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.
Category:Sibling artists
When I came across this, I thought this was a genre I was unaware of. No, it says at the top "This category is for notable artists who have one of more siblings who are also notable artists." I think this is not a defining trait. Mabe if a group of siblings were a notable group. I also notice Sibling artist lacks an article. Do we have Category:Sibling politicians or even Category:Sibling muscians? We do have sibling performer groups, but that is where the article subject is such (although I am not sure how much of the group needs to be siblings, where the whole group is actually siblings it is clear, but what if you have 3 brothers and then a 4th unrelated man in the group? What if the 4th man marries a sister of the 3 brothers? My initial guess is the case works whether or not the 4th member marries into the family. On the other hand if you have an orchestra of 30 people, or a choir of 350 people, just because you have a set of siblings in there does not make it a sibling group. I am torn between if we need a clear formula, or if we go with sources saying things like "this group of brothers, along with a non-related person", versus sources being silent on the matter. Although with the choir of 350 people, no matter how many sources mention "oh, this set of sisters was in the choir" it does not cut it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The sibbling musical groups says "This is a category for musical groups in which two or more members are siblings. Please note that groups do not have to consist entirely of siblings to be included." I think that is too loose of an inclusion criteria. It makes sense with groups of 3. Maybe even a bit more. However if your group is over 20 it is absurd to include it just because you have two sibblings, and if it is even 10, I think having 2 brothers, 2 sisters of a brother and a sister is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
We also have sibling filmmakers. Most of the actual contents are articles on groups of people, or at least more than 1. One is a list of "Indian film clans", some of these may be parent/child instead of siblings. There are a few individual articles, and there is no clear statement of scope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Gabonese painters
The category Gabonese painters has 1 article, it has s sub-cat that also has the 1 article. I think we could move that article to the category painters and Gabonese artists and we would better facilitate nacmvigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The article Zviad Tsikolia is in the category Georgian designers. That is duplicative to Designers from Georgia (country) of which he is already in the industrial designers sub-cat. I have to admit I am less than convinced that architects, industrial designers, graphic designers, fashion designers, video game designers and game designers form a coherent group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Republic of Venice and Duchy of Milan
I just realized Brescia was part of the Republic of Venice from 1520 until 1797. It also was part of the Republic of Genice for I think nearly 200 years before 1512. I am not sure what else in modern Lombardy was part of the Republic of Venice and not in the Duchy of Milan. The Republic of Venice was an important state, not quite on the order of the Kingdom of Prussia, but still important. Like Prussia it sometimes takes some work to determine what was in the state at any given time. For the record I think we should move all categories to People from the Republic of Venice, Artists from the Republic of Venice, etc. The current form that mixes some that way and some Republic of Venice people makes it take more effort than should be needed to determine if a category exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Under categorized professions
We have lots of articles that in the lead it states the person practiced a certain profession or occupation, but the article is not in that category. I have seen this with medical doctor/physician. I have seen it a little with miller's. I have seen it a whole lot with industrialists and merchants. I believe I have even seen it with bankers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
With merchants they are so under categorized I have come across articles where there is a parenthetical disambiguation saying the person was a merchant but thry are not in the merchants category. I have come to the view that while businesspeople categories have a role, we should make sure anyone called a banker, a merchant or an industrialist is eomewhere in the tree for that term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The non-diffusing rule is poorly followed because the last rung rile is violated
The last rung rule says no category should have an ERGS sub'l-cat that does not have a sub-cat that is not ERGS. A huge number of categories havd only ERGS sub-cats. Too often we have diffused people and left parent cats blank. We need to fix this.
However with gender I think we need to also come up with an official list of what is diffusing. I am not sure we have one.
Diffusing gender cats:
1- any sport where you have seperate teams by sex. Women's basketball teams do not compete against men's basketball trams. Here we are really categorizing by league or team.
2. Any performing role where gender is clearly defining.
Thus we diffuse actors/actresses.
We diffuse singers. It helps we further diffuse them by voice range.
I think we can safely diffuse dancers, sex workers, and models.
I think that is the logical limit.
The one other we probably can diffuse is singer-songwriters.
I think anyrhing else we should not diffuse, but make sure that they are in both a gender specific and a gender neutral category.
Songwriters in general, screen writers, dramatisrs and playwrights, novelists, poets and other writers we divide by gender we should ensure all articles are in gender neutral categories. It would help if last rung rules were more heavily followed. Politixians is one where we do well, because we have so many divisions. Writers and its sub-cats I think is where we break the rules the most. We used to have a rule against having both male and female sub-cats. For about a decade the only actors we divided by gender were pornographic actors. Then in the fall of 2012 there was an RfC that decided to break actor cats into male actor and actresses cats. I did a big chunk of that break up work. I think we have never fully written the new Category de facto rules that created.
In general I think scientists are not removed from gender neutral cats, but it might need dome review. Scholars is messier, in part because many are also writers are writers are overly diffused. I would argue that musicians who are not singers should be in a gender neutral cat if they are in a gender specific one. I know this is the oddest point in my schema, but I think that the fact that gender effects adult voice range makes this justifiable. I will accept that at least on a case by case basis other musical categories can be divided by gender, at least if we could write a lead article, but I do not think they should be diffused.
