User talk:Smasongarrison

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE! Questions, information, good-faith warnings? Say it here!

Archives

2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thanks for the heads up on Lost on Quebec. I didn't realize they were hostile/uncompromising. Will be careful if I ever come across them afterwards. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. They might be more open-minded to you because you didn't mistake them for a different editor at the beginning of the exchange. But as you can see from the exchange, there was no point for me to explain how removing people from the full people from tree could be problematic. They have a point related to burials, but I don't think faculty, alumni, and sportspeople would follow the same logic. Having members of a sports team in the category "sportspeople from FOO" would make it extremely easy to remove sportspeople who weren't local. Mason (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what they are on about. I'm guess they think working in a place doesn't mean you're from that place, correct? Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's my understanding of what they interpret "from" to be. But that's not how defining works for cities/populated places. We'd have to remove pretty much every occupation from FOO subcategory if that held. Mason (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that is too strict an interpretation of that rule.

BTW, can I ask why JohnPackLambert was banned from Cfds? They told me they were a while back. I notice they were very active before. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can definitely ask! You can probably also ask him. JPL's ban was before I become active in CFD, but from what I have gathered they were banned for repeated [1] behavioral/communication issues at the arbitration committee Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. It's hard to really summarize, but I think he's made a lot of progress on both those fronts. I think he's gotten better at respecting consensus that he thinks is wrong. There are a few sticking points related to nationalities and centuries that I butt up against him on, but he's receptive to consider alternative viewpoints. Often he does add an alternative perspective that makes him a net positive. It can just require a lot of time/patience to really walk him thru the problem and to really understand the heart of the difference between viewpoints. Heck, he's gotten me to come around to the HRE and some other large empire categories. Mason (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah alright! I asked because he has a lot to say about a lot. Like "no breaks in paragraphs" a lot! So I was surprised to learn they were banned. Well if he's getting better from their previous argumentative attitude, that's good! A lot of people don't. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting. It gets annoying quickly when someone tries to force their own interpretation onto others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. LOQ is just not willing to have a civil conversation or wait until a discussion actually occurs. It's annoying indeed. There's no way to have a reasonable conversation if you approach an edit from "wrong" versus right. Mason (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, fyi, the reporting wasn't sufficient. It needs to effectively be 4 reverts. Mason (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they act up again, report them immediately. Their lack of control over reverts and unwillingness to compromise is a bit much. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement/sanity check. I think that the path of least resistance might be for you to initiate a CFD for the parenting of sportsplayers and other occupations. I don't think I would be an effective medium given my brief history with them, but I'm happy to take a strong supporting role. Mason (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! If you just guide a bit on how and where to start a parenting convo on occupation categories, I'll do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! So I'm thinking thru what I would do.... and I think I'd probably start with a post at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion asking for interpretation/sanity check on the policy as well as guidance on if we need a CFD on the topic. I'd probably also to point to the recent conversations (including this one). Like to me that seems to be an easy/low stakes approach to get more eyes on the issue, and more wisdom on the path forward. Mason (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I've started a discussion on the talk page here. Since you were in the main discussion, you should further elaborate the exact dispute. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate you starting the discussion, truly. Mason (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 26 § Category:Agriculture ministers of Bangladesh on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HueMan1 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent discussion of Category:Engravers from the Holy Roman Empire on my talk page. The other editor has A-removed this as a sub-cat of German engravers. B-decided to add everyone from that category back into German engravers, at least a sub-cat that that editor feels is in some way "German" (I am not sure what definition of German this editor is using, since in the 18th-century it was often called the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" there is no historically realistic definition of Germany in the 18th-century that does not include the whole HRE. You may want to consider the implications here. I have no idea if this editor is going to try to remove all HRE cats from being sub-cats of the German cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that most HRE cats are not under the German cats. However I think overlap cat applies here. I think this is similar to why we do not put people in both German-language singers (or writers) categories and German singers or writers categories. Even if we accept that German and the HRE are not exactly the same thing at any given time (I would argue there are no German nationals outside the HRE structure in 1790, ethnic German subjects of the Kingdom of Prussia and Denmark-Norway who live beyond the boundaries of the HRE in 1790 are ethnic Germans who are not nationals of a Germany, because the only Germany for them to be nationals