User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2024/August


Please add the modern country's parent category when you make occupations

Please don't forget to add ALL the parent categores. For example, Russian artisans is also a parent to Category:Artisans from the Russian Empire. You might not agree with that consensus, but you not doing it *just* makes more work for other people. I've done it this time. [1], but *PLEASE* add the modern nation parent. Not including it makes more work for other people, and makes it harder to find the newly created category. Mason (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Merchants from the Thirteen Colonies has been nominated for merging

Category:Merchants from the Thirteen Colonies 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. Mason (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

How is Category:Colonial American merchants different? Because this seems entirely duplicative. If you dislike the name, a rename is in order, not creating a duplicate. I'd be happy to add Merchants from the Thirteen Colonies as a potential parent category if you can walk me through how they're different.
-->|American=<!-- Case for American demonym}} :-->{{#switch: {{{Title_century}}}<!-- :-->|16|17|18=<!-- Centuries for Colonial America :-->{{#ifexist:Category:Colonial {{{Title_demonym}}} {{{Occupation}}}|[[Category:Colonial {{{Title_demonym}}} {{{Occupation}}}| ]]|}}<!-- :-->{{#ifexist:Category:{{{Title_demonym}}} colonial {{{Occupation}}}|[[Category:{{{Title_demonym}}} colonial {{{Occupation}}}| ]]|}}<!-- :-->}}<!-- End of switch for American :
Mason (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
These are different. Colonial America includes British Florida at least. There may be other non-overlspping areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
You have not given any substantive reason why we should keep the colonial American categories. Our article is under 13 Colonies. We should follow the name of the article on the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Older isn't better. The general trend is to use catehory names that clearly link to articles on recognized historical polities. Such as From the Thirteen Colonies since Thirteen Colonies is an actual article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
FYI. Older is better to ensure that the category edit and renaming history is preserved. I never said that one is better than the other in terms of the name, but my point was that there is no need to have two of them. And that the solution for highly overlapping categories is to do a CFD on the existing category, not make a new category. Mason (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Besides this the category is question has existed for 2 years. This is not really a recently created Category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
All the child categories are extremely recent... Mason (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Thirteen Colonies is an article. There is no Colonial America article. That redirects to colonial history of the United States, which indiscriminately covers all history in what is now the US when there was European colonial rule there, which is most definitely not a basis on which to build an occupational category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:English expatriates in the Thirteen Colonies has been nominated for deletion

Category:English expatriates in the Thirteen Colonies 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. Mason (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Printers from the Thirteen Colonies has been nominated for merging

Category:Printers from the Thirteen Colonies 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. Mason (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Writers from the Thirteen Colonies has been nominated for merging

Category:Writers from the Thirteen Colonies 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. Mason (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Kingdom of Wala, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Dukes in the Holy Roman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Dukes in the Holy Roman Empire 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 14:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Criminals from the Holy Roman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Criminals from the Holy Roman Empire 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 12:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Czechoslovak engravers

A tag has been placed on Category:Czechoslovak engravers 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 12:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Expatriates in Congress Poland

A tag has been placed on Category:Expatriates in Congress Poland 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 12:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Musicians from British Burma

A tag has been placed on Category:Musicians from British Burma 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 12:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

New message from Lost in Quebec

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have new messages at Lost in Quebec's talk page.
Message added 10:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm having a discussion with an editor you had the same issue with just recently. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please add sort keys when you add categories

Please add sort keys when you add categories. Right now Category:People from the Holy Roman Empire has a ton of People from FOO child categories that you added but non of them have keys. Right now they'll all sorted under P for people. Thanks! (I do appreciate you adding more parent categories!) Mason (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you finish adding the keys? Mason (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping me automatically add more parent categories to the category header templates?

Would you be interested in helping me automatically add more parent categories to the category header templates? I've programmed the category headers to make possible to add parent nationality categories. I'm currently working on the HRE, Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire.

Like right now I have German , Austrian, Luxembourgian, and Bohemian as parts of the HRE from the 10th through 18th century. But I know that you know WAY more about this topic (which countries were controlled by these empires and when). Would you be willing/interested in helping me?

