Jump to content

User talk:Johnpacklambert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
icon
Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Pre-1847 categories for sub-areas of India

[edit]

I have created Category:People from Bundelkhand and Category:People from Rajputana for people from areas of Indoa that existed before 1947. These two cases were geographical regions that were a mix of multiple small states. We also have Category:People from Punjab Province (British India); Category:People from the Bengal Presidency; Category:People from the Madras Presidency. I am thinking we may need more such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statesman or politician

[edit]

I was looking over the article on José del Campillo. In both the text and in shirt description he is called a "Spanish statesman". Statesman redirects to state craft. The link to statesman in the article goes to politician. Is stateman the sane thing as a politician, or are thry different enough to have different categories? Are there any people who were statemen that were not politicians? How do government officials and civil servants fit is this mess? Do people think we should have seperate categories for statemen, or for we lack a clear definition of the term that would make it impossible to actually define the term enough yo create a seoerate article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just realized I misspelled the term in the lead. It is statesman. It has clear NPOV issues, but it may be a definable term. The term "politician" implies in most peoples minds someone running for office. I think what we are trying to categorize is people who held government office and administered things as such. A lot of our categories are just per office, per legislature served in, etc, but some offices had very few holders or few of them are notable. Maybe what we want to do is define "politican" as a person appointed or elected to or inheriting an office of running government, and then create a seperate category "political candidates" for people who ran for office but were not elected. It may also be that we should examine these categories on a place and time basis. Is there a good place to start a discussion on the broad structural issues?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove categories from modern nations

[edit]

Please don't remove categories like Category:Expatriates in the Republic of Genoa from Category:Expatriates in Italy. It serves a clear purpose that I have discussed with you multiple times. Adding Italy as a parent is extremely helpful for navigation because most people do not have extremely strict definitions of nation states. They expect to be able to find former countries in the modern country category. There, when you remove it, people are unaware that the child category even exists. You may not find this intuitive given your strong feelings about keeping modern and former nations extremely disconnected. But you need to respect and understand that the most people do not make this rigid distinction. Removing them is counterproductive because they are there to help other people. SMasonGarrison 21:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep your views on this matter in mind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you will actually add these parents yourself? Because I read this response as thanks for your opinion, but I'm not going to change my behavior nor will I engage you in discussion.
This issue is frankly the major concern I have about you returning to CFD. I think you have extremely valuable opinions and expertise, but are you are not willing/able to compromise on this specific issue. I've asked you repeatedly to add parents to modern categories as is the norm. This addition seems like a no-brainer for navigation, and frankly would make it easier for you to actually populate these smaller underpopulated categories. SMasonGarrison 22:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Category:Jurists from the Kingdom of Saxony to Category:Jurists from Saxony which would seem to show a willingness to do things the way you suggest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It does show a willingness. Hopefully, you persist in it. In general, for me to be confident that someone's behavior is going to persist, I'd want to see such parenting consistently over a longer period of time.
Regardless, it is a good step. One idea you can consider is ways to make it clearer that this nesting is distinct from the generic fully diffusing. Perhaps a special sort key? Or a disclaimer? I'm not sure how that would work, but it's an idea to consider that might also help with navigation. SMasonGarrison 22:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electorate of Saxony

[edit]

I have created 6 categories by occupation for people from the Electorate of Saxony. I have made sure each had at least 5 articles. Thry are Artists from the Electorate of Saxony, Musicians from the Electorate of Saxony, Poets from the Electoate of Saxony, Writers from the Electorate of Saxony, Scholars from the Electorate of Saxony and Scientists from the Electorate of Saxony. I have reviewed all articles under Catehory:People from the Electorate of Saxony to see if thry belong. However there may be more existing articles not yet in that tree that could be added. For example there may be articles on people from Dresden, Leipzig and other places in what was then the Electorate of Saxony from the right time period that could be added. Help in adding such articles would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's great that these categories all have a critical mass of pages. It looks like you missed the modern nationality category of Artists from Saxony, etc. [1], which would make it much easier to populate the new categories. SMasonGarrison 22:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Category:Jurists from the Kingdom of Saxony to Category:Jurists from Saxony which would seem to show a willingness to do things the way you suggest.~~~~
John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you populate Category:Dramatists and playwrights from New Spain?

