User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2024/December


Birth year upmerge

If we were to upmerge all births in the 990s to Category:990s births, the category would have about 85 articles. Since a large number of the people in dpecific birth years are people whose birth was recorded in the Islamic calendar where we only have a year, and that year corresponds to 2 years in the Julian Calendar, it would probably make a lot of sense to upmerge everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I think we should apply this principal to all birth years before AD 1000, only categorizing people by birth decade. The principals of dealing with different calendars, and having very small categories apply more and more as you go back. In the 930s there are 83 articles, 48 of them currently already in the 930s decade birth cat. We have no category there even to 10 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • On the matter of upmerging all establishments, disestablishments, births and deaths. For the 390s there are I think 20 births total. Even deaths only has 77. I think if we did all upmerged for the 390s that would work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Jayasimha I (Eastern Chalukya dynasty)

Jayasimha I (Eastern Chalukya dynasty) is in a borth year category. This is however based on an incorrect reading of the material. The years given are the 32 years he was ruler. So 641 is not his birth year. So he should in fact be moved to the Year of birth unknown Category because we do not know in which year he was born. However his is the only entry in 641 births. So removing him would empty the category. Removing him to Year of birth unknown is what we should do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Theuderic I

Theuderic I article says he was born c. 487. He is however at present the only article in the 485 birth year Category. In this case we really would best move him to the 480s birth year Category and empty the 485 birth year category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the 480s births Category, directly and in all sub-cats (of which only 8 exist) has 39 articles. We are missing 481 and 482. There is a Byzantine Emperor who at least his article says he was born in 482. It is not worth creating a Category to put only one birth in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

470s births

470s births has only 25 articles total. I have not even started checking to make sure they all belong. I think pre-500 we could merge everything to the level of decade categories. I do not think we have enough of anything to justify more specific categories. By 1000 we have enough deaths to justify categories, but not pre-500.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The category has Narses in the 478 category. The article says he was born in 478 or 480, and even these look to be approximate guesses. So really we should move that to 5th-century births, but since it is the only article in 478 births I can't do anything right now. Which means 470s births should not be more than 24 articles. I have more to review.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Attalus (general)

Attalus (general) was categorized about 780 years wrong. He was born about 390 BC but had been placed in the AD 390 births Category. On a related note several of the people in various 5th-century births categories have disputed historical reality, and I have seen at least 2 articles where there seems to be a few hundred years of dispute as to when the person lived. Attalus is the first BC case I have come across though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Volusianus

Volusianus is in the 230 births Category. There is no mention anywhere in the article of when he was born. I would remove him but he is the whole category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

70s births

The 70s births structure has 16 articles, 2 redirects, and 8 categories. So at that point we are averaging 2 articles a category, but the mode is to only have 1.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

60s births

60s births has 17 articles, in 10 total categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

50s births

50s births has 11 articles in 6 categories. Even 50s deaths only has 43 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Amanirenas

Amanirenas is the one article in 57 BC births. The article appears to no where mention her birth. It probably should be removed and the Category deleted for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

120s BC births

This category has 21 total articles. It only has 2 sub-cats, each with 1 article, and then the main Category has 19 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Before 100 BC the birth year categories are very sporadic and very small. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Archias of Cyprus

Archias of Cyprus is the only article in 155 BC deaths. However the article itself says "various scholars have put his death anywhere from 158 to 154 BC." I would move the article but since it is the only article in 155 BC deaths that would empty the category out of process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Philip I Philadelphus

Philip I Philadelphus is the only article in 83 BC deaths. Except there is debate as to whether he died in that year of 75 BC instead. It would probably be best if we moved his article to 1st-century BC deaths, and for now ended the 83 BC deaths category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chapel Christian Academy

Notice

The article Chapel Christian Academy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Now closed. Run of the mill, private school. Not enough information to merge.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thank you, Mr. Lambert. Bearian (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Rating and sourcing of Monroe Berkowitz

Dear Mr. Lambert, while I’m still here on your page, can you please rate this stub as a Start-class, and add any relevant sources or categories? Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Possibly fictious people from the Roman Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Possibly fictious people from the Roman Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Possibly fictious people from Europe