Here's a link to the current template Template:Occupation_by_nationality_and_century_category_header/nationality, and here's a sample of what the code looks like. # Dynamic category assignment for HRE -->| German | Austrian |Luxembourgian|Bohemian =<!-- -->{{#switch: {{{Title_century}}}| 10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18 =<!-- Check for 10 to 18th century

I'd obviously be extremely willing to walk you through the code if you wanted to get into the weeds, but heck, even if you just made a list of which nations I should be looking at, that would be extremely helpful. Mason (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not think we should have a 17th-century Austrian people Category at all. The term is used inconsistently in that time frame. German and Holy Roman Empire are also functional equivalents in that time frame. Bohemian works, although with Bohemia, the Archduchy of Austria and some other territories all being directly ruled by the Habsburgs, movement between them is even more common that within the HRE as a whole. I think we may have some Carniolan categories. The Archduchy of Austria was much smaller than modern Austria. Yet sometimes direct Hansburg territory, especially after 1648 is called "Austria". This is an inconsistent practice though, which is why we have the from the Habsburg monarchy categories. However this territory exists inside and outside the Holy Roman Empire. So does the Kingdom of Prussia. The Ottoman Empire is even more complicating. For example there is never a point where all Greek lands are under it. The Ionian Islands are Venetian until 1797, then French and a few other things, and then from about 1815 the British protectorate of the United Ststes of the Ionian Islands. Back to the HRE, in theory Bavarian, Saxon, Honoverian, Hessian and a few other sub-groups are possible. The terms themselves are very messy, and from Bavaria, from Saxony etc might be better. If paired with a century thry might even go better. I am thinking 18th-century people from Hanover would be clear enough. Saxony I believe you have a Duchy of Saxony and an Rlectorate of Saxony existing at the same time so that is getting too messy. 17th-century people from Brandenburg might work. 18th-century people from Brandenburg would work I believe, unless we really want to use 18th-century people from the Margravate (I hope I spelled it right) of Brandenburg. This would allow us to better connect those people from that part of the Kingdom of Prussia, the main part in the Holy Roman Empire, with the Holy Roman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
That said a few things are unclear to me. One is when the Savoyard state stops being part of the Holy Roman Empire. I was under the impression that as of 1848 nothing that would br Italy in 1910 was still in the Holy Roman Empire. The boundaries did however encompass some areas such as the French Comte, that would be in France by 1910. Ineed to see if I can understand this better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Goodness, this is indeed really complicated. Thanks for thinking about this! Do you think it's ok that given that we do have FOOth-century austrian categories that they can be parented by the FOOth-century HRE categories? Mason (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I would say Austrian should be renamed to x century from the Archduchy of Austria, and anyone actually from Tyrol or other areas beyond what was then the Archduchy of Austria should be removed. Since the Archduchy of Austria was all in the HRE that can be patented. Some people refer to the "Austrian Empire" in the 18th-century to mean the territories of the Habsburg monarchy, which was Austria, Tyrol, Carniola, the Kingdom of Bohemia, Silesia until 1741 or son(under Bohemia), the Kingdom of Hungary (which included was is now Croatia, Slovakia, Transylvania, an area called the Banat which is now a plot between Romania and Serbia, sub-capathian Ruthenia which is now in Ukraine, and I believe an area that is now in Austria). I believe for a time another part of modern Serbia was under Hanbsburg rule but not in Hungary. Where this gets really confusing is the standard statement is that Poland in 1772 was partitioned between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Sometimes stated the Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia and the Russian Rmpire. The issue is the Austrian Empire technically is founded in 1804. Austria is one of the major powers of Europe, but it technically is a collection of multiple areas with one ruler, and maybe one government, I am not sure exactly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The Duchy of Savoy is technically part of the Holy Roman Empire until it is taken over by the French Republic in 1792. However Sardinia is not. Aosta I believe technically is, but I am unclear if Piedmont is. The Savoyard State only rules part of modern Piedmont until 1713. It is the part with Turin which is the capital but not all of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    This map [File:Holy Roman Empire 1648.svg shows you how complex things are. It also seems to imply that as of 1648 Savoy was no longer in the HRE. Tuscany is evidently out. If this is right we need to take 18th-century Grand Duchy of Tuscany people out of the HRE cat. The Archduchy of Austria is one of 5 or so territories ruled by the Habsburgs that now make Austria. They also rule Bohemia. They also rule some other areas in what is now souther Germany. France also controls some areas surrounded by the HRE, that boundary is messy at this point. That large lump along the Swiss border is a part of France nestled between the HRE and Switzerland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks! Mason (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • From the 1520s until the 1790s Flanders is part of the Holy Roman Empire. So 17th and 18th century Flemish categories can go under the Holy Roman Empire. 16th century more than likely. Especially since pre-1526 the area included areas both in the Holy Roman Empire and in France. The County of Flanders pre-1526 is a technical part of France, but de facto had been part of the broader Burgundian Netherlands state for about 200 years. Before that it was essentially an independent polity recognizing the French king as overlord.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    Seriously, so helpful! I'll add those to the template. Mason (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Flemish is a messy term. Ay first it meant people who were from the County of Flanders. Today it either means people from the Flamders region, or basically the Dutch or near Dutch speaking inhabitants of Belgium as opposed yo the French speaking Wallond. It is cobfusing more because the County of Flanders was in France until 1526, and some of its areas like Dunkirk became integrally French, but it is the non-French part of Brlgium by language. The cou ty of Flanders was only about the western third 9f modern Flanders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I agree that flemish is a messy term under the category tree. I set the 16th to be parented by France and HRE, as well as be in 16th-century people by nationality. See Category:16th-century Flemish painters. Mason (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    It gets more fun. There is an area called Zeelandic Flanders. It was part of the County of Flanders until 1604. Then it was taken by the Dutch Republic and g8ven to Zeeland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Are princesses actually a coherent group we can put in 1 category