[edit]

Can you populate Category:Dramatists and playwrights from New Spain? Right now it only has one person in it. Thanks! SMasonGarrison 02:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got it to 4. I am not sure we have many more. I have not fully gone through Mexican writers some may not be diffused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish and French

[edit]

Should we describe as French people who were born and lived all their lives in New France? Should we describe as Spanish people who were born and lived all their lives in New Spain or in the Viceroyalty of Peru? I am thinking that since we use these categories to describe people by nationality we should not describe as French or Spanish people who never lived in the home country and lived their entire life in the colonies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing "German" categories

[edit]

You have removed some "German" categories from many pages (often leaving others in place for unclear reasons), even though the article and the sources describe the persons as German. Your changes or removals are not helping anything and make it less likely that people will find what they are looking for. Please leave the German categories alone in these cases. Fram (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not removing people from the German categories. Either I am removing people who do noit fit in the specific German category because they are in fact not fitting in that category, or I am moving them to more precise sub-categories. People should not be in both the parent and a sub-cat. For example Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to the Russian Empire is in fact a sub-cat of Category:German emigrants to the Russian Empire and so people should not be in both categories. The same also applies to Category:Russian people of German descent, the emigration category is a sub-cateogry of it and people should not be in that category and the sub-cat. Articles are to be diffused to the lowest level category that applies. I will try to make sure people remain in German categories as applicable, but they should not be in such categories when there are more applicable lower level categories, such as People from the Kingdom of Prussia and its sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    HRE is not a subcategory of German, as the HRE was not a subset of Germany. Fram (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not reverted when you place people e.g. in a Saxony cat. Fram (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now I will just add people to . I still think they should no longer be in the German category. I also think you are ignoring rules about definingness. I also object to your rude use of the word "nope: which shows distain for the my views and understandings. Your way of interacting with other editors is very rude and uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At least I don't go whining at someone else's talk page to make incorrect claims about someone you are in a dispute with. Seems to me a lot worse than using "nope" as an edit summary, but you do you. Fram (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here we see Fram continue his long pattern of being dismissive and rude towards other editors. Please stop being so rude.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm not only rude, I have "The editor who did it has a long tendency to fight against any reference to the "Russian Empire" " [2] according to you as well. If you can't even be bothered to check and retract such blatantly false claims, but are hugely bothered by the edit summary "nope", then the problem isn't me. Fram (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • I already said I was confused about who did the edit. You are rude and disrespectful to others. Until you actually apologize for your very rude edit summary I stand by that opinion. I have a right to ask people to stop being rude to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              Yes, but you shouldn't expect people to follow such demands, nor should you expect people to believe that you were confused about who did that edit (you even quoted the edit summary, but you didn't know who made it somehow?) Fram (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry for making an incorrect statement about who made an edit. I apologize if you found that was rude. Your map does not show that the Holy Roman Empire was "bigger than Germany" because every place within the map would have been considered part of Germany at that time. Our modern view of what is Germany is a result of the the actions of Prussia to exclude Austria for a newly formed Germany in the 1860s, and any application of a modern notion of German boundaries before 1860 is clearly a case of anachronism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the apology (or non-apology, apologies with "if" statements are rarely the best). Anyway, once again, Austrian Netherlands? Fram (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to the Russian Empire

[edit]