A tag has been placed on Category:Possibly fictious people from Europe indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Spanish/Portuguese people too soon

We should probably renane people from pre-482 out of Spanish and Portuguese categories and into the People from Hispania Category. I am not sure what to do after that date, but to call people Spanish or Portuguese before that date makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't remove people from the spanish/purtugeuase parent categories. I think creating more specific child categories is a better solution than removing them like you did with Catherine, Princess of Asturias. SMasonGarrison 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
That is someone from 1000 years later with a very different set of issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
They seemed related enough. My point is that you shouldn't be removing people from the parent category of Spanish/Portuguese if there isn't a more specific version subcategory to diffuse them into SMasonGarrison 23:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we should delete the 15th-century and earlier Spanish categories. There is no Spain to be nationals of at that point, and these categories are for nationals of a country, period. These categories are all anachronistic. People who are not of a nation should not be placed in sub-cats for a different nation. Pre-500 people can be in the From Hispana categories and often in Roman Empire categories. People who have no more specific category in a certain tree do not need to be diffused. For most of the pre-500 people from Hispana they are actually in categories for which we have a From Hispana sub-category, they are just in the Spanish or Portuguese categories because of poor category development. We should not be categorizing people as from a polity that at the earliest developed 1000 years after they died (Spain gradually ces to be starting with a personal union of minatchy in 1479, but it is not fully unified until about 1706).John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that people will still use them, even if they're not technically correct. SMasonGarrison 23:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
By this argument we should have 1st-century Pakistani categories. By conflating issues of people in Roman Hispana with people in 15th-century Castile, you are ignoring that in the interim there is the Visigothic rule and the era of Al-Andalus. Just because se editors have used categories in anachronistic and other horrible ways dies not mean we need to continue. I have found 1st-century Ramans who moved from the city of Rome to the far western shores of the Empire placed in Italian emigrants to Portugal, even though Portugal only exists post-reconquest, and the person stayed within the Roman Empire and was not type of emigrant at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Portugal is first formed in 868. There is no concept of Portugal before that date. Then it is just a county and it having a filly separate identity that early may be debatable. However we should absolutely not call anyone who died in 867 or earlier Portuguese. That is clear and indisputable anachronism. Just like we do not call people who died in 1940 Israeli or Pakistani. We have Spanish categories going back to the 8th century. That I would argue is excessively early. We however should not have in the Spanish tree people pre-8th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    A later cut off would probably take consensus, but it appears that 8th-century is the current comsensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    We have a whole tree of Category:Romans from Hispania. I have doubts that that is the best name for what we are categorizing. I think we should just call it People from Hispania. However we should not impose the country breakdown that begin to develop in the 9th-century earlier than that, especially since as a 2 country dicision it is also conditioned on things that happened in the 14th and 15th century. All the more so because we have a usable name which allows us to not incorrectly assign these people to polities that existed long after they died.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon has been nominated for merging

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon 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. SMasonGarrison 16:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The Crown of Aragon was a much larger polity than the Kingdom of Aragon. They are not the sane place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from the Crown of Castile has been nominated for merging

Category:People from the Crown of Castile 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. SMasonGarrison 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this. Castile was one of the places that made up the larger Crown of Castile. We should favor more clear names, no less clear names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Kingdom of Scotland people

Question: Why centuries did you have in mind for coverage? Because I can easily add this to the template. (Also apologies for spamming your talk page with merge requests. I'm nominating them because I don't know what the community consensus is. This way you can get a really clear directive on whether to further populate the category. Maybe they'll be treated the same way as the HRE? ) SMasonGarrison 17:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing of era styles

I've observed a couple times now, as with Athenion of Cilicia, you making targeted edits to change the article dates from one era style (BCE) to another (BC).

There is nothing wrong with having a preference for BC over BCE, and if you were to create an article, you would be free to use that era convention. Likewise, if you were to come across one era convention in an article where there was a clear preponderance of usage of the other convention, it is reasonable to change the odd one out to align with the established style of the article.