I am starting to wonder if princesses and princesses are really a coherent group we can put in 1 Category. It sometimes feels like there are too many similar but not the same types of people being thrown in 1 Category. There are essentially 4 groups of people here. It is not clear that all of then even had the relevant title. Sometimes they are called a prince or princess, but it is not clear that they are. Further there is an unclarity on what this means for any particular Category. The 4 groups are 1-rulers who have the title of Prince or princess. They rule a Principality. Our article on Principality says this "A principality (or sometimes princedom) can either be a monarchical feudatory or a sovereign state, ruled or reigned over by a regnant-monarch with the title of prince and/or princess, or by a monarch with another title considered to fall under the generic meaning of the term prince." So for example the Electorate of Hanover is in the Principality tree. There seem to have been about 50 principalities in the Holy Roman Empire. Despite claims about the levels on ranks, many people who held the title prince had much less territory than some dukes, margraves or counts, and especially after 1848 many rulers in the Holy Roman Empire were de facto princes, whatever their title was. This leads to group 2. Where group 1 is mainly princes, with the rare princess, group 2 is mainly princesses. Here are the wives of ruling princes. There is a whole different set. The term prince and princess are also used for the legitimate children of kings. Sometimes they have a title of prince or princess. At times in England some of these people had titles like Duke of York, Duke of Clarence etc, but they were also a prince. This group is split more of less evenly between men and women. Sometimes this form is used for the children of more or less independent monarchs who are not kings. So the children of a ruling prince end up being princes and princesses. I think you will find this applied to the children of an Emperor, and at least where you have dukes who are basically independent this will come up. There is one more group, which is mainly the wives of the sons of ruling monarchs, but sometimes I believe also the husband's of the daughters of ruling monarchs. Plus there are some uses that do not fit. In England/the United Kingdom the general convention is to style the husband of the ruling queen not king but prince consort. This may apply in other cases as well. Many people are actually prince or princess in multiple ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The above is ban enough. However when we pair country/nationality and prince/princess we get even messier. We have inconsistent names. Like right now there is Category:Princes of the Holy Roman Empire and Princesses in the Holy Roman Empire. I am not even sure we know for sure if French princesses, Princesses from France, Princesses of France and Princesses in France all have the same scope. The biggest issue is If someone was born in the Russian Empire, her title is Princess of X, but this is essentially a noble title with no independence and she is not part of the Royal family, but a distant cousin to the Emperor, she flees the revolution at age 15 in 1918, moves to France where she is called Princess Natalia or Princess Natasha, how do we categorize her? A-do we care more for title or actual role? Does anyone who holds the title princess for in princess categories, so we categorize by title, or do they have to be in some way royal, and we exclude nobles who gave extravagant titles? At the sane time do children of a ruling monarch get placed in prince and princess categories even if thry lack the title? Lastly, do we track residence, or origin of the title? Do we exclude dead titles even of that is what someone is known as? I think the answers are 1-I think until we are more clear we mix basically everyone styled prince or princess, either by convention or actual title. If they hold a recofmgnized title as prince pr Princess or if reliable sources say thry were such, even with a different title we merge them. We should reserve Prince of X and Princess of X for people who held that title. At least in cases where demonyms are not clear and unambiguous, and maybe in cases where thry are we should have Princess in and Prince in. So Princess in the Russian Empire, Princess in the Holy Roman Empire, Princess in the Kingdom of Naples and anything else. The key is what is in is not the person but the title or office. You do not have to be born or reside in the place. However your title or office does need to be legally recognized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Ancestry categories and royalty