is the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation), true it is hard to call people from Brussels in 1790 "German", but there are also lots of people who lived at times in the Netherlands who would not ever be called "Dutch", which may means we should rename "Dutch artists" to "Artists from the Netherlands", but does not mean we should create a "Dutch artists" cat, place all artists who call themselves Dutch in it, and then create a new "artists from the Netherlands" cat, and place all those Dutch artists in it, as well as Frisians, and also Flemish and Walloon artists active in the Netherlands in the 1815-1830 time frame. We should choose one or the other not both. Now if we went with "Artists from the Netherlands" we maybe should then create "Artists from the Dutch Republic" as a distinct category, but we should not place all artists seen as Dutch (as opposed to Frisian, etc.) in that category, and in the Dutch artists category. For the same reasons we do not have "white American writers" or "American writers of European descent" as a sister category to "African-American writers". We should not have a schema where the vast majority of people in a place get in two categories automatically, and we should not have 2 categories that have very close to the same contents and scope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In nearly all these articles, excluding the few where you changed it recently, they were called German (lead section), all categories were for German, all sources call them German... but you remove the lead info, remove the categories, and then add your new cat incorrectly as a subcat of German anyway, making the whole exercise completely pointless: if you consider all HRE engravers to be German engravers (which you explicitly do by making the HRE cat a subcat of the German cat), then what was the point of moving them all out of the German cat in the first place? All you have achieved is incorrectly adding those HRE people who were not German incorrectly into a German parent cat. Fram (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI my take is that HRE should be a parent category for certain german centuries. My hope was that by adding HRE as a parent category JPL would be comfortable leaving the people defined as german in the german category. Mason (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert I think a constructive comprise would be for you to diffuse by century WITHIN the German category (as in you add people to the FOOian century German engravers etc, and then add the relevant HRE parent category). @Fram has a point regarding the bigger issue. Most folks consider German to be a defining category for those centuries. Even if you don't agree with it, you're well aware that most folks consider them "German". It doesn't look good when you only make a tiny change, like moving to a different category but still moving German people into HRE categories.( There are some categories that I don't agree with, but I still add people to them.) Mason (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also for your edits re: these categories. Fram (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I'm just happy that diffusing by century seems to have struck the balance between Germany and the HRE that everyone can live with. Mason (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when you know that these edits are opposed, then simply doing the same for a parallel cat (violinists instead of engravers) is very poor form. Fram (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Talk:List of undefeated mixed martial artists on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your contribution to the page of the Cottage School and I'm wondering what your reasoning is for removing it from the special education in the US category after you moved it into that category from special education. I am a current student and can vouch for TCS' status as a special education school, and the school's mission statement and other materials reflects that as well. Tylermack999 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I moved it into a more specific state category. Mason (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh ok, I see what you're confused by. So I was in the process of cleaning up several category trees. The page was and still is in "Special schools in the United States ,which is a more specific category than special education. Mason (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, see I was confused by the removal from special education but I now see that it was just making it more specific, thanks for the clarification. Out of curiosity, how did you stumble upon The Cottage School's page? Tylermack999 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came across in when I saw it in Category:Special education., Mason (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this are terrible! Your new "artisans" category is a big mistake, which should be deleted. What about George Stubbs, whose paintings fetch millions, makes him an "artisan"? It is an inappropriate term for about half the people in the category. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what you expect to happen in this conversation. Calling an edit terrible, saying that the artisan tree is somehow new and that it's mine, as well as assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable. Like what's your goal with this comment? Mason (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pursuading you to stop doing doing more along these lines, mainly. Cfds will I think have to follow. And more broadly, discouraging you from doing sweeping re-organizations of category schemes without much thought, or apparently looking at the articles concerned. The category concerned was just created by you. Why are you accusing me of "assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable". Obviously, in the case of a major painter like Stubbs, that will be the case financially. You are the one expanding the dubious "artisan" tree! Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your goal is to be persuasive, then you really really missed the mark. Your statement "What about George Stubbs, whose paintings fetch millions, makes him an "artisan"? " is what I'm responding to with the statement "assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable", as it implies that people whose work make money can't be artisans. To be the money/value aspect isn't remotely relevant to the category tree.

