works. And you've failed to show a source for your claim. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No. Abide by the categorisation policies. Rathfelder (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For your significant contributions. Kudos! Volten001 ☎ 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
Categories part 2
Can you please stop with this [7]? Not all the inhabitants of Safavid Iran were of Iranian stock, and loads of Iranians lived outside the country as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- All these biographies are in people of Safavid Iran. These are categories of nationality, not ethnicity.Rathfelder (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- We've already been through this. 'x-century Iranian people' are not categories of nationality, otherwise we wouldn't have, say '2nd-century BC Iranian people', or '2nd-century BC x people' really. Kindly stop. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Category:16th-century Iranian people by occupation is a subcategory of Category:16th-century people by nationality and occupation. Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it any less wrong. Unless amongst other things that you have sources that suggest the concept of nationality goes that far back. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the policy in Wikipedia is to categorise primarily by nationality. If you wish you can set up a seperate category under Category:16th-century people by ethnicity, but I think you will encounter objections as ethnicity is difficult to define or demonstrate. Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. What is the name of that policy? And why do we have so many categories that go back before the concept of nationality then? You are encountering objections right now, but you keep ignoring it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I dont know of an explicit policy, but it is clearly the practice, and very well established. I quite see that disentangling nationality, ethnicity, language and location is problematic, but I think we have to live with it. Categorisation is not an exact science. Rathfelder (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not convincing. It is problematic indeed, but what you're doing right now, respectfully, is just further complicating the problem. I do think the x-century painters/writers/etc is a good addition though. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I dont know of an explicit policy, but it is clearly the practice, and very well established. I quite see that disentangling nationality, ethnicity, language and location is problematic, but I think we have to live with it. Categorisation is not an exact science. Rathfelder (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. What is the name of that policy? And why do we have so many categories that go back before the concept of nationality then? You are encountering objections right now, but you keep ignoring it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the policy in Wikipedia is to categorise primarily by nationality. If you wish you can set up a seperate category under Category:16th-century people by ethnicity, but I think you will encounter objections as ethnicity is difficult to define or demonstrate. Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it any less wrong. Unless amongst other things that you have sources that suggest the concept of nationality goes that far back. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm putting people of Safavid Iran into occupational categories. Why is that a problem?Rathfelder (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that you're removing Category:x-Iranian people/writer/etc. Not all figures of Safavid Iran were of Iranian stock, and numerous people of Iranian stock lived outside Safavid Iran, such as in the Ottoman, Mughal and Khanate of Bukhara kingdoms, all which were highly Persianate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Iranian stock is nothing to do with it unless you establish categories based on it. These articles are already in people of Safavid Iran. Rathfelder (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Which there already is, way before you started editing. Again, if it's based on nationality, can you kindly explain why the vast majority of such categories go back before the concept of nationality? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- They were there long before I started editing. Where is your evidence that nationality was not significant in the 16th century? Rathfelder (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Iranian stock is nothing to do with it unless you establish categories based on it. These articles are already in people of Safavid Iran. Rathfelder (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that you're removing Category:x-Iranian people/writer/etc. Not all figures of Safavid Iran were of Iranian stock, and numerous people of Iranian stock lived outside Safavid Iran, such as in the Ottoman, Mughal and Khanate of Bukhara kingdoms, all which were highly Persianate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- So you want the articles categorised as, for example 16th-century Iranian painters and also 16th-century painters of Safavid Iran ? Rathfelder (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes they were indeed, I'm referring to the x-century Iranian people categories. Answering a question with a question is not how a discussion is made. Especially when my asked question has been long overdue now. I'd rather have that, it's not like there are lack of Iranian figures outside Safavid Iran, and non-Iranian figures inside Safavid Iran, as I've been trying to tell you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- So should 16th-century painters of Safavid Iran be a subcategory of 16th-century Iranian painters ?Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, because not all painters of Safavid Iran were of Iranian stock. Safavid Iran generally had a lot of figures of Georgian, Circassian, Armenian, Turkic, Arab stock. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- So should 16th-century painters of Safavid Iran be a subcategory of 16th-century Iranian painters ?Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes they were indeed, I'm referring to the x-century Iranian people categories. Answering a question with a question is not how a discussion is made. Especially when my asked question has been long overdue now. I'd rather have that, it's not like there are lack of Iranian figures outside Safavid Iran, and non-Iranian figures inside Safavid Iran, as I've been trying to tell you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think your approach is fundamentally divergent from Wikipedia's policy. Biographies are categorised by nationality/country/location. Not by descent. I think you need to try to establish ethnic categories to do what you want. Other nationality categories have plenty of articles about people who are not indigenous. Rathfelder (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's no policy regarding that, as we already established. Since you are repeating yourself, let me repeat the question that remains unanswered; Again, if it's based on nationality, can you kindly explain why the vast majority of such categories go back before the concept of nationality? Such as 2nd-century BC? Furthermore, it is you who are making the changes (which at least 2 users have opposed) thus it is you that needs to do something (i.e. get consensus), not me. I would also like to remind of you WP:REHASH. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didnt establish any of the categories based on nationality, ancient or otherwise. You had better ask the people who did. I wonder if language would help with this problem, as it did with Persian poets and writers? When you use the word "stock", does this align with language? Rathfelder (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I was one of those people. By "stock", I mean origin, ancestry, blood, that kind of thing. If you continue with this [8], I'm afraid I will have to report you to WP:ANI, as this is starting to get disruptive. You are clearly refusing to collaborate and amongst other things adhere to WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nour ed-Din Mohammad Esfahani seems to be described as a calligrapher not a painter. I left him as an Iranian calligraphers. I thought that was what you wanted. Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough, my bad. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didnt establish any of the categories based on nationality, ancient or otherwise. You had better ask the people who did. I wonder if language would help with this problem, as it did with Persian poets and writers? When you use the word "stock", does this align with language? Rathfelder (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's no policy regarding that, as we already established. Since you are repeating yourself, let me repeat the question that remains unanswered; Again, if it's based on nationality, can you kindly explain why the vast majority of such categories go back before the concept of nationality? Such as 2nd-century BC? Furthermore, it is you who are making the changes (which at least 2 users have opposed) thus it is you that needs to do something (i.e. get consensus), not me. I would also like to remind of you WP:REHASH. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For finding the oldest known hoax on the English Wikipedia! Barney1995 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
Charles Parish
Why did you remove Charles Parish from Category:Plant collectors and Category:English botanists? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Almost all botanists are also plant collectors. Its not defining. He's in Category:19th-century British botanists which seems adequate. Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Far from all botanists are plant collectors; it's very much a defining characteristic. And "British" != "English". Please do not make such edits again; on any article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I've just worked through several thousand articles about botanists. A majority were described as, but not categorised as, plant collectors. I think categorisation by century is more significant for these articles than whether they are described as British or English. Botanists are categorised by nationality and century. After 1707 English is not a nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your comment about nationality is poppycock - you seem to confuse it with citizenship.
- I now see that you removed Category:National Health Service (England) from Ruth May (nurse), though there appears to be no rational reason why you did so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can do without insults from you thank you.
Category:National Health Service (England) is a topic category. WP:TOPICCAT Biographies go in Set categories
The guidance on biographies says: "People categories: All categories where such biographical articles could be expected to be listed. Normally such categories belong in the Category:People categorization tree." WP:COPS A better solution would be to set up a new category for Chief Nursing Officers, as there are now enough articles to populate it. Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Insult? Where?
- The very section you cite, WP:TOPICCAT also says
"Sometimes, for convenience, the two types can be combined, to create a set-and-topic category"
- WP:COPS is about "Sensitive categories". Which aspect of Category:National Health Service (England) do you imagine fits that criterion, when applied to a senior National Health Service England officer?