I am thinking we should exclude royalty from most ancestry categories. Especially pre-1800 European royalty. Thry could trace ancestors all across at least western Europe, but this would not seem to be very relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Please wait on making more women nobility categories. The CFD on the topic on the entire tree isn't closed yet. (I appreciate that you added the parent categories you did for Category:Noblewomen of the Kingdom of Hungary, but don't forget to add non-diffusing tags for women categories.) Mason (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I am unconvinced these should be none diffusing. We do not make Queens a non-diffusing sub-cat of Queens. Duchesses are not non-diffusing sub-cats of dukes. Countesses are not non-diffusing from counts. Princesses are not non-diffusing from princes. I would argue that noblemen and noblewomen are distinct enough, and the roles differently enough that we can fully diffuse them as we do for other things. Since we have carltrgories for coutesses, Princesses, Duchesne and other groups of noblewomen, my categories are in fact gathering existing categories together. The categories already exist. I will hold off but I think this is a misappropriation of the rules to stop reasonable development of Wikipedia. The proposal is not about deletion, the clear thrust of most editors is they see that noblewomen are a distinct group that needs categorizing. Anyway this is partly a response to you wrong-headed reinsertion of people directly into X nationality women categories, which are container categories and should have no biographies at all. This is actually also a necessary response to that issue. Women should not be directly in X nationality women categories. A huge number of articles we have are on people whose main defining characteristic is being a French noblewoman, a Spanish noblewoman, etc. We should have a category to recognize this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
>The categories already exist. I will hold off but I think this is a misappropriation of the rules to stop reasonable development of Wikipedia.
I appreciate your waiting, as well as your sharing your opinion. I think that the default for gender related categories is to assume that they're diffusing until overwise. I agree with you the for specific titles diffusion is fine, but I think for a generic category, we'd end up ghettozing women nobility while male nobility would remain in the ungendered main category. Mason (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
We could just as easily create noblemen and noblewomen categories. Like we do with male actors and actresses. I think this would be far more accurate. A nobleman and a noblewomen historically are almost as different in role as a knight and a lady. Well, since in 1350 basically all noblemen were Knights, and as knight were noble, although there were men-at-arms who were not Knights, the Last Duel is coming to my mind here, more the book than the film with Adam Diver, in 1350 noblemen are essentially Knights and noblewomen are essentially ladies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
We could, and is definitely something to think about, but, that's not the state of the categories right now. As of right now, the lack of a diffusion tag would ghettoize noblewomen. Mason (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Is women nobility meant to group articles in titles or people?

I just realized something. We have Category:Women nobility but it is unclear if this is A-meant yo group biographical articles on specific noblewomen, B-group articles on Duchess, Baroness (which oddly is a refirect), and so on or C- have both. It looks to me like we treat royalty as a sub-cat of nobility, so I would assume Queen (well that is a disambiguation page, Queen of the Romans, Princess and so on would either go here or in a sub-cat. Although at first glance it looks like we have not created that any distinct articles on these topics. So my guess is we can easily rename women nobility to noblewomen and place the few non-bio articles there. The bigger issue is two things. 1-is nobility a concept that really can be group internationally. The Aliʻi of Hawai'i are called "nobles", but are thry really like enough to place directly in a transnational cat if we lack enough individual articles? The other issue is we need to remember we categorize by shared trait not shared name. Are Duchesses different enough from Countesses that it makes sense to have separate categories? Alternately maybe it makes sense to separate noblewomen by rank if we have enough for a given nationality, but the different ranks really only apply in a given system. Maybe English countesses, who are the wives of Earls, really are not enough like French countesses, to make a category called countesses to group them. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Earls in the Peerage of England