My core point is that your approach here was extremely ineffective. I read your comment as making broad sweeping statements without substance in an attempt to get me to stop, without explaining what your concern actually was. I'm always open to feedback and reconsidering my view, but I need to actually understand what your concern is. (Also assuming that I'm not thinking... also not effective at getting me to lay out my reasoning.) To be clear, I'm telling you this because I respect your knowledge and expertise in this domain, and my hope is that this conversation will help us both efficiently and effectively improve the project. Mason (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, I don't know how to respond to this. Enamellers seems to be nested under both artists and artisans. Would you care to explain why it shouldn't be nested under both? Ideally, in a constructive way? I'm open to feedback, but I'd prefer it be constructive rather than your typical MO of just calling everything bad/terrible/ignorant etc. Mason (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, notable enamellers will be better just under artists. That probably goes for most of the people caught under "artisans" - carvers etc. If you really are just what can fairly be called an "artisan", you won't be notable, unless for success in building a large business, as with some potters (who for some reason don't seem to be in the artisan tree at all). At various periods, for people like Stubbs, enamel painting was just another painting medium. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's helpful for you to lay out your thinking. Thank you. I'm not sure that I agree that, by definition, someone who is notable as an artisan is probably not an artisan. My take is more that if someone is regularly described as a artisan, they're probably an artisan. However, if they're notable for the artistic works, then they'd probably be under both. I need to think about it a bit. Mason (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might try looking through the "artisan" categories to see how many people could neither really be called "artists" (decorative or otherwise) nor businesspeople, engineers etc. I expect there are some, but pehaps not too many. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion! I imagine that you're probably right. It'll probably end up being parent categories rather than have many people directly in them. (My goal with filling out the artisan category, is to connect the incomplete stretches that have been floating around.) Mason (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course also people who are notable for something else entirely, like being a politician or writer, but whose CV included a period in an "artisan" occupation - eg Raimundo Arruda Sobrinho, a writer who had been a gardener and book-seller. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in ahead of Johnbod here, but Category:Enamellers should probably be within a Category:Decorative artists which hasn't been created, and that in turn would probably be within Category:Artists. Possibly calligraphers, ceramists, enamellists, glass artists and jewellers all belong in a decorative artists category rather than in Category:Artisans. Category:Decorative arts and Category:Catholic decorative artists do exist. Ham II (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The parenting tree you've laid out here makes sense to me. Thanks for laying it out. My immediate inclination would be to have decorative artists parented by both artisans and artists. However that parenting would be more reflective of the medium they're working in rather than the person/artistic output themselves. Does that make sense? I'm happy to defer to the folks who know more about the content area, like yourselves. But I'd figure I'd lay out my thinking. Mason (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with that. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is another category, and probably tree, we shouldn't have. Art history sources never group German, Italian, Netherlandish, Bohemian etc etc painters this way, & nor should we. Most should already be in Category:Early Netherlandish painters, which could be added and split by century I suppose. But the category is pointless. You've included a (presumed) German - the Upper Rhenish Master - in the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That category tree is a compromise. If you can convince JPL to stop removing people from german/austrian categories, without this level, I'm happy to reconsider my position. But it's existence, seems to allow the child categories, which are defining, to exist without large disruptions. Mason (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough! Even I doubt my pursuasive charm is up to that. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep yep! I'd be extremely impressed, but regardless, I'm pleased enough that I've gotten to experience your more charming side 😁 Mason (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 27 1 article sub-categories of Ambassadors of France (there are others at 2, this is just 1 article sub-cats). There are 6 articles directly in the category, so we have not actually made Ambassadors of France a container category. Ambassadors are not default notable, they only get articles of they meet GNG or are defsult notable for other reasons. So there is no reason to assume all these categories will grow in the future. So I think upmergimg these 27 would be wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category has 2 1 article sub-cats. It also has about 9 direct biographical articles, so it is clearly not a place we insist on dispersing everything. I think these 2 categories (Piland and Portugal) should be upmerged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Klingenberg is in 9 different categories for Ambassadors from Denmark. Each has either 1 or 2 entries (I think he held multiple of these ambassadorships at once). I really think all 9 categories should be upmerged. I am not sure of all 9 appointments are mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14 of the sub-categories of this category have 1 article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category Ambassadors of Ivort Coast only has 5 articles in the permanent Representatives to the UN category. Every other category has 2 or less articles. I think they should all be upmerged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category has 20 1 article sub-cats. Since Yugoslavia has not existed for over 20 years these categories seem even less likely to grow than some others. I think this is a really good place to start upmerging. The number of categories with just 1 article we have here is staggering. It probably runs into the thousands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Making me a list like this is extremely helpful! I'm going to check them out once I get a better sense of how the community feels about the first 3 I proposed. Mason (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is like shooting fish in a barrel. Basically any country has multiple 1 article ambassadors from categories and multiple 1 article ambassadors to categories. Well except South Ossetia where there is only 1 article currently categorized as someone who was an ambassador there, but he simultaneously was ambassafor to Russia and Armenia and is not clear he ever even visited South Ossetia. The fact that this scheme ends up including not just past countries but countries with limited diplomatic recognition makes it even more potentially large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors to the United States has only 1 sun-cat with 1 article (the to South Yemen cat) and 2 with 2 articles. However it has 70 direct articles. I do not know how many of those direct articles are examples of not proper dispersion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