- A new category for Chief Nursing Officers is orthogonal to the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Category:National Health Service people is the appropriate set category. That is why Category:National Health Service (England) doesnt include biographies. Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- That would be correct, were "National Health Service " and "National Health Service England" the same thing. They are not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220618171805im_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Velella Velella Talk 14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
People from County Limerick
Why are you removing so many people from the category People from County Limerick? Johnragla (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm extending the occupational categories and removing a few who shouldnt be in it. Rathfelder (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you
Rathfelder, I wanted to thank you for all the HotCat stuff you just did, but the thank you feature doesn't have a group-thank feature. So I came to your talk page. Thanks! ;) And keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Religious women
Hello, Rathfelder,
I'm not sure why you downgraded the women in Category:Belgian Roman Catholic abbesses from "abbesses" to just "nuns". That's like changing an individual's identity from "Senator" to "politician" or from "chief executive" to "worker" or from "film director" to "people in film". An abbess was an influential figure within their communities but also sometimes within the regional Catholic church. I don't mind the geographic changes and will not get into arguments over whether it should be "Belgian" or "Spanish Netherlands" (although I don't think most of our readers know what the Spanish Netherlands was or when it existed) but please create a category that distinguishes the abbesses, even if it has just a half dozen individuals. I thought I'd ask you to create the category because I didn't want to simply revert your changes. Thank you for considering my request. Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think they are all still in Category:Roman Catholic abbesses. It was agreed some time ago that we should not have Belgian categories before the nineteenth century but there is nothing to stop you creating a category for abbesses of the Habsburg Netherlands. Rathfelder (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Australian Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns
Hi. I have noticed that you have deleted a number of "Australian Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns" categories, replacing it with "19th-century Australian Roman Catholic nuns" and/or "20th-century Australian Roman Catholic nuns". My concern is that the terms religious sisters and nuns are different. The original category was inclusive of both while the categories you have replaced it with exclude religious sisters. Kerrieburn (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I havent noticed any articles about sisters. All these articles were already in nun categories. And I think in common usage nuns include sisters. But if, when I've finished, you think its a problem we can rename the categories. But in any case the century categories are subcategories of Category:Australian Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns. Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again
- I must admit that I am disappointed to see that you have continued to systematically move everyone out of the category "Australian Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns" category. I have been leading the Australian Women in Religion Wikipedia project since 2019 (https://divinity.libguides.com/AWR/WikiProject) and this was a category that we were intentionally using to group related pages. Given the importance of this category to our project I am also disappointed that you chose to systematically make these changes, to the point of deleting the entire category, without any prior discussion. If you look at the Wikipedia page for Religious sisters you can read about the distinction between religious sisters and nuns, so they are not interchangeable, even if you think that one includes the other. Most if not all of the women that you have categorised as nuns will actually be religious sisters. Grouping them as 19th-century or 20th-century Australian Roman Catholic nuns is nowhere near as useful for our project and no longer as accurate or as inclusive as the previous category. Kerrieburn (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I dont think you can do this separately for Australia. It needs to be done across all the nuns categories. I havent emptied Category:Australian Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns. Ive subdivided it by century, as other occupational categories are, and I have added more articles. I have now seen articles where the subjects are described as sisters, but only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. You can now subdivide them into seperate categories for nuns and sisters, or you can rename the whole categories. When I read Nun#Distinction_between_a_nun_and_a_religious_sister it appears that the distinction is not as clear as you suggest and has changed over time. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Category:11th-century Roman Catholic archbishops in Germany has been nominated for merging
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220618171805im_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:11th-century Roman Catholic archbishops in Germany has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Category:Irish emigrants to Australia (before 1923)
I see you added some articles to Category:Irish emigrants to Australia (before 1923). Just a heads up, if the person emigrated before 1901, they should go in the subcategory Category:Irish emigrants to colonial Australia. StAnselm (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Auto parts suppliers of Belgium
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220618171805im_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:Auto parts suppliers of Belgium 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)