Artists also should not be diffused. The other tricky thing is performers such as comedians, mimes, circus performers, clowns, trapeze artists and the like. There are strong gender implications in these roles, and at least with trapeze artists what men and women actually do is often very different. Pupeteers is one I could see going either way. However I think the reality is that we just do not have enough articles in any of these to really justify total diffusion, and so I think we should if we have gender specific cats make them high level, and lower level cats leave people togerher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Puppeteers is done how this should be. We have female puppeteers, I think we should rename it women puppeteers. It has 112 articles. No sub-cats. This is wise. We have 33 sub-cats by nationality for puppeteers. 8 of those categories have only 1 article. That seems excessive. I am guessing at least all those should be upmerged, and maybe some of the other categories with less than 5 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
On further review probably television presenters and radio presenters can be fully diffused by gender. I am open either way with game show hosts. Comedians have largely been diffused by gender. The fact many are also actresses/male actors and or male or female models and or male or female TV presents might make this make sense. We have a few occupations like geisha and vendetta that are only female. Another case is beauty pageant contestants. These should be diffused by gender fully. Essentially for the same reasons as soorsports.
For royalty a lot of positions we diffuse fully by gender. A King consort and a queen consort we treat as a different position. Nobles we at times diffuse by gender. We need to do better at not diffusing categories we mark as non-diffusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Mimes we do not diffuse by gender. We only have at most 128 articles outside the fictional sub-cat. There are 26 sub-cats under nationality, with 7 of those having 1 article. I say at most 128 because some people may be in multiple nationality sub-cats. I am thinking we should make a rule to not divide any Category with under 200 total articles by nationality. I think we should also require at least 4 categories with over 10 articles for a nationality split. I think we should apply the sane rules to splitting American categories by state. Other countries might need slightly different rules. I think we should also state that for any Category to exist it either needs at least 5 articles or a very strong argument to allow it to exist with less than 5 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Overly diffused categories
Some overly diffused categories are the following.
Innkeepers. We only have 79 articles. I have exhsustively searched to get that many. We have an American sub-cat with 21 of the articles and a Wallachian with 3. About 50 in the parent. I think everything should go to the parent cat.
Jesters. Here we have 43 articles. 3 of them are topical, so 40 bios. I did not count the fictional sub-cat. Keeping that makes sense. We have 3 sub-cats. A British with 5 articles, that has one living person, 1 19th-century person and 5 who worked in the Kingdom of Scotland before 1707, at least 2 under Mary Queen of Scots, at least one was actually a French woman who might just have been an expatriate. We have female jesters with 1 article also in the British cat, the other 4 diffused. We have 7 English jesters, all from the Kingdom of England. Then we have 27 articles under the main cat, with I think 24 being bio. I am thinking we should really just have the main cat and the fictional sub-cat. We could upmerge female jesters to female entertainers as well. At present it violates the last rung rule. The other option would be to treat jesters like actors, and fully diffuse to male and female. I think the upmerging the female jesters to female entertainers is a better solution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Princesses by country
We have a princesses by country category. I am not sure this is the best name. We want to make it clear we are categorizing by the country where they held the rank, not always where they lived. If they lived somewhere, but held a rank elsewhere that is key. Also, Titles are complex. I think we want to group all people from say the Holy Roman Empire who held the title of Princess, but many were princesses of very small statelets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Millwrights
The Category header says the Category is "not for modern millwrights". This seems odd. So we exclude current millwrights. We allow only "traditional" millwrights. This seems just silly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The fact is people living in Bohemia are not for sure Czech. We should not impose ethnicity on people for whom we do not know it. Especially when the category is not really meant to be ethnic but national. I will be more careful to otherwise leave people in the categories they are meant to be in. However we should not go around assuming and imposing Czechness on people from 18th-century Bohemia. A huge number of those people self-identified as Germans, or would have thought of themselves in other ways and would not recognize themselves as Czech, not just in the Sudetenland, but in other parts of Bohemia as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, I see. However this is not an "out of process emptying". This is the person should not be in the category. We should not have a lock on poor categorization just because someone goes ahead and creates a 1 articles category and places someone who does not belong there in it. This is a very frustrating outcome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This is still out of process. When you removed the person from the category, the category is empty. Mason (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Joseph Franz von Lobkowitz is an article that only says this person was a noble from Bohemia. It never uses the word "Czech" to describe him. He died in 1816 and was born in 1772. In the article on the Czech national awakening we learn "Czech language had been more or less eradicated from state administration, literature, schools, Charles University, and among the upper classes." So he almost certainly did not speak Czech, and it is very unlikely he would have thought of himself as Czech. He was a noble. The first Czech grammar is only published in 1809, 7 years before he died, and it is the year after he died that medieval Czech use in manuscripts is first proclaimed. I am now being yelled at over removing him from the Czech patrons of the arts category because he was the only one, although there is no justification for placing him in that category at all. The article never calls him Czech, and all the evidence is that he was not Czech. To force him to stay in the category just because the category creator was lazy and never added any other article to the category just seems wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Although he died in Bohemia, he was born in Vienna, and seems to have lived a large part of his life there. Since during his whole life both these places (I know I am using a city and a region), were under Habsburg control, and they were either both in the Holy Roman Empire or both in the Austrian Empire, Lobkowitz would never really have had to even in his own mind decide if he was a national of Austria with land holdings in Bohemia, or a Bohemian expatriate in Austria, because that was not how any political division worked on the de facto level, yes when he was born Vienna was in the Archduchy of Austria, but real practical political issues outside of the minutia of government administration meant he was functional in one land. This is a key reason why trying to impose modern terms on the past makes a mess. However here we do not even have modern terms being used in the article, the article never calls him Czech or anything like that. That is only introduced through the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