It looks to me like your objection is actually against the designers category. I would agree that it is not a good category, it is essentially grouping together stage designers, fashion designers and some other people just because they all happen to be called "designers" without there being any actual thing that makes them as a group distinct from artists who are not designers. However I think this would mean that we should not have any designer categories, and we should put the various designer categories directly in the artists categories, in all cases, not just for women designers. I would think this would also mean that all articles currently in a "designers" category should be moved up to an artist category until we can justify a specific type of designer category. So we might have a person in "fashion designers" and then in "Tongan artists", "Ghanaian artists" etc. in cases were there are not enough fashion designers from that country to justify its own subcat. This looks to me like an issue with the whole tree though, and not just the women cat, so I am thinking we should solve it at the whole tree level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
190		Examples of feudalism (talk)	Add sources
10		Ellen Hagan (talk)	Add sources
55		Piri Mehmed Pasha (talk)	Add sources
98		Mfantsipim School (talk)	Add sources
81		Sanjak of Bosnia (talk)	Add sources
60		Jōdō (talk)	Add sources
218		University of Ghana (talk)	Cleanup
9		Lucy Quist (talk)	Cleanup
41		Sanjak of Herzegovina (talk)	Cleanup
24		Ghana Oil Company (talk)	Expand
3		The Mystery of San Nicandro (talk)	Expand
1,820		Turkish War of Independence (talk)	Expand
232		History of construction (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
8		Joe Lartey (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3		Hackinger (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
391		2024 Nuseirat rescue operation (talk)	Merge
231		Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor (talk)	Merge
32		Booch method (talk)	Merge
2		Lawrence Mukomberanwa (talk)	Wikify
267		Mustafa III (talk)	Wikify
241		Wall (talk)	Wikify
3		Anthony Dzamefe (talk)	Orphan
11		Esther Cobbah (talk)	Orphan
16		Beatrice Agyeman Abbey (talk)	Orphan
5		Sandra Ankobiah (talk)	Stub
3		Isaac Kaledzi (talk)	Stub
2		Nesbert Mukomberanwa (talk)	Stub
3		Cinq colonnes à la une (talk)	Stub
2		Tendai Mukomberanwa (talk)	Stub
3		Society for Appraisal and Women Empowerment in Rural Areas (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luthiers from Genoa has 1 article. It is a person born in 1889, so not even actually a stand-in for Luthiers from the Republic of Genoa. I do not think we need a by city occupational category to hold one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll check it out, once I get back home from work. Mason (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the categories that it transcludes onto the pages that use it, several of which were turned from existing bluelinked "LGBT in X" that exist to non-existing redlinked "LGBTQ in X" categories that don't exist. (For example, it prematurely moved several categories from Category:21st-century LGBT people by nationality to Category:21st-century LGBTQ people by nationality, where they obviously can't be until it exists.) Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... ok, so I think I'm missing something because the template doesn't use LGBT in FOO like at all. The template shouldn't send anything to "LGBTQ" unless the category name includes LGBTQ. Can you point to a specific example of a page that redlinked, so I can try to understand what the issue actually looks like. Mason (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drawing artists 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. Fram (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mason,

Thank you for bringing some of the categories created by DinosaursLoveExistence to CFD. This editor has been driving me a little crazy for years now. They typically show up, once a month, create dozens and dozens of empty categories over the course of a day, on a wide range of subjects, I tag them CSD C1 and then, over the course of the next week, IP editors from Nottingham, UK fill most of the empty categories up and I untag them all or Shellwood does. It's a really peculiar division of labor by this editor.