This category has 128 sub-categories. It also has 24 direct articles. Several of the sub-cats have less than 5 articles and a few have 2. I am thinking some of the sub-cats may be less than helpful for navigation and some up merging might help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Peerage of England refers to people given noble titles before 1707. So no new people are going to get titles. It is possible there are some people who were nobles then who lack articles and articles will be created on in the future. However we can probably safely analyze what we have now yo determine its reasonableness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

João, Prince of Brazil

Here we have a Wikipedia article on João, Prince of Brazil who died at less than 1 month og age.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree its really short, but it's possible that there's more coverage in another language. Mason (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Duke of v. Duke in

I think we should only have categories with titles like "Dukes of Croatia" where there was an actual titles "Dike of Criatia". I think any Cades like "Dukes of the Holy Roman Empire" where this is not the title should be renamed to "Dukes in the Holy Roman Empore". Right now the categories under "Dukes by coultey" have forms Fooian Dukes, Dukes of Foo and Dukes in Foo. I am a little less decided if Fooian Dukes works, bit I think even there Dukes in Foo would be a better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Hello! Royalty and nobility are 2 disctinctly different subjects and cannot be inter-categorized under any circumstances - please learn the difference! And when you've learned it I trust you'll stop doing damage like this. The two subjects can, as any different subjects, be categorized together ("Royalty and nobility ..."), but not subbed one under another and not equalized in any way. Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is needlessly combative. These things are not as distinct as you think. Many people have simultaneously held noble and royal titles. Prince is often thought of an a royal title. It is in fact listed as a common title of nobility. This is far more complex than you make it out to be. Leaving ride and insulating messages like this is not the way to go about approaching such a complex topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing JPL has a good point. Your concern could have been conveyed more diplomatically. Mason (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobility and royalty

Wikipedia has an article Imperial, royal and noble ranks which leads me to think the line between nobility and royalty is not well defined. Also one of the titles listed in the article on nobility is "prince". This is not a topic that lends itself to super clear lines of distinction and the combative way one editor is trying to enforce his view that nobility and royalty are absolutely separate and never overlap at all is not at all the way to go about this discussion. I am not sure we have an article on Royalty it appears to be a disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Members of a Royal family are not members of nobility. The title of Prince is not just a royal title but also the highest title of nobility in some countries. Nobility ranks under royalty and is created by the heads of royal families, i.e. the monarch. When a member of nobility marries or is appointed to royalty their position becomes royalty and is no longer nobility. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
"When a member of nobility marries or is appointed to royalty their position becomes royalty and is no longer nobility", That means that they can be classified as both. Mason (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't move German people into HRE categories

I've reverted your recent change on Johann Jakob Schnell. Please don't go about removing Category:18th-century German composers; and then adding them Category:18th-century composers from the Holy Roman Empire. They were already in the more specific category of German, and the lead literally said that they were German. I thought we had finally found a reasonable compromise that wouldn't result in mass removals of people from more specific categories. Mason (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  • I do not think we should have either Austrian nor German categories before 1800. We should upmerge both to the Holy Roman Empire. There is not reasonable or consistent difference between the two at that time period. From the Holy Roman Empire is the only reasonable one. I very much want to voice objection to the current system which anachronistically imposes the present on the past in ways that do not make sense. I will not make such moves for now, but I very much and very clearly object to the system as it is. It is clearly anachronistic and not reflective of the reality of the 18th-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to respect the current consensus, even though you disagree with it. I think you have reasonable points, and actually your argument is one of the reasons I've made lots of HRE categories lately. Think about it this way, now with these HRE categories by century exist, if the consensus changes, it will be extremely easy to upmerge. Mason (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Counts in the Holy Roman Empire

I just realized we have both Category:Counts in the Holy Roman Empire and Counts of the Holy Roman Empire. I am not at all sure there is any difference. I do not believe "count of the Holy Roman Empire" was a title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've just converted the newer one to a redirect. The solution here is to rename, not make a 2nd category Mason (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
JPL, the solution is to propose a rename to the original, not create a 2nd category. Mason (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The second one was created over a week ago. You can not just arbitrarily destroy it. Anyway, it naturally follows from the Category:Counts in Germany. It exists. You can not just destroy it like that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not destroying it. Mason (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes you are. You unilaterally removed all the contents with no discussion with anyone. You think you can do what ever you want. You ignore all the similar named categories. Converting a category with contents into a redirect should not be done unilaterally without discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • If I cannot remove 1 article that clearly does not fit from a category because it is the lone category, you definately cannot go and make an existing category a category redirect. Especially when it is patterned after other categories. That is just wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Counts in the Holy Roman Empire has been nominated for merging

