User talk:Johnpacklambert

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Misuse of burial categories

We have agreed that burial categories are for cemeteries and other very specific places. For navigation we group these by country, state, city etc., but only the most local unit is defining, and only if being buried at the cemetery, etc. is defining. Lots and lots of people are over categorized by the country they were buried in. I have removed a few of these, but there is a huge amount of work yet to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you removed Ulysses Grant from burials in New York state. Grant's Tomb is a notable landmark.
Also, the article about Grant mentions his ancestry in England and Ireland. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the article to go into such detail, especially since it has an "article is too long" tag, but as long as it does mention those things, I would think that the categories "American people of Irish descent" and "American people of English descent", which you removed, made sense. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those ancestry categories are not defining for Grant. We only categorize people by things that are defining. The test of definingness is not "is it mentioned in the article". Especially for ancestry because some articles essentially go way more into the ancestry of a person than is at all justified. The question is "is this one of the core defining things about the person". In the case of US Grant, the particular places in Europe his ancestors once lived are not defining. For British Isles ancestry at least, such is almost never defining beyond maybe an immigrant grandparent, and often not beyond an immigant parent. In the case of his burial, we have a clear guideline that the only level of burial that is defining for biographical articles is the cemetery or something at that level. Burials in New York state is meant to be an article to group sub-cats, not to have any direct content. In the case of Grant's Tomb, we have an article on that, that is categorized, so we do not need to categorize the article on Grant himself based on that at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Grant's case his English ancestry is from people leaving England 192 years before his birth. His Irish ancestry might not be that far back, but it also looks like it might ultimately be Scottish, and it is not like any of his grandparents were immigrants. Ancestry needs to be close and defining, it is neither in the case of Grant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of articles are not categorized by burial at all. However it looks like most that are, are in categories that are not defining, that is by country, state, city, county, or in the case of England a few by region, instead of by cemetery or other location for burials.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More burials

Right now we have Burials in Dover, Delaware, burials in Sussex County, Delaware and burials in Kent County, Delaware that only contain biographical articles. Burials in New Castle County Delaware has some cemetery or other specific location of burial categories as well. Most of the time we do not subdivide cemeteries by county, I see no reason to subdivide by county in a state with 3 counties. This whole burials tree is a total mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Warren County, New York suffers the same issues. Other sub-categories under New York all at least contain actually cemeteries (broadly defined to include other specific locations where people are buried that are multi-functional). I am not sure the depth of sub-categories is needed though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Angola

Category:Burials in Angola, has no direct articles, just a sub-category, with just 1 more sub-category. The only article in that subcategory, cemeteries in Angola, is Alto das Cruzes cemetery . So the whole tree of 3 categories exists to support just the article on the cemetery. I am not sure it even makes sense to have cemetery articles themselves as sub-categories of categories named burials in X, but I do not think it makes sense to have a whole tree for one article. This is also the only article in the category monuments and memorials in Angola. Which places it under the tree of Buildings and structures in Angola. I am wondering if instead of being under Buildings and Structures the article really should be under maybe Society of Angola, or Culture of Angola. Or is "structure" larger enough to include a cemetery, since the grave stones or markers themselves are a sort of structure? There are only 19 by country sub-cats of African cemeteries, there are 54 countries in Africa, so we do not have cemeteries categories for most of them. We have 2 articles on cemeteries directly in Cemeteries in Africa. Of the 20 or so articles directly in cemeteries, only 1 is on a specific cemetery. However then are probably 7 specific cemeteries at the contient level. There are lots of 1 article cemeteries by country categories, or at least a few others. I am less than convinced roganizing cemeteries by continent really makes sense, I think it might make sense to just sub-divide by county and put the rest in a universal category. I think we have more categories in the tree than our current contents justifies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Tasmania

The category Burials in Tasmania is all biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Haiti

Burials in Haiti has only as a sub-cat Burials in Port-au-Prince. That category in turn contains only 3 biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burials in Honduras