However, making edits solely for the purpose of changing the established era style of existing articles is I think generally to be avoided. Per WP:MOSNUM:

The default calendar eras are Anno Domini (BC and AD) and Common Era (BCE and CE). Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context ... An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content. (Emphasis mine)

I appreciate you taking the time to try to make these ancient history articles better! But I think it would be better to focus on other types of improvements than this one.

Ford MF (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I will keep this in mind. The bigger issue with Ancient categories is we have excessive numbers of overly small birth and death year categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Legendary people and dates

We have dome people currently in legendary categories, who per the article the earliest known sources post-dste thrn by about 600 years, who are first inexplicable reasons in categories for an exact death year, even though it appears their even having existed us disputed, and wxact year of death is far more precise than we can be. Right now any article related to domeone from the Chinese 3 Kingdoms has a warning on it that the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms is not accurate history, and we need yo separate known historic fact from dmfiction, legendary, myth, etc. In dealing with contents from Europe, especially from 300-1000, we seem to be doing a very poor job of such separation. Especially since Robin Hood and King Arthur, neither of whom have even a little indication they were actually historical, and most of the associated characters with them, who in general are even less likely to be historical at all, are placed in the People whose existence is disputed. On the other end of the spectrum we have the fully historical John Chapman (aka Johnny Appleseed) placed in an American legends Category, I guess because there are fictional stories built up around him, but he himself is a fully real and historically attested person. We need to do a better job of distinguishing these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Overcategorized

Theon of Alexandria is in both 4th and 5th century Roman and Byzantine categories. Plus Ancient Greek categories. This seems excessive overcategorization. We really need yo agree on a way to organize these categories so people are not just thrown in a whole bunch because we are not sure which applies. Either Byzantine is a sub-cat or Roman, or we need to agree to a point in time that Roman ends and Byzantine starts. The Later would probably be a better approach, since people would probably be across the line. Since the Byzabtine Empire was functionally a Greek state, at a minimum we should not place anyone in both an X Greek Category and and X Byzantine Category where in both cases X refers to the sane thing. I do not want to act too rashly, but there are too many xaregories going on here for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Dates for 1st millenia Mayans

Do we actually understand the sources enough to date the births and deaths of 1st-millenia Mayan and other meso-Amwrican leaders to specific years?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe has been nominated for renaming

Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe has been nominated for renaming. 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. SMasonGarrison 04:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please revert your removals of categories when you added folks to "Category:Possibly fictional people". You removed a ton of categories you seem to have deemed not applicable based on their disputed status. I'd rather not mass roll them back because that would also remove other additions. SMasonGarrison 05:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, I've rolledback many of your removals. There is no reason to remove people who are posisbly fictional from categories. They can still be defined by the category and being able to navigate to similar people who aren't fictional is still helpful. SMasonGarrison 19:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I do not think we should mix fiction people with categories tor real people. This especially applies to birth and death years. If they were not born or did not die they should not be in such categories. We should not put fictional people in categories gor real people. This just creates confusion. We should limit People to categorizing them by things that are clear verifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I get the aspect of verifiable. However, legends/disputed people can still regularly described as being from that period in secondary sources. Please get consensus on this interpretation before you move forward with it. It makes it very hard to navigate when you remove so many categories. SMasonGarrison 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
JPL do not revert these category restorations. I've asked you to get consensus broadly. SMasonGarrison 04:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The revert was unintentional. I have no idea how I even did it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. SMasonGarrison 04:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Henry Ford Community College alumni has been nominated for renaming

Category:Henry Ford Community College alumni has been nominated for renaming. 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. GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Northumbrian people

There is both a modern Northumbria as well as a kingdom of that name that existed in the 1st millenia. The modern Northumbria is a part of England. Historical Northumbria seems to have extended at times into what is now Scotland. We have a Category:Northumbrian people. I think that is too easy to confuse as meaning people from the modern region. I think it would be much better to rename it to Category:People from the Kingdom of Northumbria to make it clear it refers to people from the historical kingdom and not to people from.Northumbria (modern).John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)