Category:Counts in the Holy Roman Empire 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. Mason (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The category should clearly use in. There is no title "Count of the Holy Roman Empire". The one think we know for sure if these counts had titles based in the Holy Roman Empire. Due to the multiple levels of government in the Holy Roman Empire it is possible some of these people even had titles given by people at a lower level than the Empire. So I think in this case we clearly want to use "in". Besides this we currently have "countesses in the Holy Roman Empire" and "Counts in Germany".John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    I personally don't have a preference for of or in. My point is that the way to go about renaming is to "rename" not to create a duplicate category. Mason (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
    • The duplicate category was not created intentionally. When the relevant category is named "Counts in Germany" it is reasonable to suppose that the lack of "Counts in the Holy Roman Empire" is an indication the category does not exist. Especially when there is also "Countesses in the Holy Roman Empire".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
      Thanks for the extra context. I think the assumption you made was reasonable, (a.k.a. that the lack of a counts in HRE meant that there wasn't a counts category). My criticism (not that I think of it as a negative thing) was that once you realized there were two the solution would be to redirect the newer category and then suggest a rename for the older category if the newer category's name was an improvement, rather than having them both exist. I've made lots of categories only to realize that there was an older version. In those situations I make a redirect to the older category and then possible make a rename request to rename the older version to match the current naming system. Mason (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Noblewomen

In many articles about the only way the person is described is as a "noblewoman" or a "nobleman". I am starting to think we should create both "noblewomen" and "nobleman" trees. The roles, duties and functions of the two have often been so different, starting with medival times when noblemen were knights (and most or all knights were noblemen, some understandings see knight itself as a noble title) and noblewomen were ladies (which was a rank designation, and not a synonym of women).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Deaths by firearm in the Holy Roman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Deaths by firearm in the Holy Roman Empire 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 14:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

18th-century American cats should not be sub-cats of 13th Colony people cats

Not all 18th-cenrury Americans were from the 13 Colonies. For 24 ywmears in the 18th century the Colonies were self declared free, recognized by Britain for 27 years. So not all 18th century are 13 Colony. We should use overlap rules. We should limit the 18th century categories either to those only defined by post-1776 actions, or maybe more usefully allow people notable before and after 1776 in both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ethnic German people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

A tag has been placed on Category:Ethnic German people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth 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 13:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Roger S. Hayes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger S. Hayes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger S. Hayes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The mess of nobility categories

I just realized that nobility categories are a mess. This is my thoughts on how we should move forward.

  1. nobility often hold titles for places that they have little ancestral connections for, or never really were, or other such things. The places are often historic places that were not like the modern countries. For these reasons I think we should follow the lead of the category head which is "noblity by country", and rename all categories to Nobility in the Kingdom of Greece, Nobility in the German Empire, Nobility in the Kingdom of Denmark, Nobility in the Russian Empire, etc?
  2. In the case of nobles there is a huge difference between men and women. In medieval times noblemen were knights and noblewomen were ladies (a rank, not just all women). Even though this does not directly apply more recently it does not mean their offices, roles, and everything else are not still different. For this reason I think we should create fully diffusing "Noblemen" and "Noblewomen" categories. We already diffuse a lot into counts or earls, countesses, barons, baronesses, duchesses, dukes, etc.
  3. We need to decide if A-royalty is a sub-cat of nobility (which is how we are treating it de facto at present "nobility from Cophenhagen" mainly has princesses, daughters of kings of Denmark, or wives of the sons of kings of Denmark) or B-are they related but not direct categories of eachother. If B than we need to create a super-catetgory "royalty and nobility", we need "Royalty and nobility in the Kingdom of Denmark", "Royalty and nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary" etc. Also if B than I think we should call the category "royal woman and noblewomen in the Kingdom of Hungary" etc. Either way I think we need to place queens in the noblewomen category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  4. We should limit these categories to people who actually had real power and were part of recognized nobility. People who were claimants to extinct thrones, who spent their who life as exiles from a country after their family was deprived of power should be categorized by actual rank. So people in "Nobility in the United Kingdom" unless their noble title was from there. If they were holders of titles in the Russian Empire, either living their whole life abroad or exiled after the revolution they should not go in the UK (or France, or the Netherlands, etc.) category. Now, if they were born a Princess in the Russian Empire, and then married a Duke in the United Kingdom and thus became a Duchess in the United Kingdom, they could go in categories reflecting both of these, but if they marry some movie producer with no title, they do not go there. Thus we should not have Category:Nobility in the United States, because the United States has no noble titles. The same applies to other countries lacking such, which is why it is best to connect the nobility to the specific country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Hungarian noblewomen