I think Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to the Russian Empire should be a sub-cat of Category:German emigrants to the Russian Empire or we should use the overlap rule to make it so all people in the former category are not in the latter category. From the creation of the Russian Empire in 1721 until the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 the only thing that in some way is "Germany" for people to emigrate from is the Holy Roman Empire. Emigrant categories are not by ethnicity but by the country you leave and end alliegiance with, Germany is more or less in this period of a time a synonym of the Holy Roman Empire. There is no place in the Holy Roman Empire, be in Bohemia or the Archduchy of Austria, that at the time would be considered to not be in Germany, and the vast majority of residents of the Archduchy of Austria, and a large number in Bohemia would have considered themselves German, the only truly definable group at the time is people emigrating from the Holy Roman Empire to the Russian Empire. It might be possible to create sub-categories of that for specific states within the Holy Roman Empire, but there is no definable group of emigrants who are German nationals other than those leaving the Holy Roman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not "more or less a synonym". "There is no place in the Holy Roman Empire, be in Bohemia or the Archduchy of Austria, that at the time would be considered to not be in Germany" shows a through misunderstanding of history. E.g. he Austrian Netherlands were a significant part of the HRE, but aren't and weren't generally considered to be a part of Germany.
"but there is no definable group of emigrants who are German nationals other than those leaving the Holy Roman Empire." Which makes German a subcat of HRE, not the other way around (as you did). Fram (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Austrian Netherlands were a very small part of the Holy Roman Empire. We parent a lot of other categories that have even less overlap than that. There is no coherent way to define "German" as a nation in the 18th-century. Emigration is by political unit. The Holy Roman Empire is the clear political unit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Some 10% of the population is not really a "very small part" in my view. Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • The percentage of the people who would not self describe as Spanish in Spain is far higher than that, but we still use Spanish. Neither Catalans nor Basques would consider themselves Spanish. I could come up with a lot more cases. I still think we should end all pre-1800 German categories and replace them with "from the Holy Roman Empire" and cats, and then various state sub-cats as applicable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            And I haven't argued that the Austrian Netherlands weren't part of the HRE, which seems to be your analogy for "people in Spain who do not self-describe as Spanish". I argue that the people in the Austrian Netherlands were and are usually not described as "German", unlike people in Saxony, Bremen, ... Ending all pre-1800 German cats would be a terrible idea. In what way would that help the readers (who are the people we should be doing this for)? Fram (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also both the Kingdom of Brittany and some areas such as Alsace, were in some ways not quite part of France in the pre-modern era, but we use "French" for all people from France at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German" is a not clear term in the pre-1800 era, in the same way that "Turkish" which would have been the common name at the time is not clear pre-1922. Categories need clear definitions of who it does and does not apply to. Who is and who is not German pre-1800 is not clear. From the Holy Roman Empire is clear. We should have definable categories that it can easily be determined who they do and do not apply to. From the Holy Roman Empire clearly fits that. Ambiguous categories with unclear definitions help no one, and there is no clear definition of what is and what is not a German national in the pre-1806 era, because there are lots of ethnic Germans who live in the Duchy of Schlewig and in what had been the Duchy of Prussia and even in what had been Royal Prussia, who live in areas that are not part of a definiable German state per se but who think of themselves in some ways German, but there are also lots of such people in the Baltic region of the Russian Empire. None of these people are German nationals, and how many of the people in Schleswig then would have considered themselves German, or Danes, or maybe just Schlewigian is not easily determined at this point. We should write article and build categories on ways that are clear and make sense, and imposing a term we cannot clearly define and that makes us have to take sides or at least negotiate around mine fields of 19th-century ethnic nationalism is not a wise move. We should build categories for nationality based on clearly definable nationality of the time, for the Holy Roman Empire that is the definable thing, with sub-cats for hte Electorate of Saxony, the Duchy of Bavaria, the Archduchy of Austria, the Electorate of Hanover and several other places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are people from the duchy of Lorraine before it is annexed by France German? The only coherent way to sort people in that area is to assign them as French when they live in areas under French control, and to either assign them as From the Holy Roman Empire or from their specific state at other times. The linguistic line cut through the duchy of Lorraine, but these categories are by nation people are nationals of, not language or ethnicity, and so we should not be cutting up the state of the duchy of Lorraine because its inhabitants did not all speak the same language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get why everyone must be shoehorned into just one precise cat when life and reality is messy and shifting. People can be both German and French, or German and Russian, or Flemish and from the HRE, or ... The choice we have, the categorization we add, doesn't have to be binary, doesn't have to be one or the other. I have no objection to categorizing people as e.g. "from the HRE" if that was the political reality at the time; but there is no reason to do this to the exclusion of other categorizations, other labels with which they may have identified or by which they are often labeled now. Fram (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • A person who lived in the city of Nancy all his life, while Nancy had the exact same political situatuon, should not be then placed in both French and German categories because we are not sure which is the best way to describe the person at the time. People should only be in multiple categories if either they move and become nationals of a new place, or the place they live changes what political state it is a part of, not because we are unsure what the best term is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        If they are described in reliable sources as German, then there is no reason not to place them in German cats. Categories should reflect what's in the article, and the article should reflect what's in the sources. Neither should be based on how we would like the world or history to be or what we consider to be reality. This has nothing to do with being unsure. Fram (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Categories should not blindly follow reliable sources. Some reliable sources will use "German" as an ethnic designation. Our category is a designation of nation of which people are nationals of. Categories should not be mixing unlike things that are named the same way. So we need to be discerning in what we name categories. Reliable sources in 1912, such as the main atlases published in that year, show a country called Turkey. We do not however call the country in the aritcle Turkey but the Holy Roman Empire. We need to make sure categories are grouping together like things and so just because a reliable source uses a word to describe someone does not mean placing them in a category using that word makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          WP:OR much? It's not about one source or an outdated source, we don't follow these for other stuff either (or shouldn't at least), but when countless sources call JS Bach a German composer[3] then we shouldn't be pedantic about and erase all German cats for that period and only categorize him as "from the HRE" because that is politically correct and for some very unclear reason we can't have him categorized as German. Fram (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Attempts to be historically accurate and consistent should not be dismissed as being "pedantic".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not original research when actual reliable sources support the understanding of what country a person actually lived in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your OR is that no matter how many sources call a person X (e.g. "German"), you know better than all these sources that doing so would make no sense: "We need to make sure categories are grouping together like things and so just because a reliable source uses a word to describe someone does not mean placing them in a category using that word makes sense.". Feel free to go to WP:VPP and propose a policy that we may not categorize people like JS Bach as German. Until then, please let these categories be, as they are supported by the articles and the sources, which is all that matters. Fram (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think we should avoid cases where we have people in 2 categories for the exact same movement. People moving from Leipzig to Moscow in 1750 should not be in 2 emigration categories for that same motion. So I feel as long as we have Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to the Russian Empire that would best be the only emigration category they would go in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on emigration categories