I've rarely had success communicating with an IP editor on a User talk page and DinosaursLoveExistence has never responded to any messages on their User talk page that I've left, neither templates nor personal messages. They have been editing like this for years and years without engaging even when there was a discussion about them on ANI. I'm not optimistic that CFD discussions will draw them out but who knows, maybe eventually we will hear from them. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I think DLE has made like 3 edits to people's talk pages. So I'm not optimistic on that front either. But at least now there's a record of linking the two together via the sock puppet investigation. Is blocking them from creating categories until they actually engage with editors something that's doable? It might draw them out. Mason (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Drawing artists should not be merged to daughtsmen. That term is A-ambiguous, B-toiblesome because it ends in -men and c. Introduces an Emglish variation issue that could be solved by using a different term. If you look up the article Draughtsman you will find there are 6 different occupations that are covered there. The current draughtsman tree is at least to some extent merging the Drawing artist and the drafter terms and has some people who are both. That is only the first problem. The second is that the term ends in -men. We generally avoid using a term that ends in that way. In fact this may be the only Category where a term ends in -men and is not actually gender specific. Fisherman are called fishers, businessmen, which at one point was so unmbiquitous is businesspeople unless we have specific men, policemen, firemen, postman and so on we avoid using. The best term is actually drawers. The problem is that is the same word used for A-parts of a dresser, cabinet or desk, b-an item of clothing and c-people who take water out of a well. So even Drawers (people) would be potentially ambiguous. The best we could do is drawers (artists) which might be better than the current name. C. Even if we ignore that draughtsman is both ambiguous and potentially excluding some of the content, we have the issue that in the US and some other places that use English the preferred spelling is draftsman. Lastly having looked at the sources "draughtsman" or "draftsman" is also not always how these people are described. Many reliable sources just say the person was an artist and mention that thry had notable drawings without ever trying to use a word to say what they were doing. Either "drawing artist" or "Drawers (artists)" is about the best we can do. Either will be far clearer and less ambiguous than the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Draughtsman is not a great name. I tried to get it changed, but unfortunately other folks liked the name. Mason (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody LIKES the name; it has all the issues JPL sets out. But it IS the standard term in art history, & attempts to make wp the base for reforming the English language are doomed. I think I suggested "Artists notable for their drawings" in an earlier discussion, but that was not liked. The alternative is something using "graphics", but that is even more ambiguous. Many category names have unavoidably to make an ENGVAR choice; that is no issue. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. "Likes" really doesn't convey the nuance of the issue/cfd. Thanks for chiming in! Mason (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last proposal was to rename the category to drafters, and failed because most of the content are not drafters, but drawers (artists). The current category is grouping people in at least 2 different professions. At present it is a clear violation of the shared name rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue of "liking". It is an issue of having a term that can be used to create a coherent category that groups people in a clear way. If the term was so overwhelmingly the only choice from art history that we had to use it, it would not be a disambiguation page. My term drawers (artists) is by far the best and no one has ever explained why it is not. Avoiding Engvar issues should be one of our considerations in such things. What we have n9w is categories that are grouping together people in two totally different professions that should not be. We need to consider what needs to be done in category names to make them adequately usable. I also do not think this name really meets common name use. Especially in present works. My sense from reading recent obituaries of artists who draw is that draughtsman/draftsman is not the current term for them. No one has really explained why drawing artist is a bad term, and people just ignore my suggestion for drawer (artist). Wikipedia should use terms that will be familiar and clear to reads, and unambiguous. This is why we have a whole tree using "writer", although "author" is a far more common term. The problem is "author" has an at times unclear limit, does it cover all writers, or only a sub-set, such as maybe totally excluding screenwriters and essayists. Also "author" is often used for people we would not call writers. However never as an occupational description, more as a statement of what thry do. Draftsman has six definitions. So at a minimum if we keep draftsman we absolute need to disambiguation the term so people stopped butting in drafters and other people who are not drawers (artists). It would be most helpful if drawer was a term. Basically everywhere else we use the most common term for singers, painters, writers, etc. We do not say "vocal performers" or any other term, and we do not call the other "authors", although that is the far, far more common term. The problem is that as I outlined above drawer is an ambiguous term. So we have to in dome way disambiguation it. We disambiguate publishers (people) and a few other occupations so that is doable. "Artists notable for their drawings" is the worst idea ever. We do not have "Artists notable for their paintings" etc. We just have a convention that we only put people in categories for which it is defining. This applies to those who paint, sculpt, draw, write, illustrate, sing, dance, juggle, act, drum, and so on. The issue is that unlike painter, sculptor, writer, illustrator, singer, dancer, juggler, actor, drummer and many other terms drawer has multiple other meanings and so we cannot assume that we can have a category for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Actor and Writer are actual articles. Painter appears to be a redirect. It might help a lot if we created an article drawer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, drawer is an article on the part of a dresser, cabinet or desk. However at drawer (disambiguation) is has a line that says drawer is "someone who engages in drawing".