My summary of this edit was inadequate. At the time this person lived the notability of Bohemia was basically all in any meaningful way not Czech. However my edit summary made it clear this was being done because the person in question did not fit the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Patrons of music
I had not looked at the patrons of music categories until just now. The above edit was made based on the fact that the subject clearly did not fit as a Czech patron of music.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
He is in Hadyn's patrons, so in that tree if he is not in the Austrian Category. The Austrian category is one of 5 sub-cats of patrons of music that have 1 article. Further the Beligan patrons of music category only has 1 article on an actual Belgian, the other 2 lived centuries before Belgium was created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There are at most 91 articles in ccategories that are patrons of music by a nationality. I see no reason why we are dispersing this category tree by nationality at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Art collectors by nationality wrong placement
I just noticed that Norton Dodge is in the category Russian art collectors. He is not Russian, or Soviet. He was a collector of art from the Soviet Union, specifically art made by dissidents during the Stalin regime. He is in Soviet art, so I will remove him from the Russian art collectors cat. This cat is meant to categorize people who collected art by where they are from, not people by what type of art they collected. We might want to rename it to Art collectors from Russia. And also rename its sibbling categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Kolodzei Art Foundation, which was mainly supported by Dodge, was also in the Russian art collectors cat. I removed it. It was already in Russian art directly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There was a Art collectors from the Russian Empire category. Which would be different from Collectors of art from the Russian Empire. It now has 27 articles, the Russian art collectors has 22. I am still not fully convinced that it makes sense to actually call art collectors either patrons of art or patrons of the arts or philanthropists. What do you think?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Chinese art collectors was a sub-cat of "Collectors of Asian art". I removed it. This is a cateogry for people who are Chinese who collect art, the art they collect does not matter, what matters is that they are nationals of China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
My attempt to fix the mis-categorization as Chinese art collectors as a sub-cat of Collectors of Asian art was reverted. I put a note arguing my view on the talk page, I do not know if it will actually actract any attention. This category may need to be renamed so that it is not misused or misparented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we should likewise remove American art collectors from American art as a parent category, etc. We do not care what art they collect. If we have an American who funds the collection of Art to an Italian museum, that is Italian art, they are still an American art collector, and if they move to Italy and become Italian, but collect Spanish art that they move to a Spanish museum, they might now be both an American art collector (if they did it before they were no longer functionally an American national) and an Italian art collector, but they would not be a Spanish art collector. Unless of course they in some way become a national of Spain, but they are not Spanish just because they interact with Spanish art.~~~~
William Jones (optician) since it explicitly says he was one I placed in the category optician. That category has about 50 articles total, but for unclear reasons is broken out by nationality. However on further review I do not believe that Jones is the type of optician the article is about. He was a designer of lenses used in scientific instruments. The optician article is about people who design eye glass lenses. It looks to me like this is a shared name, where all the people are involved in lense design and, but not in the same ways. The fact my farther is a physicist who has become an optical engineer gives me a little insight onto these terms. My father did work with lazers and lenses but most recently with head-up displays and LEDs. At heard opticians, optical engineers and optical physicists all work with light, However light, sight, and lenses all intermerge. Jones looks to be more an optical technician, than an optician, if we are using the latter term just for those who make the lenses of eye glasses. The big question is, how to reliable sources actually use there terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
By year of establishment categories
I spent huge amounts of time creating these categories. For this reason I suspect most, especially pre-1900 are about as big as they will get. There are only 2 articles for establishments in Mozambique in the whole 19th-century. They are in 2 different years. This is too small a level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Should we have statesman/statepeople categories
Is statesman the same in function as a politician, or are there people who are statesmen who are not politicians. We have many articles that call people a stateman. The question is is it a term that can be defined in a way that we can clearly say who is and who is not part of such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Antoine Risso, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I have asked you repeatedly to stop removing people from the century+ocucpation intersection when you disagree with the nationality. I don't understand why you won't respect this very basic request. If you disagree with the nationality of a category, move the person from 19th-century French zoologists to 19th-century zoologists. Do not remove the category entirely.Mason (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
What happened to this User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2024/June#Excessive by century categories conversation? This is the same problem I've raised repeatedly. "[U]ntil you can actually respect the reasonable requests of Wikipedians, you won't get those editing privileges back". I've made this request repeatedly. Please stop removing people from the century and occupatio intersection if you disagree with the nationality.
I am sorry about this. I was thinking that because he was already in the Italian Zoologists Category that was good. I had not thought about the importance of the century Category. I guess I was focused on ensuring he was in the right occupational categories. I had not considered the century aspect of the Category structure. I am sorry about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you're listening now. How can I get you to hear/consider requests like this the first time I ask? I'm happy to try different approaches, but I need you to meet me half-way. What's an effective way to signal that you're missing something systematic? Clearly, the approach I've been using is not effective.Mason (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I have said I would not remove anyone from any by century Category unless they clearly did not belong in a category for that century. I am not sure what else to say about this. I do not know the best ways to communicate with people. I would advise against typing in all caps. That is a form of shouting at someone. It is very off putting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
"How can I get you to hear/consider requests like this the first time I ask? I'm happy to try different approaches, but I need you to meet me half-way. What's an effective way to signal that you're missing something systematic? " I am trying here. I am asking if there are alternative strategies that work for you. I don't care about what works for generic people, I want to know what would be effective for you. Because I agree that resorting to all caps is not ideal, but well, I have tried asking, nicely and often, about this specific issue.