Burials in Honduras, Guinea, Antigua and Baruda, The Federated States of Micronesia, Iceland, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Sierra Leone and Yemen are all categories with only biogrpahical articles in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The same is true of Burials in Schleswig-Holstein (which is a person who died long before that place was formed in the 1860s), burials in the Faroe Islands, Burials in Ghazipor (1 article as well), burials in Goa (also only 1 article), and some of the Chinese sub-unit categories as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Michoacan, Nueva Leon and Vera Cruz under Mexico.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Category:Burials in Overijssel. Also 14 of the 16 burials by state in Nigeria categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Category:Burials in Požarevac. Which categories exist at all seems very arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burials in Brittany and Burials in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur seem to be the only sub-cats in Burials in France that have this problem of not having any sub-cats for cemeteries or places that function as cemeteries for some purposes while also having non-cemetery functions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Burials in the Province of Málaga, Category:Burials in the Province of Soria, Category:Burials in the Province of Guadalajara, Category:Burials in the Province of Toledo, Category:Burials in the Province of Tarragona, and Category:Burials in Extremadura also face this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burial in the canton of Vaud and Burials in the Canton of Zurich also face this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does Burials in Trinidad and Tobago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 of the 41 sub-cats of burials by county in England have this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innkeepers

I have been slowly, and I mean slowly, adding people to the Category innkeepers. I believe it now has 28 articles. I am not even sure if it is fully defining for all of those. There are 2 sub-cats, I counted both those in the main category and the sub-cats. I have to admit I am not personally convinced this is distinct enough from hoteliers to justify 2 Category trees. Are innkeepers really different than hoteliers, are is this a case of categorization by unshaved name, that is dplitting a like group because the name used for them changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Ali Haji

When you removed Raja Ali Haji [1] from Indonesian categories, you didn't add him to 19th-century poets or male poets. If you believe the nationality category is incorrect, you should sti;; add the page to ALL the other parent categories. Mason (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the category he really needs to be in is People from the Riau-Lingga Sultanate. It looks like this place was not incorporated into the Dutch East Indies until 1911. I am not sure we have any articles beyond the one on him and the one the sultanate itself. What we clearly should not do is anachronistically impose a nationality on his that did not exist until long after his death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People from the East Indies

I am starting to wonder if there is enough of a regional culture for us to make a Category People from the East Indies, and at least include people from areas in modern Raleast Timor, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia prior to the areas coming under colonial rule, as applies to a specific area. Possibly excluding those from New Guinea. I am not sure how large such a Category actually could become, and I am not sure any subdivisions by occupation would be doable. It does not make sense to act as if post-colonial states existed in pre-colonial times, so we need to avoid imposing names ahistotlrically. I think we also need to be more willing to let categories by occupation have undifferentiated base contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have too many male categories

I am unconvinced that for writers and poets we need male categories. I think in these situations it works to only have women categories but to make sure that they are not diffused out of the main categories. I also think that we do not need either male or women translator categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian categories

I think we should limit categories that describe people as Austrian to people from Austria from 1918 on. Before 1918 Austrian is used in a very different sense. From 1867-1918 we can place people in the From Austria-Hungary tree. From 1804-1867 we have From the Austrian Empire. For those pre-1804 we have either From the Holy Roman Empire or From the Habsburg Monarchy. We have a similar situation with Turkey/Turkish. In 1905 people referred to Austria and Turkey, but they were so different than the modern states that it just causes confusion to create unified categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By nationality not by ethnicity

the main way we categorize people is by the country they are nationals of, not by their ethnicity. It is also not by their residence. However I believe it is reasonable to place people who were definingly expatriates in Foo in a people from Foo Category, if we do not have enough articles to justify an Expatriates in Foo Category. There is much work to do on this front with 19th-century people from central, eastern and south-eastern Europe. I cannot tell you the number of articles I have found where the subject is in say Austrian expatriates in Hungary, but thry were really just a national of the Austrian Empire who moved to different parts of the empire during their life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is naturalization status defining

I really am thinking the answer is no. Our categories for fooian people, or people from foo when fooian is a non-existet, unclear, compound or ambiguous term, are for citizens, subjects and nationsls. While we make distinctions between emigrants and expatriates, we do not demand naturalization to place someone in an emigration category. The naturalization categories really do not add much, other than category clutter. We have lots of articles with over 50 caregories. This us an unreasonable number of categories for sny article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnpacklambert"