Do not edit this page. This is the archive of User talk:Smasongarrison for the year 2024. (Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.) See the annual archives for 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Category:Foreign-born politicians has been nominated for deletion. 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. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:1920s battles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Top 10 |
Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar 2023 |
You were one of the top medical editors on English Wikipedia in 2023. Thank you for your hard work! -Mvolz (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
Hello! I would like to ask you why are the polyhistors related categories proposed for merger? In addition to rationale in general (non-defining?!), I would like a more detailed explanation. What's the difference here compared to, for example, categories of philanthropists or dissidents, which also exist? Thank you for your answer. --Silverije 23:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I saw you use AWB to tag ((Unreferenced)) to articles in List of Harlequin Romance novels. Would you like to collaborate citing these entries with corresponding OCLC numbers? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | ||
For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to have included Julian Ashton in a category diffusion and identified him as a woman.[1] I am guessing this was either a misreading of the name or a misclick in cat-a-lot. I thought I'd mention it in case you were planning to include him in any more gender-based diffusions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Tex Gibbons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Gibbons.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
There is still after your merge nomination only 1 article in 7th-century novels. That should probably be merge to 7th-century literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
These 2 categories, well actually it looks like 6 categories, as a total have 1 article. Not 1 article a piece, rhere is one article on a writer who lived in the 10th and 11th century in Japan who wrote something deemed a novel, and we have 6 categories where the only article is this 1 Category. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Smasongarrison, now that we've got the BNA Lawyers, Doctors, and Writers tidied up, I had a question. What is "FOOian", please? You used it in this sentence in the deletion proposal: "This is an unhelpful category that encourages individuals being removed from their defining FOOian medical doctor category." I've been trying to think what FOO stands for, without success. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Smasongarrison,
You know more about categories on Wikipedia than I can hope to learn so I come to you with a question. Do you think we need both Category:Texas secessionism and Category:Texas secession movements or should there be some kind of Merge here? Thanks for any opinion you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
What do you take to be the difference between Category:Medieval Catalan-language writers and Category:Medieval Catalan writers? Srnec (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry that my above comment was not written in the best tone. I am very sorry about that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Tuberculosis deaths in Kazakhstan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Faculty by business school has been nominated for renaming to Category:Academic staff by business school. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Smasongarrison/Archives
You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Smasongarrison
According to the CFD closure, it looks like this category was supposed to be Merged but you emptied it and didn't merge the articles to the new category which was never created. Am I reading the CFD decision incorrectly? Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Smasongarrison,
I just came across Category:Crime and Punishment in Richmond, Virginia when I was looking at an editor's contributions. I don't think this is how categories concerning locations and crime are titled but you are more familiar with the category hierarchy than I am. Is this okay to leave this as is or should it go to WP:CFD? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
You posted this message on wrong userpage I think. That user has not edited cats at Karen Roeds. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
I have noticed that we havd some categories where people ofen end up in 6 or more related ones. At that point it become questionalble they are defining. I almost think there should be a way to create a rule against thos. One is coaches by college. Some people are literally in over 10 categories. This often involves 1 season placements as a liw coverage coach. I outlined a proposal for restructuring that on my talk page. Basically we would change the by college categories to bd by head coach, and then gave offensive, defensive and a few other coach type xategories. With sports expatriates we have a situation where people in say Expatriarlte Czech sportspeople in Mexico will also be in say Expatriate footballees in Mexico, so one article for a person who played for teams in 6 countries will be in 12 categories for this. I think in this xase just being in Expatriate Czech sportspeople would be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This category has 62 suc-cats and 6 articles. 31 of those sub-cats have 1 article. None have over 12 articles. I am also not sure this is defining. A lot of these categories are also American college football coaches. I am not sure this is right. I am not sure this is defining. In the Barksdale case that part of the career of the man who is the one article in the Category is only mentioned in a table, not even in the article text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I see you're on a big move on rearranging photographers-related categories. I've been personally very much involved in this world, as I am now in topics relating to Israel & Palestine. A go-to category for colonial-era (Ottoman and British) photography in Palestine has proven to be missing and very much needed for lots of activities, and very useful once there. Please do read my reply to your, practically, elimination request, so I don't need to repeat my arguments here. My message to you now is just an attempt of explaining how this category is far from being an abstract and failed attempt at adding yet another impractical, theoretical systematisation item with a very questionable definition and arbitrary limits. No, it grew out of a real-life need, but can also be supported with theoretical arguments, not less valid thany any museographer's who is organising the existing collections and dedicating the available museum halls after a mix of pragmatic and analytic criteria.
Thanks for taking the time. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Category:10th-century priests seems to be an abandoned start. I have proposed speedy merging to Christian clergy at WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
John D. Naylor is the only article in 5 categories related to Beacon/Goldey-Beacon College. It merged and changed its name, I am not sure if that happened while he was employed there. This seems excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Some of these coaches have coached at over 10 colleges, only being at some for 1 season. I really do not think that all such assignments are defining. Especially since some stay as offensive coordinator, or running backs coach at several places in a row. In those cases I think the specific type of coach is defining but the place coached is not. There is a huge amount of overcategorization in this set of categories. My attempts to bring some order are bring attacked as going against how things have been done over a decade. A system that regularly places articles in 10 or more categories for being a college football coach and pairs this with dozens of such categories with 5 or fewer articles is systemically flaed and needs to change. Most of the extremely small cats are in NCAA Division III, defunct or NAIA categories, or the junior college Category. There may be several categories in there that we really do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a defunct team. There is only one article on a coach. The Category is currently no.inated for upmerger or such. I wonder if merging the 1 article directly into College coaches of defunct teams in the United States might be OK with editors who object to directly placing articles in College football coaches in the United States. The Junior college football coaches in the United States Category directly has about 137 articles so there is a relevant precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This category has 237 direct articles. I have yet to see anyone even try to explain why this category can have direct articles but the parent Category College football coaches in the United States cannot. We do not directly place people in an undifferentiated alumni category, but we do place people in the heads of universities in x country categories. Being a head of a university is a defining part of virtually every biography, at least if they are more than a figurehead. Going to college not really unless it allows for dome sort of grouping. Football coaches we seem to have divided by level they coached at, so it seems that there is no reason bot to place them there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Matt Dyson is the only article in George Mason Patriots football. We do not have any other articles on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The more I look at this, the more of a mess it is. There are some sports, such as rifle, where not even one of the sub-cats has even 4 articles. The whole thing is a huge mess to say the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not think we want to be putting articles directly in 20th-century Indian people or 21st-century Indian people. This just leads to too many categories. At any point the average life span is over 50, this will lead to most people being in multiple categories. Some editors will place based on birth and death years alone. I an less than convinced that we need any by century categories gor the 20th or 21st century, but I do not think we want to place biographical articles in ones that intersect nationality and the century. If an occupation is not being diffused by century just place people in thd occupation and nationality cat, but please do not send them up to the nationslity and century cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I think Drafter is an example of an article that has too ambiguous a name. It is clear enough from the article, but there are other uses of the word. We have a set of categories for conductors (music), since there are other uses of the word conductor, as a think in electronic and thermodynamics and as a person on a train, and potentially other uses related to the word conducting and those doing it. I think with drafter we may also need a disambiguation heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Just a request to please be careful when you make changes to the ((fooian fooers)) templates in British categories, because you left a large trail of redlinked categories that don't exist behind you.
It's not that your code is wrong, it's that sometimes what was already there interacts with your code incorrectly if it was varying from standard — before the code you're adding to the template was enabled, the common workaround to avoid duplicate categorization in the UK was to change the profession= from "X" to "British X", which causes your new code to generate "British british X" instead of "British X" as the category and thus created obvious silliness like Category:British british numismatists and Category:British british comedy writers.
There were also a couple of cases of categories that weren't double-British nonsense at all but just don't actually exist to have subcategories filed in them, such as Category:British astrological writers and Category:British song collectors.
So basically, after every edit, you need to double-check to ensure that you haven't accidentally caused the page to become filed in categories that don't exist — if you have, then you need to either create the category if it's justifiable, or fix the code if it's double-British nonsense, and don't just walk away leaving the page sitting in redlinked categories. Again, it's not that your code is wrong, it's that sometimes what was already there interacts with your code incorrectly if it was wrong, so just please be aware and watch out for that. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Just wondering why you added ((suppress categories)) to Category:17th-century bishops in the Holy Roman Empire and some others. It looks like the categories you then added are the same as those the template is suppressing. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The templates you have created on Bishops, writers and LGBT people are causing an error in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals if the country portal does not exist. Would it be possible to make them to only add a country portal if it exists? Lyndaship (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I created the category « 18-th century mathematician from the Republic of Geneva », containing 8 entries. This allowed the suppression of the categories containing the adjective « Swiss » in at least some of the most absurd instances of people having no tie whatever with Switzerland (until a well-intentioned contributor creates subcategories such as fist-decade-of-18-th-century-Swiss-mathematician, I guess…). I’ll see what else I can do. For instance to classify as « Swiss » Jeanne de Jussie is so totally absurd and outrageous I will find some solution. Sapphorain (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I switched to the ampersand (&) in the book title (as shown in the Sallis obit pic) from 'and' in James W. Loewen. I'm not sure how to change the redirect title Mississippi: Conflict and Change and thought maybe you had different info/opinion anyway. Or it can stay as is -- two ways -- or I can reverse those of my changes. I did add Sallis to the Sallis dab page, linking also to the Loewen 'First Amendment ...' section. And I emailed the NYT about the missing Eagles book details -- Charles W. Eagles, Civil Rights, Culture Wars (U Chicago) / Eagles provides biographies of the members of Loewen and Sallis's textbook writing team, the Mississippi History Project (MHP), as well as the process of ...; The Clarion-Ledger / Sep 4, 2017 — "Civil Rights Culture Wars," a new book by Mississippi historian Charles W. Eagles, tells the compelling backstory of a 1970s textbook that ... (Google; links wouldn't copying over here) -- in obit; and the fact that 'Your Mississippi' post-dated by a year 'Conflict' (wording nuance, if they care); and did other bits in Wikipedia. Sallis maybe deserves his own page but it's more than I can take on now. Good work; nice to find someone there ahead of me. Swliv (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this category also violates the last rung category. We may have dispersed American chemists by state, but that is not the issue. Since it is a triple I ntersection it only exists if both African-Americsn chemists and American women chemists have a lower level of categories. The women one does have biochemists, but that is not enough. This is exactly why triple intersections are so hard to justify. Likewise African-American women lawyers will really only work if we are willing to disperse American women lawyers and African-American lawyers by century, and that will only work if we are willing to divide 19th, 20th and 21st century lawyers by state. With lawyers such an approach works, and since we have dispersed both African-American scientists and American women scientists by field of specialty (geologist, chemists, astronomer, physicists, biologists, etc.), we can have African-American women scientists. I have to admit I have thought about the obstacles rung rule. Some days I wonder if we really should have American women novelists at all, which is the Category I was a major contributor to (although contrary to what some have claimed not the creator of) at all. Other days I wonder if it really makes sense to have the whole novelists and short story writers tree at all. Most short story writers wrote novels as well, some works are between the two, and the whole writers tree seems a bit messy. A big part of this is many people were writers and poets but what thry wrote is hard yo easily tag them as except that not all was poetry. I am thinking that poets should be non-diffusing subcats of writers. Some poets were fully oral as well. So maybe we should remove poets from the writers tree, and not class people only known for poetry as writers, but allow those known for both poetry and non-poetical works yo be in both. OK, I know this comment ranged broadly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for raising the issue of the slash in the two categories I created about lawyers in the Canadas. I’m not very familiar with categories and appreciate the guidance. It seems to be a very technical area, but I’m learning! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
What were you doing with this edit? Why did you remove the nomination? StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mason, I just created a new category, got it nicely populated, and then realised I may have a syntax error. It's Category:Papineau-Viger-Cherrier families. Should that be an en-dash instead of a hyphen? It's the names of three families related by inter-marriage, not a hyphenated name: Papineau, Viger and Cherrier families. Would it be better as "Papineau–Viger–Cherrier families"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
I know you are in the middle of a fairly full category work, could you be kind enough to close the trader horn item, it seems to have evoked an out of process 'emptying' reaction, it would be nice to close/resolve please. You sure have your time organised in the larger stuff. Thanks. JarrahTree 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Smasongarrison,
This category, and another similar one, have a speedy rename tag on them but in the page history, you make an edit and refer to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 but I can't find a discussion on these categories. Also, it seems completely different to say that someone is an atheist who is a writer and someone is a writer who writes about atheism. It's like saying an individual is a Catholic writer vs. a writer about Catholicism. Who one is doesn't mean that someone writes about that subject. Can you clear that up for me? Thank you and for all of the post-CFD work that you do. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This category is a mess. It seems to be built on a like name, but not like things. Our article Critic defines this as a person who reviews and analyzes something. This is very different from someone who attacks and tries to disprove or destroy or discredit something. We have two meanings of crisis bring merged into one category. I have to admit I am not convinced that some of these categories pass the ruke against opinion categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
In mid-January 2024, you proposed to rename and move the category "Travelers in Asia Minor". As there was already a group category "Explorers of West Asia", it made perfect sense to add "Explorers of Anatolia" as a regional subcategory to it (there are already subcategories for explorers of Arabia, Caucasus and Iran).[1] However, what happened instead is that the pages listed under "Travelers in Asia Minor" (regionally specific) were added directly to the blanket category "Explorers of West Asia". That is not what was agreed and also goes against basic Wikipedia principles of keeping a more detailed category where relevant (what happened is similar to turning, say, "French presidents" into "French politicians").
Can I ask you to fix that please and move the pages currently in "Explorers of West Asia" into a subcategory called "Explorers of Anatolia"? VampaVampa (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Hi, what's the reason you removed a category in this edit? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
[3] - Sorry colleague, simply removing from a category does not mean "diffuse". Reverted. - Altenmann >talk 02:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 210.3.136.74. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Olga Forsh have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Antonina Koptiaeva. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:210.3.136.74, you may be blocked from editing. 210.3.136.74 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry I do not have any convergence with what you are doing with these things, but am really not interested in trying to explain. Unless required I will leave it at that. JarrahTree 11:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
In the anglosphere there is no necessary or sufficient connection between the professions of anthropology and archeology, indeed conflation I thought I saw you apply to categories would indeed be considered quite offensive to some. JarrahTree 07:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. Please be careful to distinguish between the two when changing bio categorires! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Your recent edit to ((Writers by nationality and century category header)) is for some reason causing a handful of Uzbek, Kazakh and Turkmen categories (but no others so far) to get directly filed in Category:Writers even though they're already in appropriate subcategories by century and nationality, and thus don't need to also be in the parent category at all. I can't find any obvious indication in the template coding of why this is happening, however — but since the unnecessary category is being transcluded by the template rather than being directly declared on the categories themselves, I can't remove it without editing the template either. So could you figure out what's needed to get the following categories back out of Category:Writers since they don't belong there?
Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
no one is in multiple nationalities, which I suspect we have at least one or two who are, there are 66 articles in the geriatricians tree. With that size I think we should eliminated all the categories. I think we should establish a bare minimum size at which we will split by nationality an occupation. Specifically an occupation that is a tertiary sub-cat of scientists. I think we should bite the bullet and place everyone a rung up and group all geriatricians in one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I am thinking we should make it so no occupational category ever diffuses to a cause of death category. The intersection of being a US president and being killed while in office might be something worth having a category for (although it is so small, I really see no reason to not just have a list), but we should not have it set up so we essentially have one category US presidents not killed in office, and another US presidents killed in office. This would also apply to soldiers killed in a war, radiologists who died of cancer, journalists killed, or any of the other rare cases where cause of death and occupation (broadly defined) have a notable intersection. I know creating non-diffusing rules makes things require review, but overly small categories that remove people in odd ways are not good either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Mason,
You are very experienced in nominating categories for CFD discussions so I thought I'd ask you about Category:Oratorios by year. Many of these categories just have one article so do you think it makes sense to categorize them by decade instead? Just thought I'd check in with an editor more familiar with the process of recategorizing to see if there is any benefit in making a change. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I have just noticed that you accused me for edit warring along with 185.104.63.112.[4][5] I was not notified. No I don't engage in 3RRs and I don't know that person. Please stop your false accusations and your contentious edits. Thank you. 218.102.133.99 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mason, I noticed that you have used ((cfs)) for nominations such as this. The template ((cfm-double)) would probably be more helpful for all concerned. "Splitting" categories means manually moving the members into either one (or more) of the proposed targets, but that nomination was intended rather to merge all members into all the proposed targets.
Cfm-double only takes two targets, but once you have created the nomination you can just append " and Category:Foo" if there are three or more applicable targets. – Fayenatic London 16:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I still think the wrong name is "pre-confederation Canada". That is a horrible case of anachronism. The name at the time was British North America. We should categorize by what something was, not what it would become. Beyond this from 1867-1907 you still have British North America existing along sulfide Canada. So the name becomes even weirder. Does it make sense to call someone who emigrated from Price Edward Island, Newfoundland or British Colombia in 1869 a "pre'l-confederstion Canadian" emigrant. I still think this is a horrible name, especially when we have the British North America oprlt8on which was the term actually used at the time and does not require ulus to label people based on future events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The one actual article in this category is on someone who per the article seems only to have worked as a luthier in the US mainly, I think mainly if not exclusively in Massachusetts. He came to the mainland at least 5 years before he started working as a luthier. Whether we should class a luthier working in Puerto Rican as an American I am not 100% certain, but clearly someone working in Massachusetts and maybe also New Hampshire, especially such a person who is a US citizen, goes in the American Category. In fact I would argue calling this guy a Puerto Rican luthier is in his case just wrong. We should not class people by the intersection of place and occupation if they only did the occupation after leaving the place. A person born in Mexico who imigrates to the US as a young child is Mexican by birth and a historian, he is not a Mexican historian. He is an American historian of Mexican descent, but not a Mexican historian. He immigrated to the US as a young child long before he became a journalist, he was not even a Mexican journalist, and he becomes a historian after that. The luthier is a slightly different case, he come to the mainland for college but his mom was born in Boston. However since Puerto Ricans are US citizens by birth, and I am almost certain there is no Puerto Rican citizenship, the day a Puerto Rican sets foot in Massachusetts he has the same legal status there as someone who was born in Rhode Island and moved to Massachusetts that day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you please be careful with these. Several of the new ones are populating category redirects, usually because the parent category name is not how the template blindly assumes it, and there are invariably no instructions on the template page for how to override the mess. Current examples of populated redirects include Category:9th-century German people and Category:Kazakh musicians. If the templates can't be fixed then they'll have to be removed. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! I wanted to ask if there is a reason why so many Cfds, which have been closed for a while now, aren't going through. Quite a few recent nominations which have been closed as 'merge', 'delete', 'rename' are stil there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century bishops in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:21st-century bishops in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Markos Botsaris on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Right now we have a category Babson Beavers, which contains a total of 3 articles and 1 redirect, with a total of 4 categories to contain all of them. This seems truly excessive. Some of these are the 2 articles in Babson Beaver's men's baketball coaches, which is a subcat of the category American men's college basketball coaches, which has lots of categories with under 5 articles. In the specific Babson case, 1 article makes no mention of coaching at Babson in the text, the other person was also a coach at about half a dozen colleges and universities. I am beginning to think that A-by state is a perfectly legitimate way to subdivide a larger US category, 2-various rules suggest we should not subdivide with lots of small categories just to do it, 3-I think we should create by state sub-categories, split the coaches by the state in which they coached, and only leave the large categories that remain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at Category:UC Merced Golden Bobcats, it looks to me like this category, plus its 3 sub-cats, only between all 4 of them have 1 article. I am actually surprised that there are not more categories in there that this 1 article is supporting. The 1 article is already in University of California, Merced alumni directly. Even at that, that category only has 3 articles and 1 sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you think the following makes sense? If something does not make enough difference to someone's life that we bother having text about it in the article on the person, we should not have a category on it. If it is so minor that it is buried in a table and not mentioned in the normal text of the article, I do not believe we can say it is defining enough to matter enough to have a category, and we would be best off not categorizing by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Smasongarrison,
Could you look at the categories added to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion earlier today? There are a bunch of these "male writers by century" and nationality categories that suddenly went empty. It doesn't look like they were emptied manually by adding or removing articles or categories which means that either there have been some changes to a template that fills them or a bundled deletion through CFD.
I know that lately you have been tinkering with some of the templates so I'm hoping if you made a change that emptied out these categories, you could undo it or at least correct it. We have categories for women writers in these same groups so it's logical that we'd have similar categories for male writers. Thanks for looking into this when you have a chance. Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm responding to your statement "I would strongly encourage you to reconsider using LGBT people as your counter arguments to Nazis. That comparison comes with A LOT OF BAGGAGE, especially when your talking to people from the LGBT community" here on your talk page rather than here to avoid creating a tangent on that discussion.
You say that as if you assume to know whether or not I am LGBT. But you have no way of knowing my sexual orientation or gender identity unless I tell you. For a number of reasons which I would rather not get into here, I try as hard possible to keep my Wikipedia identity (and online identity, in general) as separate as possible from my "real" identity--meaning I avoid saying any details about myself, such as gender, age, sexual orientation, occupation, what country I'm from, etc on Wikipedia discussions. But I feel like I must make an exception to avoid being misunderstood. You have no way of knowing if I am LGBT or not (in fact, I am. The "G" part of LGBT to be specific. And you if you want to add "I" and make it LGBTI, then I have a medical condition which some would consider as "I"; it's on the border of being "I" or not). As I told you already, I also had a close friend who was gay and died by suicide. LGBT people are as diverse as non-LGBT people. We are all individuals and what has "baggage" or is offensive for one of us does not necessarily create the same response to another of us.
For me, I feel as though an encyclopedia is a place that should be completely free of any politics or opinions or emotions in general, and should be 100% objective, regardless of how heavy a topic is or isn't. An encyclopedia should be a place to neutrally document facts, and should not be influenced by culture or society. (An impossible goal to attain, perhaps, but it's an ideal I believe should be striven for) Facts will then speak for themselves (we don't have to tell people "Nazis did horrible things", for example, we just have to say what they did, the horribleness will speak for itself.) I used the LGBT suicide list because it was the first article/list/category/whatever that I could find that I thought was relevant. My argument was in response to the argument that someone shouldn't be included in a Nazi suicide list if their suicide was unrelated to being a Nazi. (Or something like that, I don't remember the exact argument) I used the LGBT list to argue that not all of those persons' suicides were necessarily related to their being LGBT, but that they should still be included in the list. Since wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:NPOV, I didn't think it should matter how "heavy" the issues of LGBT suicide or Nazism may be to some people. Regardless, I searched and found Category:Artists who died by suicide and Category:Farmers who died by suicide by which the same analogies, comparisons, and arguments to the Nazi suicide categories could be made from just as well, if not better, than the LGBT suicide list.
I apologize that you were offended, but personally I find it offensive to assume that all LGBT people will react the same way to something. We are both LGBT but obviously had very different reactions to the same thing. I can talk about Nazis or LGBT suicide at the same time without feeling a strong visceral reaction. But that just goes to show that LGBT people are not a monolithic group.
