Jump to content

User talk:Johnpacklambert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Spanish/Portuguese people too soon

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 16:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

Category:People from the Crown of Castile has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kingdom of Scotland people

[edit]

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

Editing of era styles

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legendary people and dates

[edit]

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

Overcategorized

[edit]

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

Dates for 1st millenia Mayans

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 04:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

Category:Henry Ford Community College alumni has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert&oldid=1264437360"