• I did find this discussion. [2] The common name rule means we should consider how words are actually used by people actually using them. It is clear from this source that "drawer" and "drawing artist" are actual words people use to describe, well, drawing artists. It is clear that there is not a default belief among people actually speaking and writing that "draftsman" is the correct term for this. It is even more clear that the claim that "drawing artist" was made up for use in Wikipedia is not true.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is all you can find, it goes rather effectively to disprove your point! All three uses are from manuals, and grammatically "drawing artist" refers to "the artist [ie reader] who is in the process of drawing", rather than an "artist who is known for drawing", which is what we need a category for. There do appear to be some uses of the latter in the context of Native American/First Nations/Inuit art (from the previous discussion) but that doesn't justify a global category using the term. Try to find a source describing say Raphael, Michelangelo or Guercino as a "drawing artist". Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a case for not categorising artists by this medium at all? Just categorising them by the other media they worked in, and having them in "artists" categories if drawing was their only medium? Ham II (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A weak one perhaps. There is a relatively small number of artists for whom their production of very high quality drawings is properly defining, & I'm not convinced that the category system can't cope with this. There are also a number of less important artists whose sold work includes a high proportion of drawings - Augustus John for example, who banged out commissioned portrait drawings at a great rate. Rather inevitably, none of the four artists I've just mentioned have any drawing-related categories! What are the actual objections to "Category:Artists notable for their drawings"? Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian, Duke of Saxe-Eisenberg is the only biogrsphicak article in the Dukes of Saxe-Eisenberg category. I think we should either delete that category or upmerge in to Dukes of the Holy Roman Empire. The later we should also probably rename to Dukes in the Holy Roman Empire. They were Dukes of specific, by the 17th-century if not slightly ealier often becoming smaller and smaller states. There may have been a title that could be rendered Duke of the Holy Roman Empire in English but it is not clear all people who held the title of Duke in the Holy Roman Empire could be called Duke of the Holy Roman Empire. The in category is accurate, so I think we should go with it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, could there be more dukes? Usually dukes last at least two generations. We might be able to populate this one Mason (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, per the page." Established in 1680 for Christian, fifth son of Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Gotha, the Duchy consisted of Eisenberg and the towns of Ronneburg, Roda and Camburg. Upon his death in April 1707, as he had no male heirs, the lands were passed to Saxe-Hildburghausen" There's only 1 duke Mason (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping me company and giving concrete advice during my (now overturned) perma-ban. That's certainly not something to simply expect from an editor as productive in the content arena as yourself. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. 1-I think we need to also upmerge to Kongo people. 2-I think we should rename that to People from the Kingdom of Kongo. This is probably the Kingdom in Africa, at least south of Egypt where we have the most potential from articles from the 15th-17th centuries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take it to the talk page tomorrow, as you helpfully suggest. Meanwhile, please let me soon if you are going to scour every one of my edits as it's nearly my bedtime. Ta. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You take a draconian deletionist approach instead of trying to improve the project. Mason (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy regarding having only the wikidata commons link on a page? For example, your removal of an alternative link to Commons here:[3]. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is to a category, not a wikicommons link. But the general policies are Wikipedia:Overcategorization, WP:Defining. Mason (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The norm is not to add everything with the same name to a category per Wikipedia:SHAREDNAME Mason (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Lajčák is in 4 Ambassador categories. He is the only person in any of the 4 categories. In the case of Slovak Ambassadors to Serbia and Montenegro, since that country only existed 3 years he may be the only person who ever held that position. Under Ambassadors from the Ivory Coast there are 5 or more empty catrgories because 1 article was deleted. I am going to go create a count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to count all the 1 article ambassador categories. I got to 2300 some, and was at Mexico, but I lost count. There are over 3000 maybe over 4000, and that is ignoring all the 2 articles ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! it sounds like there's a lot of potential for cleaning up these categories! Mason (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not remove the categories of the people I made because they have many districts that are tied to them. Also many of them were present in their constituencies for a record number of time spent and have numerous dates and places named after them. Some of them also put forward and co-sponsored very important bills. I wouldn’t remove them. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to express your opinion at the CFD, but you really really need to review how defining works because those things you have listed don't belong in the category. Mason (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find numerous linked resources on the warnings I gave you on your talk page. Mason (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Prussian one closed the Ivory Coast might be a good place yo go next. I think there may be more sub-cats than there are total articles on ambassadors there because several had appointments to multiple countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nudging me :) Mason (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your recent edit to {{Occupation by nationality and century category header/nationality}} has caused templates that integrate it to generate a duplicate parameter error in other categories, which in turn has caused 12,254 categories to show up in the Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls error category. Can you have a look ate the code you added please and clear the error. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely! Mason (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is edit should fix it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Occupation_by_nationality_and_century_category_header/nationality&oldid=1245330091) Mason (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's fixed it. Just need it to percolate through the system now. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Pakistanumi computer budinesspeople has only 3 articles it would be probably best to upmerge that as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that one can be populated Mason (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smasongarrison. I noticed that you're reverting my edits related to categories even though I had a clear yet unexplained reasons why I removed a category from each one. You should think things through before you revert a bunch of someone's edits.