I hope I didn't say anything that upset you further or that I wrote too lengthily. I just felt I had to respond somehow because I was feeling very misunderstood. I wish you the best. Vontheri (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Smasongarrison/Archives,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Scholars by language of study has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Women politicians by nationality and century category header does not handle redirects and is creating umpteen redirects - see User:RussBot/category redirect log. Can you please stop sticking these templates in en masse without making sure they cover all circumstances. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
((Category redirect|((Title demonym)) women in politics)) does not work with templates, I would love to know. Mason (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foals (band) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Judith of Flanders has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven is the equivalent of a school or a faculty within a university (a similar thing might be the Munk School at the University of Toronto). Are there other instances of *parts of* universities being categorised as universities? If the category "Universities and colleges" is also intended to include parts of universities and colleges, should it not be renamed to clarify that? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I created Category:Medieval Russian writers and this is shown as a parent cat in Category:15th-century Russian writers which is using Template:Writers by nationality and century category header but I do not see this showing. Do you know what the issue could be here? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mason, I've been too busy to keep up with CFD discussions recently.
I'm grateful for your work here, but I would have opposed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 6#Category:16th-century Catalan people. Removing this has left a bigger gap in Category:Catalan people by century. Before or instead of deleting poorly-populated categories, I suggest checking whether they can be populated.
In this case Petscan demonstrates that there are 22 articles eligible to be put in the category. Some of them might be debatable if "Count of Barcelona" was an honorary title unrelated to origin or residence, but it looks as if there would be sufficient to reinstate the category. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I've just noticed a few "Nobility of" renamed speedily to "Nobility from" – I hope you will not object if I summarily reverse these. We use "of" for nobility, military personnel and political positions, because they are people holding official capacities of the state. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I removed your indent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 12#Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic for clarity – hope you don't mind.
You often seem to indent with *: rather than just * , and this has the appearance of demoting your !vote. I suggest you use just an asterisk at the start of your opinion at CFD, unless you are replying to another editor's statements. Is the colon an artifact of a tool that you use for commenting? – Fayenatic London 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I saw your question was never answered and I don't know if you found the answer to this. The capitalization of Indigenous and other terms should be applied when talking about people. By calling a organization an Indigenous organization you would be stating it is made of Indigenous people and therefore should be capitalized. --ARoseWolf 13:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Academic journals published in the Netherlands indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Smasongarrison!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Just curious: what does the "s" stand for? Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you please tell when I had been told about "changing ... to Kowloon", and elaborate what is wrong to mention Kowloon (given that the territory comprises four components – Kowloon being one of them?) Thanks. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, curious on this edit. Are these "Lincoln Law Schools" not law schools in California? --Engineerchange (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, do you disagree with e.g. greek philosophers in the 13th century being byzantine philosophers? because otherwise I can't imagine why you would remove the Greek philosopher categories from the Byzantine one! Psychastes (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you've added a lot of Byzantine philosophers to Greek philosopher categories, when many of them aren't defined as being Greek, such as John of Damascus. Typically, we only add people to a nationality category if that nationality is WP:DEFINING for the person. Please review how nationality works before making more categories. Mason (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
John is at the end of the Patristic period of dogmatic development, and his contribution is less one of theological innovation than one of a summary of the developments of the centuries before him. In Catholic theology, he is therefore known as the "last of the Greek Fathers"and in my own experience he's referred to as a Greek philosopher as well. I suppose we might disagree on whether that counts as WP:DEFINING or not, but please don't talk to me like I'm somehow unaware of the policy! Psychastes (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland people/artists are all British. Therefore there is a fault with the 20th-century British male artists category as it should contain all Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland artists. It is an insult to some Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish artists to say they are not British. I hope this problem can be resolved. Neutron6 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:1995 disasters in 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Magical thinking on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe degrees are technically granted at the College/school lebrl in a university, not at the department level. So my Wayne State degree is from the Collehe of Arts and Sciences, not the History department. Even at that undergrad alumni often range widely in studies, so it often only really makes sense to sub-divide grad student alumni by college or school, and to unify all undergrad alumni . At least at some US universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mason, question for you. Is there a category for human rights government agencies, the ones that are charged with administering human rights laws? There is one for "Human rights organizations", with numerous sub-cats, but those strike me as being about groups that lobby for human rights. I think that human rights commissions or agencies are different from that kind of group, but can't find a category for them? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)