But, obviously, we're going to run into similar issues in the future because we're both very active on this site. So I'm asking if there are better ways that I can communicate with you, so that you'll hear me (and we can avoid butting heads as much). Mason (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure on the best answer. I really do not know. However I think it would go a long way to ask sincerely and without sarcasm whumy an edit was done and what the reasons are for changing the status instead of just assuming the edit is not reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok... but what about when it's a bigger picture issue (like not a specific edit)? How can I more effectively convey to you that my request is sincere?
For what its worth, as a general rule, I believe that your edits are always based on reasoning. It's more than your reasoning doesn't include something I have repeatedly raised as an important issue. Mason (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I will try to ensure people who are in a by century Category remain in that by century Category if they are removed from as aspect of the Category. Assuming of corse the Category applies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
If the century still applies, you should still keep them there, even if the occupation/nationality aren't ideal. Classifying by century takes thoughtful reading of the article, so if someone has added them to that century PLEASE find a way to keep them in that century. You've undone a lot of people's hard work by removing people from defining centuries. Mason (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
A lot of by centuries categorization is done without any thoughtful reading of the article at all. I have seen people who died before 1900 in 20th-century categories and people who were born after 1800 in 18th-century categories. So some are plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand I can tell Édouard-Gérard Balbiani that Baldiani goes in a 19th-century Category by only looking at his birth and deaths dates since they are both in the 19th-century. There are some articles that literally say "Juan Cardoza (1775-1825) was a Spanish naturalists and writer." They are one sentence and say nothing about when he did any of his work or what work he did beyond general titles. They might say zoologists or ichtyologists or lichenologist, but that is it. Other face such an article does not justify any categorization by century. I would not remove such a case (with those years) from any categorization by century unless I found sources to show when the simubject was active in their work. If it was a zoologists who lived 1795-1882 and was in the 18th-century zoologists cat I would remove, because 5 year Olds are not zoologists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
For what it is worth 3 of the 20 19th-century zoologists by natiomality categories have less than 5 articles. I do not think it is reasonable to create such small triple intersection categories. I think it would be much better if we upmerged them to the x nationality zoologists, and the 19th-century zoologists. However it might need to be a manual upsurge since a large number of zoologists are sub-categoruzed by more specific groups 9f animals they studied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I have to admit I do not think we have ever adequately justified having by century categories. I think we really too much on them when there are often other breaks that better group people by real shared traits that do not involve naming centuries at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Savoyard state
I am thinking that based on the article Savoyard state we should categorize people in connection with it. I am thinking we have a few categories that should go under that. I am about to look into this. At least initially I will not remove any article from any existing category to create the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
We do have a Category people from Savoy. The problem is that links to Savoy and also puts them in the French tree. People from the Savoyard state were not French, and it is anachronistic to put them in the French tree. Savoy was a country. The people from there should be categorized under the people by country tree, not people by sub-natiomal region. Especially after it was no longer part of the Holy Roman Empire. Since Savoy is the article on the historical/cultural region now in France, and Savoyard state is the article on the country, I think we should match the article name of the county 8n our Category name. I could see an argument for naming the Category Savoyard people. I however think that is too ambiguous. It is not clear that people from Piedmont or Nice would have seen themselves as Savoyards but thry would see themselves as from the Savoyard state, whatever exactly thry called it. Also we need a way to signal this is not a Category for Savoyard people living in 1900 as subjects of France, this is a Category for people who were subjects of the Savoyard state, not residents of Savoy when it was part of France. The fact the modern department is spelled Savoie migh make things a little clear, but that name I believe opst-dates annexation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
18th-century people by nationality
Several of the sub-categories of this category are problematical named. As sub-cats of the Italian category we have 18th-century Venetian, Genoese and Neopolitan Categories. These are for people from the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, and the Kingdom of Naples. Not just residents of those cities. I think we would be better off if we made this clear in the titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
We also probably should use names used at the time. Indonesia is not even coined as a term until later. Malaysia was not a unit. I think both areas were at the plbroadest level vaguely in the East Indies, the modern borders are a result of events in the 19th-century. So we should probably rename and maybe reformat those categories. On the other hand Ghana was an empire that existed more in modern Mali and Senegal in about AD 1000. It was not applied as a name to the modern nation, significantly south and east of the medieval empire, until 1956. The area was called the Gold Coast, but much of the Interior was in the Akan Empire. 18th-century Ghanaian people does not make sense. 18th-century people from the Gold Coast, with some disambiguation maybe. The Gold Coast was am area, some if it under Dutch, British or Danish control, and I think some of it locally controlled. The British did not consolidate rule on the Coast until the 1860s and then pushed inland. I have not examined the articles to see if thry were from the Golfe Coast or inland. 18th-century categories should sub-divide people based on the political reality of the 18th-century, not based on lines drawn at a conference in Berlin in 1878.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
It is looking to me like draughtsmen covers multiple unrelated things. One groups that includes Rafael Ximeno y Planes were drawing artists in the early modern era, maybe others. They drew things, as opposed to painting things (although many were also painters, etchers, lithographers and in other fields as well). There are also draughtsmen who make technical drawings to used for building buildings or things. This is a very different field. Right now I believe out categories conflate them. I think we need to figure out how to have multiple categories. I believe most of our articles where the subject is called a draughtsman fall under the first group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I just realized we have a category Drawing artists. I put one person who is so described there. However from past discussions it appears that our category draughtsmen is merging drawing artists and people who created techical diagrams. I think we should move those who were drawing artists to that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:People of New England Planter descent
Is this really defining? That people had ancestors who came from New England to Nova Scotia in around 1755-1765 or so? The first article I checked was on someone born in 1854. I am thinking that we do not need to categorize people by the exact specific reasons their ancestors came to Canada.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