A tag has been placed on Category:Hungarian noblewomen 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 14:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Uneven coverage

Pretty much the only members of colonial assrmblies in New England we have articles on are those who represented Dedham, Massachusetts and Nirfolk Connecticut. This is the result of irregular myopic creation of articles on people connected wth these two places by local history rnthudiast editors with no consideration of the grander scheme. This leads to Wikipedia far over covering these two places with no good reason at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What makes someone a prince or a princess

What do we mean when we have an article that says that someone was say "a German princess"? I have seen this issue before with both princes and princesses but Duchess Charlotte Felicitas of Brunswick-Lüneburg is an example. The article opens by saying she was "a German princess". It maybe should say "Hanoverian", but she never seems to have held the title of Princess. It seems she is being called "princess" because she was the daughter of someone who is often considered a de facto monarch. It also may help that she married someone who even though he held the title of Duke was essentially a "prince" in that he ruled a de facto indepdent state. So she was born a princess as the daughter of a de facto monarch and then was a princess as the wife of a de facto monarch. However her actual title in both cases was "duchess". This issue also goes to the fuzzyness of monarchs and monarchs. Were the Electors of Hanover monarchs or nobles? How about the Dukes of Milan? The Dukes of Savoy? It will not help some were held by both. Were the Dukes of Aquataine monarchs or nobles? What about Duke William of Normandy before he became the conqueror? I really think we are best off royalty as a sub-set of nobility, because I do not think the differences are such that one can easily determine in all cases which is which. Also so many royals were at one point nobles the lines are just too fuzzy. Plus I think technically Emperors and Empresses are not "royal" but "imperial". However I do not think it makes sense to create a third such class of categories, especially since many people held imperial and royal titles at the same time (Queen Victoria was Empress of India while Queen of the United Kingdom, for almost 250 years almost all the Holy Roman Empreors were Kings of Hungary, Kings of Bohemia, Archdukes of Austria (is that royal or noble?) and holders of other titles at one and the same time. There are lots more examples of this. Categories need to be workable, and I think the most workable approach is to treat nobility categories are covering nobilit, royalty and imperial, and for the most part only sub-dividing by actual title. I see a reason to have "Countesses in the Holy Roman Empire".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Diplomats of former countries

The category Category:Diplomats of former countries should be renamed to Category:Diplomats by former country. This would match all the other former countries categories. The thing is being a diplomat of a former country is not really defining, this is just a way to group the former countries together. Exactly why we do this and do not place them directly in Diplomats by nationality I am not 100% sure, but it is how we do things for basically every by occupation category, and there is no reason to be different with diplomats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That a good suggestion! Mason (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Diplomats by former country

A tag has been placed on Category:Diplomats by former country 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 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of Scotland has been nominated for deletion

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of Scotland 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) 06:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the same as Medieval since it goes to 1707. It is also not the same as nobility since that includes women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Noblemen in Spain has been nominated for merging

Category:Noblemen in Spain 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. Mason (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Noblemen in the Holy Roman Empire has been nominated for merging

Category:Noblemen in the Holy Roman Empire 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. Mason (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of Hungary has been nominated for merging

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of Hungary 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. Mason (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:British noblemen has been nominated for merging

Category:British noblemen 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. Mason (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of England has been nominated for merging

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of England 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. Mason (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Noblemen in France has been nominated for merging

Category:Noblemen in France 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. Mason (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Noblemen in the Papal States has been nominated for merging

Category:Noblemen in the Papal States 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. Mason (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of Prussia has been nominated for merging

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of Prussia 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. Mason (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)