Category:Mad Max doesn't fit under Category:Wikipedia categories named after games as Mad Max is a film franchise and not a game.

Category:Tomb Raider games shouldn't really fit under Category:Single-player video games because some games in series had additional multiplayer modes.

Category:Infogrames games shouldn't fit under Category:Video games developed in France. It is a category for video games published by a French company however dozens of video games in this category were not developed in France.

Boss key could fit under Category:Video game terminology however this just the name of a keyboard shortcut for hiding programs or whatever. It is not considered a video game-specific concept according to article, similar to Sprite (computer graphics). QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did revert those changes because your reasons aren't reflective of how categorization works. For example, even though there are some multiple player modes for Tomb Raider Games, the DEFINING feature of the Tomb Raider franchise is that the games are single player. I've looked at your talk page and it's clear that this is a much larger problem. Mason (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary of your most recent revert of Category:Mad Max, you mentioned that you re-added Category:Wikipedia categories named after games because "there is not a more specific category", however you may have been thinking of a category titled Category:Wikipedia categories named after video games which I have created, so it may fit there instead. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the lack of a Mad Max video game category Mason (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phediuk had previously removed Category:Video games developed in France from Category:Infogrames games over the fact the many of video games in this article weren't developed in France but it was reverted by another editor in the next edi a year after. Why would it be eligible to fit into that category ignoring Phediuk's following logic? Why just to indicate where the company is? If so, then you may consider replacing the category with Category:Video games by French companies rather instead. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review of defining categories work. If you thought that Video games by French companies was a better fit, you should have replaced that category instead of merely removing it. Mason (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I just did. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, you reviewed defining? Mason (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23 of the 38 categories under Ambassadors of Zimbabwe have only 1 article. Several more only have 2 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a crack at populating them once I finish working on the occupation template. Mason (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt they can be populated. In fact right now we have 7 Ivorian Ambassador sub-cats that are empty. Hynek Kmoníček a Czech diplomat is emblematic of the craziness of this situation. He is in 15 ambassador categories, 12 of them he is the only article in. He had 2 appointments where he was simultaneously Czech ambassador to 5 or more countries. It is not clear from the article he ever did much at all with some of these countries. People who were Ambassadors have in general been categorized as such, we have however set up a system with far too many narrow intersection categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I do try to populate categories before I nominate them. Mason (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is Lionel Luckhoo who is in 6 ambassador catrgories, all of which have 1 or 2 articles. However because he was ambassador from 2 counties to 3 countries, all at the same time. So upmerging would place him in 5 categories instead of 6.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mason,

Did you notice that Dinosaurs got indefinitely blocked? They had been editing here since 2005, despite their eccentricities, I never thought this would happen. I think that most of their activity was productive as they created a lot of categories that are still in use, their problem was that they refused to communicate even when they were brought to ANI. In that case, the problem was with some stub articles they were creating which is what they used to do before them moved on to categories. Any way, for me, this was definitely a surprise as because of the work I do tagging empty categories, I used to follow their editing pretty closely.