People in non-people by century categories
I have noticed a lot of people in x century in Boston categories. Also a few in x decade in y country categories. These seem irregular. Normally we only put people in x century fooian people or x century people from Foo categories. Is there any good reason to leave these articles in the Foo in y century cats? How about the Foo in y decade cats. It would seem people live in too many decades for such a scheme to actually be reasonable. Since there are other non'-Biographical articles on these categories this is not an issue of deleting them, only of excluding bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
An example of what is going on is Ernst Frederik Walterstorff. He is in 3 different x decade in the Danish West Indies categories. He is also in the governors of the Danish West Indies category. We generally do not create by decade categories for people, because people normally have several decades in which they do defining things. Basically we break people by century, of by things that are not really year related. Some categories for political terms mention years, but they related to political terms. We do not have 1910s American writers, 1990s American actresses, 1940s American artists, 1950s American women singers, or as far as I know any such categories. I am really thinking people should not be placed in these by decade categories, which are mainly meant for events that generally happen in a certain year, or establishments in a year. We do not subdivide births by place of birth, so we would have to place people in every decade in which they have a defining part of their life. Many people would go in 5 or more categories, and a few would go in at least 8. I can name probably a half dozen or more actors and actresses who could without any question go in at least 5 such categories without even trying. I do think we want to start categorizing people this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Film series characters originally introduced in a film
This is a Ling title that is too short. To start with, I do not think it would make sense to categorize any characters in some works this way. Star Wars starts as a film. It's core cast all belongs in such a category. However I am not sure it is defining to such characters. On the other hand in Harry Potter most characters start in the books. So we would need Film series (but why series and not just film?) characters originally introduced in a film, in a book, in a play, in a comic book, in a radio show, in a video game, adapted from folklore/oral stories and maybe more. Including film series characters adapted from real people/historical people. Down this road lies madness. Is the origin of a character defining? Many characters have 1 article for their existence in multiple media. Lastly, are we sure what to call some characters. Names change somewhat at times, but is it a new character or just a name change. At what point does artistic license break a character from their original work. Do we want parallel structures for TV characters, comic characters, novel characters, etc. The fact that some characters exist as one character in multiple media, such as Jim Kirk and many others on star trek with continuity in TV series and film series would make this a truly complex scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Overcategorization
I just had this note connected with an edit reversion. "Undid revision1231303175byJohnpacklambert(talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry. This is just plain wrong practice. If we cannot be bothered to mention something in the text of an article, it is too trivial to categorize by. Categories are supposed to lead people through somewhat similar articles. A minimum expectation is that the information be mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision1231303175byJohnpacklambert(talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
To be fair the word "professional" above means any level of paid baseball, even in this case A level minors. We have never even agreed that all these levels of playing baseball are notable, even when we were our most generous in granting notability to sportspeople. 18 different teams is just ludicrous. It comes very close to performer by performance level of teams. I am thinking at some point this violates the rule against categorizing performer by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The Abbott article is 16 paragraphs plus tables and other things long. It still does not mention Winston-Salem Warthogs or several other teams that he is categorized by. I am not sure why all 18 teams cannot be expected to be mentioned in his article, but if we cannot expect them to be mentioned in the article, I am not sure at all why we should categorize by them.13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we should limit categories to things that are mentioned in the article. If it is not defining enough to mention in the article I do not think it is defining enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I have a suspicion we have enough articles on people who are described as merchants to justify sub-dividing them by US state. The American Merchant tree looks to have about 400 or just a few less articles, but lots and lots and lots of people who the article says were merchants are not yet categorized as such. Most of these people it is in the lead, often the first thing said in the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
On further reflection I do not think there are enough articles that describe the subject as a merchant. They also tend towards pre-1900, and so I doubt we could divide for all states. I will hold off at least until it is clearer we have enough articles to make all 50 states have big enough to justify categories, which is not the case yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I just came across an article that said someone was born in Austria-Hungary in 1750. He was actually born in the Holy Roman Empire, since Austria-Hungary was not formed until 1867. Considering that Austria-Hungary has also not existed for over a century, this listing of place of birth makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
New Spain was a recognized political unit. Categories that intersect occupation and the recognized political unit where people are from are allowed. All the articles in this category are people who did defining artistic work while residents and subjects of mainland New Spain. This categorydpes not include anyone from either the West Indian or East Indian areas under New Spain. The size of People from New Spain is much larger than many other categories that have been subdivided more by occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
> The size of People from New Spain is much larger than many other categories that have been subdivided more by occupation
I don't think you need to be placing people directly in the People from new spain category, when there are viable child categories. I think we should containerize it. Mason (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we should handle it the same way people from colonial cuba are handled. Effectively they can be diffused into the specific century. Mason (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not think we should containerize any Category of people by place. There are too many people who are in rare occupations. Many of the people from New Spain were explorers, settlers and the like. I am not thinking breaking by century is a good idea. New Spain ends in 1821. It is a poor time to break by century. I do see some merit for by occupation. On the other hand there are sub-units like the Captancy General of the Yucatan. While we can subdivide by geographical unit and by occupation, I think we need to think this through. I do not think century is a good way to divide things though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Let me rephrase because I think my point wasn't clear. I think that it would be useful to having categories like this as parents. For example People from Colonial Cuba (or whatever it is called) is the parent category of 19th-century Cubans, 18th-century Cubans etc, allowing most people to be placed into the more