This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johnpacklambert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
So I have ended my review of 1860 births. Here is the full report.
1860s births has 524 articles. When I strated review back in April it had 223 articles. 1860 births has 3,119 articles, down from 3,182. 1861 has 3,031 down from 3,047. 1862 births has 3,119 down from 3,155. 1863 births has 3,174 down from 3,190. 1864 births have 3,265 down from 3,287. 1865 births has 3,318 down from 3,369. 1866 births has 3,342 down from 3,380. 1867 births has 3,460 down from 3,500. 1868 births has 3,487 down from 3,513. 1869 births has 3,626. It seems to be missing from the previous report.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
1850s births has 243 articles. 1850 births has 2,470 articles. 1851 births has 2,312 articles. 1852 births has 2,474 articles. 1853 births has 2,293 articles. 1854 births has 2,635 articles. 1855 births has 2,514 articles. 1856 births has 2,796 articles. 1857 births has 2,841 articles. 1858 births has 2,993 articles. 1859 births has 3,066 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Modern Albania was formed in 1912. So most Albanians lived as subjects of the Ottoman Empire for over a decade in the 20th-century. So there are people who would not fall under any of the above century categories. While modern Albania is at those times all in the Ottoman Empire, there are people in the same period who see themselves as ethnic Albanians, who do not live in the Ottoman Empire. This begins to be more pronounced in the early 19th-century. I am also less than sure if we are always fully justified in calling these people Albanian. We need to avoid placing modern national tags on people who lived in the past in ways that are either not how they self identified, or are disputed. In 1815 Albanians lived in many areas not just of modern Albanian, but also modern Greece, modern North Macedonia, modern Kosovo, and also parts of modern Montenegro and modern Serbia. In basically all these areas there were also people resident who would not have seen themselves as Albanians. Actually, the Principality of Serbia was starting to form then, it was smaller in area than modern Serbia, I am not sure if many Albanians ended up in it. Montenegro also was not part of the Ottoman Empire, but had different boundaries than the modern state. Many Albanians who were in the Ottoman Empire ended up moving far beyond the boundaries of modern Albania and to areas where they were clearly an ethnic minority. Clearly as subjects or nationals of the Ottoman Empire these people need to be placed in categories that put them under the Ottoman Empire. We actually have 3 such categories, Category:Albanians from the Ottoman Empire, Category:Albanian people in the Ottoman Empire and Category;Albanians in the Ottoman Empire. We also have Category:People from the Ottoman Empire of Albanian descent. I am not at all sure which name is the best. In fact the best name might well be Category:Albanian people from the Ottoman Empire. I actually think that is a preferralbe name to any we currently have. I think we might further divide that into by century categories, but I do not think we should directly place people from before 1912 in any Albanian people categories. Realistically we should limit Category:Albanian people and it sub-cats to those who were subjects or nationals of Albania, the country formed in 1912. We should have a seperate Category:Ethnic Albanian people for those who were by ethnicity Albanian but were never subjects or nationals of Albania but of other politicies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
It is possible we would want one name for the biographical articles and one for topic articles. I think ideally we would limit Category:Albanian people to people who were subjects or nationals or the state of Albania formed in 1912. People who lived outside that state could then be placed in a general category called Category:Ethnic Albanian people. People who lived in medieval states that used the Albanian name, could be placed in categories to identify them as subjects or nationals of those particular states. While there may be a place for Category:People of Albanian descent, it would not be a good category for those who consider themselves Albanian, not just by language but other deep things that identify ethnicity, who live in Kosovo, North Macedonia and some other areas. These are not people who lived in the current state of Albania or had ancestors there who moved elsewhere, these are people who have essnetially been living in these areas since well before the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, but in some cases also moved around freely within Yugoslavia. This is a case where it makes sense to see people as Albanian people in Yugoslavia, Albanian people in North Macedonia, etc. and not just of that "descent". However we need to treat these as by ethnicity nor by nationality, and not merge them into the categories for people who are subjects and nationals of the modern state of Albania. In this case we have two groups of people who use the same name, and somewhat overlap, but really are 2 different things. We have this going on with other groups. We have Category:Ethnic German people, which covers people who were German by language etc, and often lived in large multi-ethnic Empires, but who did not live in the country of Germany and were not nationals of that country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Some of our articles on people currently in 17th-century Albanian people and 18th-century Albanian people were actually subjects of the Republic of Venice, mainly through its various possessions along the Adriatic shore, and not subjects of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I futher think we should upmerge Albanians in the Ottoman Empire and Albanians in the Ottoman Empire to Albanian people from the Ottoman Empire. I think someone needs to then review Category:People from the Ottoman Empire of Albanian descent and then write a report to say yes, these people are clearly just Albanian by ancestry, or no, they are not and we should upmerge the cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I think on review that we should get rid of Category:People from the Ottoman Empire of Albanian descent. This should not include people who were clearly Albanian by ethnicity, they should instead go in what would best be named Category:Albanian people from the Ottoman Empire. It also should not include people for whom we have sources that dispute their ethnic origins, saying they were maybe Albanian, maybe Serbian, mayber Turkish, maybe Greek etc. Right now it has one person who had one Albanian parent and one Tatar parent. It might include people who were subjects of the Ottoman Empire who were seen as of Albanian descent, but themselves not Albanian by ethnicity. Right now I only could find one article. There may be more if someone search through all the articles we have on people from the Ottoman Empire, but it should exclude those who clearly are Albanian by ethnicity, and it should exclude those who ancestry or origin is disputed, and those are far more of the people from the Ottoman Empire than are those who were Albanian by ancestry but not by ethnicity, so I really do not think having this category is justified. For one thing, random ancestry of a person that does not constitute an actual ethnicity is not really a defining characteristic, especially in areas were this is distinct from those who are of that ethnicity. Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of Italian descent work, because a lot of the people there are really ethnic Irish nationals of the united States, and ethnic Italian nationals of the United States, but figuring out who those who were really that and who those who were just be descent is very tricky, and we know some of the people placed there are the latter, but it is worth just lumping them all together, although even those categories too often get people placed in them who either A-there is nothing in the article to support putting them in the category or B-if you consider the sourcing you realize this is not a defining trait of the person. The edges of categories are sometimes hard to parse, but I am pretty sure in the case of the Ottoman Empire being of Albanian descent in a way that does not constitute being ethnically Albanian is a case of a non-defining ancestry that is not worth having a category for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
We need less puffery
We almost never should call someone noted, prominent, notable or eminent. If he or she were not in some way one of those things, we would not have an article on him or her. The word famous also seems to not really add any value to the article. If the person had no fame at all we would not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Miklós Izsó managed to be doubly miscategorized. He died in 1875, when there was no Bulgaria. However he did not die in the Ottoman Empire, which covered all of modern Bulgaria at the time of his death. He died in Budapest, which was then part of Austria-Hungary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, this is an interesting question. I am not fully sure of the answer. I am thinking that in theory Heke also belongs in Category:Infectious disease deaths in the Colony of New Zealand but that does not yet exist. The size of the Tubercolosis deaths Category does not make it logical to further divide it. This is a messy tree to build because it seems we do not categorize every biographical article by place of death, but only some where we feel the intersection of cause of death is defining. This is an odd tree all told.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah you make some interesting comments; I agree it's kind of an odd area. Thanks for taking the time to think about it and create that new category. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
New Zealand is one of the easier areas. In 1898 there were 5 Colonies on the Australian continent, and a sixth in Tasmania which we think of as the Australian continent, but I am not sure if in 1898 people would have seen it quite that way. South Africa was 4 colonies before unification in 1910, but gets odder further back. Swaziland and Lesotho make it so there is nothing clear in 1909 as to what would be in a larger South Africa. Newfoundland was a dominion seperate from Cabada until 1949. Canada in 1858, the year I am slowly going through births, was a Province or Colony, that corresponded to some parts of modern Quebec and Ontario. They were seperate colonies of Lower and Upper Canada until 1841, when they became one Colony, but people still spoke of Canada East and Canada West, which were basically Quebec and Ontario. Actually less than half the modern Provinces, but almost all the population. By area I believe more of modern Ontario was in Rupert's Land, which also included modern Manitoba, I believe also some of Saskatchewan. That is messy.
The British West Indies pose a slightly different mess. At times there were colonies larger than the modern nations, but movement within the Empire was somewhat free. Also the low number of articles and the fact that some are not clear where in the British West Indies a person lived support the conglomerate Category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
We have an article on the British West Indies, however this was never one place. It appears that we should include British Guiana and British Honduras under the term, and the Bahamas. A few categories may need to be refined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Presentism
Wikipedia has too much presentism. Categories should organize and group people in ways that make sense based on the time the subjects lived. All events should be listed based on the standard name of a place at the time of the event. Either the name then used, or the name used by historians to distinguish that place at that time. In some cases the current name can also be used, but the name at the time needs to be used. For various reasons there are huge numbers of articles where this is not the guideline followed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The rules on some other things are tricky. One strong example is people who died before Nangladesh was formed should not be in any Bangladesh categories. There are some other cases that are a bit trickier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Deaths in the Soviet Union
I am thinking for people who died in the Soviet Union, we would make the best decision to not put them in categories that are meant for people who died in independent countries. So the category Deaths in Kazakstan would refer to people who died there since 1991. We could have a category Deaths in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic for people who died there while it was part of the Soviet Union, if our contents are enough to justify such a cat. I am not sure they are at present, unless people want to go through and figure out a way to put more articles in the deaths by country sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, please make sure to not remove the articles outright from the category tree if you think the country is wrong, instead change it into the parent category. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed some people are categorized by receiving multiple classes of the same award. This seems excessive. I would think we could put them in the category for the highest class of that award they were given, and not put them in categories for the other levels of that award they were given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