Hope you are doing well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! Yes, I did notice that DNE got blocked. I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, a chunk of their category creation was good, but on the other hand, they were not engaging with editor concerns, not explaining their reasoning, and not altering their behavior based on the concerns for the categories that were less than good. All of which are an important parts of wikipedia. My goal had been to get them to engage with the community. DNE is capable of responding on talk pages; they'd done it at least twice. I'd support unblocking them if they engaged. Mason (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:19th-century Mauritian people 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I got a watchlist notice telling me that Category:Trinidad and Tobago writers by century was up for deletion as an empty category.

Looking into its history I see I created it on 24 September 2023 as part of work on Ayanna Lloyd Banwo, when I added Category:21st-century Trinidad and Tobago women writers and created the parent cats Category:21st-century Trinidad and Tobago writers and Category:Trinidad and Tobago writers by century in the existing hierarchy. Your edit in March 2024, using a template instead of explicit cats, seems to have broken the chain, so that Category:21st-century Trinidad and Tobago writers is no longer in Category:Trinidad and Tobago writers by century or any other Trinidad and Tobago category. Was this intended, or accidental? I'm puzzled. You seem immersed in categories so I hope you can clarify what's going on here. (The same thing seems to have happened to the 20th century cats after this edit.) Is it a problem with {{Writers by nationality and century category header}}, which I see you've just been editing, or is it a policy decision somewhere? Thanks. PamD 08:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the container cat for the two T&T writers-by-century cats, and removed the CSD, on the assumption that this was a mistake and not a policy decision.

Is T&T alone, or has this been done for other countries? PamD 09:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is seems more widespread: Category:20th-century Jordanian writers is not in a Jordan hierarchy, etc. @Liz: for info as an editor interested in empty cats - there may be a lot which have been emptied this way. PamD 09:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the template should add in the FOOth-century BAR by century. Let me see what happened Mason (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I think I know what happened. I'll fix it in a bit. I'm sorry about that. Mason (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies when I added the additional option to how non-diffusing child categories, I accidentally removed a "}}" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Writers_by_nationality_and_century_category_header&diff=prev&oldid=1246670758] when I was adding in the option. I've checked the other categories I implemented the changes in, and it looks like this is the only one that I goofed on. My apologies. Mason (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it - so glad I noticed and could trace the problem back to you. I wonder how many other CSD nominations there were for emptied categories? These things happen, and Wikipedia's setup of alerts worked well in that Liz notified me of the CSD which prompted me to check the history of the cat. Thanks. PamD 12:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing this discussion thread after leaving my own message on the subject. PamD, thanks for seeing the problem and coming here. I didn't know why the categories were suddenly empty, it can be a mystery when it's a template error. Everything is back to normal now, all the empty categories have been filled and untagged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i reacently found a website (started by a social worker academic) which is a database of freely available, open source social work textbooks on every course a social worker would need to take from entry all the way to an advnced practice degree. will be useful for building Wikipedia articles. also please spread the word if any social workers you know would benefit. URL: https://opensocialwork.org/textbooks/ RJJ4y7 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mason,

Please be very very careful when editing these templates. This is not the first time that your changes to a template have caused categories to empty out and then be refilled once the mistake has been corrected. It's not only a waste of time for those editors untagging the categories for CSD C1 speedy deletion but it can be a mystery for editors to try to figure out why the categories are suddenly empty.

You do an amazing amount of work here on the project, I just like to encourage you, when working with templates, to check your changes after they are made to make sure the edits didn't have any inadvertent consequences. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I totally agree! (And I think you did a really really good job of striking the balance between mason you do good work, but clearly breaking stuff isn't so good). I clearly need to build more time in on the checking after the change is implemented. On the positive side, the rollout I set up for this change, was designed to do so really slowly, so that it didn't break *everything*. Regardless, clearly, I need to do more during the window between implementation and template updating. Mason (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:14th-century scientists 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 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:13th-century scientists 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 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I fixed the 2nd brain fart that's causing this cascade. I'm going to start vetting these changes in an external software to make sure that I don't miss a }} Mason (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]