specific category. Mason (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Everything about that scheme is not wise. The thing is when a place is a Colony people can come and go between it and other parts of the domains. They establish residency without establishing full status there. It is much better to say they are from there than to attach them to a place with a demonym. This is why we use from categories and not demonyms for sub-national categories to start with. There are lots of people who had defining parts of their careers in Cuba, who would never have thought of themselves as being "Cuban" but would have said they were from Cuba. The same applies even more with new Spain. Placing people in categories that use a demonym is not wise really with any colonial entities. We should format all the categories, especially the ones we place articles in as people from x. The worst are things like "Colonial x people" which too often function as the deprecated by race categories. We should limit categories for People from colonial Virginia, People from Portuguese Mozambique etc. to people who functionally acknowledged they were part of the entity, not include people who lived in areas claimed by it in theory but outside its de facto limits. However these categories should not be formulated on racial or ethnic lines, they should include everyone who dmfunctioned in the place. We really should rename all Cuban by century categories pre-1900 to X from Spanish Cuba. The same should be done for other places. It is clear that an artist, writer, etc was from Cuba, but the demonym "Cuban" implies connections that just plain do not exist when there is no independent state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
> demonym "Cuban" implies connections that just plain do not exist when there is no independent state
It doesn't imply independence. I genuenly don't understand how you conclude it imples that it's a nationality. We have numerous non-independent BARth-century FOOian people, like Scottish, Northern Irish, English, Hong Kong that are diffused by century. Mason (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, with Northern Ireland the parent is "People from Northern Ireland" the children are "20th-century People from Northern Ireland" and "21st-century People from Northern Ireland". I would say with Northern Ireland not existing until about 1923, we do not need any by century categories. This should be how we form Category names for all entities that are not national entities, period. We have gotten rid of the "Alsacian" categories and have merged them to People from Alsace. England and Scotland are something else, and so maybe a slightly different case. However I think the way we are treating that is messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
However New Spain is not any of these. The people of New Spain, on the rare occasions People try to figure out some sort of demonym for there come up with Novo Hospanic or the like. The government of New Spain very much thinks of its subjects in a complex set of racial classifications, called castas, mainly made by creating new races based on the races of the parents, which then are painted, the painting of which is a key action of those who are Artists from New Spain. We need a term that encompasses the fact that these people come from New Spain. We could in theory divide People from New Spain by century, into 17th-centuey and 18th-century people from New Spain. I do not think these divisions by cenrury have served us well in other cases. I do not think it is needed at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There are some truly poorly named demonym categories at present. Category:Venetian engineers is meant to be Engineers from the Republic of Venice. Not engineers from the city of Venice regardless of when and under what country thry lived. We really need to rename it. We would best end all categories called Venetian, and use from Venice and from the Republic if Venice, so we can easily link to those articles. The same applies to Genoa and the Republic of Genoa, and Naples and the Kingdom of Naples. 19th-century Neopolitan people in a category, even though the Kingdom of Naples ceases to exist in 1816. I have at times removed people from it who were born in the Kingdom of Italy in the city of Naples. It is rarely confusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
A good example of how we could do these is found in Categpry:People from the Republic of Geneva. With subcategories like 16th-cenrury People from the Republic of Geneva, 17th-cenrury People from the Republic of Geneva, etc. It clearly should be how we format the Republic of Venice, Republic of Genoa, Kingdom of Naples and any other category referring to an entity named after its dominant city. I think with the Republic of Geneva we have gone too far in subdividing by century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree that the century diffusion can be messy, but the current consensus is that they're a necessary evil to make the categories manageable. I don't understand how any of this explains why you think that 19th-century Cuban FOOs "implies connections that just plain do not exist when there is no independent state". Mason (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The category is named People from Spanish Cuba. The sub-cats should follow the parent cat form and be People from 19th-century Spainsh Cuba, People from 18th-century Spanish Cuba etc. The article on the entity is Spanish Cuba. We preserve article form in category name. It would be best to do it here. In similar fashion if we have an article David Scott (writer) and another David Scott (musician), if we have a category Books by David Scott it would be Books by David Scott (writer), even though the other David Scott wrote no books. The by century categories should follow the name of the article on the country during that century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so your concern is that the name isn't exactly what you'd like. But you understand that the intent is for those categories to contain People from 18th-century Spanish Cuba etc? Mason (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
If the intent is to contain people from 18th-century Spanish Cuba than we should name the category People from 18th-century Spanish-Cuba.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
But, in the meantime, are you going to keep adding people to the parent until the category name matches what you want it to be? Mason (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Because that seems like a bad use of your time, and not consistent with the current consensus of those century categories. Mason (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Sort keys for FOOian occupations by former country
Can you try to remember to add sort keys when you make categories? I fixed Category:Civil servants by former country, which didn't have one for people by former country. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Civil_servants_by_former_country&diff=1234949004&oldid=1232039423 However, I think that this is a general pattern. Can you also add the parent categories for the current counturies when you create these categories, such as adding German FOO for FOO from the Kingdom of Prussia? (I know that you don't love that's how categories are parented, but given that that's the current consensus, it would be very much appreciated, saving other people work) Mason (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I will keep this is mind. However why does Civil Servants by former country need a sort key that says Civil servants when it starts with Civil servants. Is that not just sorting it exactly as it would sort without a sort key?John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Yes, the space is significant. Without that (and without any sort key at all) it would sort under C; with the space, it sorts at the top of the category page, before all symbols, numbers and letters. See WP:SORTKEY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier if we just created a Category:People by former country by occupation, and put all the various Musicians by former country, Artists by former country, Scientists by former country, writers by former country, etc. there instead of placing them directly in the People by former country category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. The former country categories would still need to be in the relevant parent for the specific occupation. John, please add the sort keys and the parents to the modern countries. (Otherwise, someone else has to do it... )Mason (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