[edit]

Since emigration categories are based on leaving a defined country, and not based on weak things like ethnicity, I think we should limit Category:Italian emigrants to people leaving Italy after the formation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. For German emigrants we should limit them to people leaving Germany from 1919 on, with those earlier in Category:Emigrants from the German Empire. Russian emigrants would be limited to those leaving from 1991 on. Other people would be in applicable emigrant and immigrant categories. It really makes no sense for us to group together as if they are all leaving the same country people who left clearly different political entities. We also should limit American emigrants to those who left the United States after it was formed, and not include people who left areas that would later become the United States. This might lead to more people being directly in Immigrants to Foo categories and not as often in sub-categories, but the current attempt to mass diffuse everyone by country of emigration and country immigrated to pair has lead to far too many 1 entry categories and needs to be rethought.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some past indepdent states we have so few articles on people from them that it does not make sense to diffuse the emigrants from those states from the overall category of people from the state. This will lead to the people being directly placed in the applicable immigrants to foo category in all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poets categories

[edit]

A whole lot of people are in say Category:Dutch male poets without being in a gender neutral poets by nationality Category. This is primarily because the poets by nationality and century categories are not fully populated. So when I find this issue I try and fix it. It is one of the more common violations of ERGS rules that we see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base your changes on?

[edit]

When I check at your recent edits, I see things like this and this where you change contents based on, well, as far as I can tell just what you believe to be true, which too often seems to be wrong or dubious. On what basis do you make these changes? Fram (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, we should mention what the state was at the time. So if it was not in the Savoyard state, we need to say what state it was. Was that at the time part of the Duchy of Milan? The general standard is that the state something was in at the time of the event is what we should categorize it by. The Provinces of France and related resources I have found to be very helpful in determining what provinces places were in in pre-1790 France. I had incorrectly assumed that the Savoyard state in the late-17th-century included all the area today in the Piedmont. I will avoid making such historically anachronistic assumptions in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. If we clearly know what state something is in, then of course we can include it, but when in doubt it's better to have nothing at all than to guess. As far as I can tell for that first one, it was indeed in the Duchy of Milan (under the Spanish Habsburg rule?), but it seems to have been disputed for decades, so I wouldn't dare to state it with real certainty. The other one seems to have been mostly active in the Three Bishoprics, and less in the Duchy of Lorraine , but there as well borders are extremely complicated and it's not always easy to rapidly determine which village was part of which state in what year. Fram (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think we have enough evidence to place the first person in the 3 bishoprics category. We have Category:People from the Three Bishoprics. It would be nice if we had a detailed made of the Alsace-Lorraine region as we do in Hauts-de-France. Although that map has to be paired with other information, because it shows the situation in 1790. Some of the provinces shown were not French territory until the late-17th-century. The situation is even more headache making in along the eastern French border around Verdun and an Alsace. Mulhouse was part of Switizerland until the French revolition, and there were a whole myriad of French enclaves throughout the region.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm fairly certain that things like Longlaville, Ottange and Hayange were in the Three Bishoprics at the time, but not 100%. Without a clear source placing either him or the municipalities there at the time, I would just prefer to omit it. French Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and I would lead me too far to go search for better sources, but it claims that e.g. Hayange[4] was part of the Bailliage de Thionville[5] which was since 1659 (Treaty of the Pyrenees) part of France. But it doesn't state where the Bailiwick of Thionville belonged to: religiously, it was divided between the dioceses of Metz (part of the three Bishoprics) and Trèves (which at the time included Nancy, Saint-Dié, etcetera). So I'm not certain if these communes were part of the Three Bishoprics, even if I am fairly certain that they were part of France... Fram (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reading [6] about the Savoyard state from 1690-1748. I am not sure it will help much in understanding geography. It did help me realize that one unit of importance to that state was the County of Nice, I am not sure if we have an article on that area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Central College

[edit]

I feel weird contesting a category you added 17 years ago, but I think this is misleading. Saying that Seattle Central College was established in 1902 seems one heck of a stretch. That was the year Broadway High School opened. The present-day college incorporates an auditorium from Broadway High School, but other than that there is no meaningful connection past the Edison Technical School, which had no real connection to Broadway High School beyond the physical plant. To my mind, saying that Seattle Central College dates from 1902 is like saying that the Museu Picasso in Barcelona dates from the 13th century.

(If responding, please ping me, I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki.) - Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert&oldid=1319639730"