For the record I support upmerging these. I think we should upmerge any establishment by year by place Category that does not have at least 5 articles. Categories that become isolated from close year categories by this we may want to consider upmerging as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Prussian
We have created a parent category People from the Kingdom of Prussia. Oddly enough some of its child categories use Prussia x as the form. This is downright confusing. In a few cases the argument is I guess no one would think of another Prussia for that position. In a few others it is just accepted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
If you look up Prussia you find 15 different things. The default article on Prussia tries to state it existed from about 1525 until 1947. However it was only a fully functional independent state from 1701 until 1871. The Kingdom of Prussia name best captures this. Before 1701 it is just the Dunchy of Prussia, roughly equivalent to later East Prissia. This area is now split between Lithuania, Russia and Poland, but it's population was in the main German. It was not part of the Holy Roman Empire though. To the extent we have articles on people from here, they can be placed in People from the Duchy of Prussia. There is also Brandenburg-Prussia. This is the historigraphical designation for the state that included Brandenburg, the Duchy of Prussia and Cleves and maybe one other place from 1618-1701. It did not include Cleves the whole time. We have not actually placed anyone directly in this category. We did place People from the Duchy of Prussia as a sub-cat, so 16th-century people from Prussia is a child cat eventually of Brandenburg-Prussia but Brandenburg-Prussia starts 18 years into the 17th-century. Some of this is unavoidable. However People from the Kingdom of Prussia has Prussian musicians and Prussian physicians as sub-cats. This makes no sense. They would work better if they followed the rest of the tree as Physicians from the Kingdom of Prussia and Musicians from the Kingsom of Prussia. The Prussian politicians makes a little more sense but Politicians from the Kingdom of Prussia would still be better. The diplomats cat is the least likely to confuse people with other uses of Prussian, and the right wording for diplomat cats is tricky. I think though we want it as Diplomats of the Kingsom of Prussia. We would include any diplomat who acted as an agent of the Kingdom of Prussia no matter where they were born or lived, and exclude people from the Kingdom of Prussia in some way who were only diplomats for other countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Who goes in 18th-century Greek people
Who goes in 18th-century Greek people? This category says it is a subcategory of Greek people. Which is organized as a category for people who were nationals of Greek. There is no Greece in the 18th-century for people to be nationals of. Some of modern Greece was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Some of it was under the control of the Republic of Venice. There were areas where a lot of ethnic Greeks lived, but the way Greek was used by the Ottoman authorities is not the sane as the modern usage, and many ethnic Greeks lived as minorities, moved throughout the Ottoman Empire, etc. There were also many people in somewhat Greek areas who were clearly not Greek, or whose ethnicity is the cause of confusion. We already have categories named things like Greeks from the Ottoman Empire. These would seem to be the best ways to actually categorize people who did not live in an area that was a Greek state, or could not claim to be expatriated nationals of a state that had not existed for centuries and would not exist until after their deaths. If the category is by nationality, we need to limit it to people who lived when the nation existed to be nationals of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Over categorizing
Maria Wilhelmina von Neipperg is in 3 mistresses categories, for Bohemian, Austrian, and Humgarian royalty, all because she was the mistress of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I. This seems excessive. There should be a way to cover this all in 1 category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
19th-century establishments is Schleswig-Holstein
The 1 article in this category is about a company established in 1838 in the Duchy of Holstein. Schleswig-Holstein does not exist until 1864 or so. The category is anachronistic. It might work going up to the Hostory of Schleswig-Holstein catehory, but is incorrect as currently placed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
19th-century Austrians versus austrian empire versus austrin
Can you please stop removing people from Austrian FOO, when you think they are only from the Austrian Empire? Removing them from the austrian parent category, makes it extremely difficult to gauge whether there are enough people to support the creature of a more specific FOO from the Austrian Empire category. It's extremely disruptive. For example, there are more than enough botanists to support the creation of a Botanists from the austrian empire, but you would never know it from the state of the categories because you removed all of them from the austrian botanists tree. PLEASE keep them in a category that reflects that they are in the austrian botanists tree. Mason (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It's just not a good use of anyone's time for you to keep removing people from the austrian parent category. I don't understand why this request is so difficult. Removing them wastes other people's time and makes it harder to justify the creation of austrian empire categories. Mason (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have not removed anyone from the any Austrian category that they were not being placed in an Austrian Empire category for for several weeks at least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Great! As you're going through biographies, do add them back or create more specific austrian empire occupation categories. Mason (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
One person though you added back to German categries. German is meant for nationals of Germany, not ethnic Germans who lived outside Germany. He lived in the Austrian Empire. I do not think he needs to be in German categories at all. I have for now placed him in an Austrian Empire category. It might be worth creating a category German people from the Austrian Empire, but I think not, for the same reason we have African-American writers and not European-American writers, the ethnic Germans were the ruling class and dominant culture of the Austrian Empire. People from the Austrian Empire are default thought of as German speakers, just the same way the European-American writers, if we are using European to do the same work as African in African-American writers, writers who have known or perceived ancestry to Europe at some distance, not just children or grandchildren of immigrants, would be not a workable category. Plus realistically it would be Anglo-American writers, so we would exclude people who were in obvious ways French, Spanish or Itialian, or even German, but include people who were part of the dominant Anglo culture even if they had no English ancestry, we do not do this because we do not categorize by being in the dominant culture, and that is what we would be doing with Germans from the Austrian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Please don't remove the Korean parent categories. There is a long standing consensus that Korean foo are parents of South and North Korean categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasongarrison (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
What consensus? The headers themselves clearly state the category is for people from a unified Korea. There are huge issues with creating bad signals as to what category should be used that this creates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC).
As the category headers suggest, Korean is the designation for nationals of Korea. Korea is a nation that de jure ended no later than 1948. Placing someone born in 1949 (or actually slightly earlier but that is another story) in a Korean Category makes no more sense than placing someone born in Minsk in 1993 in a Soviet Category, someone botmrn in Sarajevo in 1997 in a Yugoslav category, or someone born in Ismir in 1930 in an Ottoman Empire category. We also do not make Brlarusian people a subcat of Soviet people, Turkish people a subcat of People from the Ottoman Empire or Croatian people a sub-cat of Yugoslav people. The new countries are distinct and different from the old. If we have an article on a theatre director born and lived in Skopeje all his life born in 1995 and one on a theatre director born and kuved in Zagred all her life born in 2000, and those are our only theatre detractors from what was when I was young Yugoslavia, we do not place them in Yugoslav theatre directors as an alternate to 1 article categories. That is an option presented by the parenting. Nor if we have 5 theatre directors from Croatia and 7 from North Macadonia, all post-1992, do we place the two categories under Yugoslav theatre directors. We should not do the same thing for Korea that we refuse to do for Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union or any other dead country. Just because over the last 65 yrkears North Korea and South Korea use Korea in their name, does not mean there is still a Korea. We categorize by what is, not by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
JPL, as I stated elsewhere, the norm is to use Korea as the parent category for both north and south korea. Please do not be intentionally disruptive. Mason (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:South Korean physicians, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Why did you remove this after we discussed this?Mason (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Please seek consensus before making massive changes to parenting. Seeking consensus in advance is a good habit for you to cultivate because it is a way to demonstrate that you understand and can respect decisions you disagree with. Mason (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I just came across an article that gave fl. And the dates 1730-1743. Someone who clearly had never read the article put the subject in 1730 births. The article said the man first published a book around 1730. Just because it is a children's book does not mean the puublisher is a child.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Burials in Virginia
In the interest of clarity, shouldn't this shell category really be called "Burial Places in Virginia"? Burials are graves, which is why bio articles are being added here. Shouldn't an encyclopedia be clear? Cmacauley (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It really should be "Burials by cemetery in Virginia". The guidelines suggest that we can add bio articles to a category like "Burials at Arlington National Cemetery". However they also state in general this can be covered by a list on the article on the Cemetery. Only cemeteries where such a list would be unwieldy should we create a category for. Because of this we have "Burials by place in Philadelphia", etc. The problem is "place" is a fuzzy term. When it is subdividing a city it is clear that we mean a Cemetery or place that functions like a Cemetery. When we go to the state level people might interpret "place" to mean city. I think we would be best served by calling the state level articles "Burials in Virginia by cemetery" etc. , and then attaching a note saying that by cemetery we also mean castles, large estates and other similar specific locations where people are buried. Although part of me thinks it might be better to scrap all the Burials at X cemetery categories, and either merge their contents onto a list in the article on the cemetery (or specific place where people are buried that is not technically a cemetery), or in a case like Arlington National Cemetery and others of that order create a list-article just of people buried there. I really do not think even the cemetery someone is buried in is defining to an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this should be only upmerged to Expatriates from the Kingdom of Prussia and Expatriates in the Russian Empire. I have come to realize that sub-nationsl locations of Expatriates are rarely defining. We should categorize Expatriates by the country they came from, not later countries. We likewise should categorize them by the country they were in. There was no Geany or Poland at the time. I also think any 1 article Category should be snapped on narrow grounds regardless of the current status of the countries involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
On further review I think this article is misplaced. I believe the person should be in emigrants from the Kingdom of Prussia. She would actually go in Immigrants to the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. I am not sure we have such a category. She lived in congress Poland for decades so goes there,but was not an expatriate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
since none of the other categories really flow from the not fitting one she was in, I added her to People from the Duchy of Warsaw, artists from Congress Poland and Paintwrs from the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
