User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 8

Biographies of Living people

The category Category:Living people has 987,022 article presently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the page Sandeep Singh Russian was not right. The page had enough references directly about him . Pls read the hindi language newspaper that had been added. The deletion needs a review. Sunny50888 (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Empire-categories

Please stop removing categories such as Category:Russian salon-holders from categories such as Category:Russian Empire salon-holders.

The Russian Empire is a sub-category to the parent-category Russia. Therefore, all the Russian Empire-categories are, when the overlap, sub-categories to Russia-categories. The Russian Empire is a period of Russian history. All period-categories are sub-categories to the nation-categories of the country in which they belong. For example, the Victorian era is a sub-category to the United Kingdom, the French revolution-era is a sub-category to the France: and the Russian Empire is a sub-category to Russia. They exist in parallel.

If you remove Category:Russian salon-holders from Category:Russian Empire salon-holders, then Category:Russian Empire salon-holders will suddenly look compeltely different from all other Salon-holder categories, and each nation has their own salon-category, sorted by nationality. Further more, it is not permitted by Wikipedia's rules to have a category deleted by emptying it, which can become the case when you act as above, as it has in this case.

Further more: you can not replace, for example, "Russian 18th-century dancers" with Dansers of the Russian Empire": the Empire is a period, an era, not a century. It included the 18th-, 19th- and some of the 20th-century. The century categories exist in parallel with the era/period-categories, and that is the way it has to be. Otherwise, it will be time consuming for the reader to find a person form a certain century, when they look for them.

Please consider the above carefully in the future. --Aciram (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- No the Russian Empire was a distinct polity. Many of the subjects of the Russian Empire would never have considered themselves to be Russian in any way, and to tag them in that way is not at all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aciram. The Russian Empire categories should be subcategories of the Russian categories. This is for ease of navigating the category tree, if nothing else. The Russian Empire was not a completely different "polity" than the current Russian Federation. At international law, the Russian Empire was the legal successor state to the Soviet Union, which was the legal successor state to the Russian Empire. Thus, the Russian Federation and the Russian Empire are legally the same polity. (For instance, a treaty ratified by the Russian Empire is still in force for the Russian Federation without any further action being taken by the Russian Federation.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Khan (author)

I closed this as soft-delete, but an editor asked for it to be undeleted which I am compelled to do per the policy.

As you participated, up to you if you renominate it.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2011 establishments in Trinidad and Tobago

A tag has been placed on Category:2011 establishments in Trinidad and Tobago requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Allman AFD

Could you please review Ricky Allman AFD one more time. I have added new information, such as museum exhibitions and Harvard Business Review citation. I feel these may change your mind.Webmaster862 (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

There are currently 987,710 articles in the category Category:Living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1923 establishments in Mongolia

A tag has been placed on Category:1923 establishments in Mongolia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1975 establishments in Odisha

A tag has been placed on Category:1975 establishments in Odisha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikitha Grero

Hi. I don't get that. How you cite that he is non notable?? As a Sri Lankan and a native person, he is well adjudged in our country due to his leadership qualities and popularizing the international school system in Sri Lanka. I have added a hardcopy of his notability through a newspaper. So, my concern is "HE is notable" and valuble asset in our country. So help me to keep the article. If you need soft article references, I will send them soon to Wikipedia. There are many non notable things in Wikipedia, but never ever get deleted and never concerned by Admins. Thank You. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1992 establishments in Andhra Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:1992 establishments in Andhra Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilmot N. Hess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinton, New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Johnpacklambert AfD nominations

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all your tireless efforts in weeding out non notable biographical articles, you do indeed deserve this. Thanks and keep it up! Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly uneven coverage

It really irks me that Andrea Cassone still has an article with just a blog source, but articles on Benjamin de Hoyos and Michael John U. Teh were deleted even though they had multiple sources to written articles in publications that involved editorial oversight. True two of those were from publications controlled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that Hoyos and Teh are officers for, but they had no direct control over the creation of those sources, and there were in both cases at least one article that was from a reliable source that was fully independent of them. I actually suspect that if someone tried they could find more sourcing on Cassone, but it irks me that I did all that sleuthing and research to build fairly good articles on Hoyos and Teh, and probably close to 50 other individuals, to then have all those articles deleted while people can but in the absolute minimum effort on these bishops and archbishops and have the articles stand indefinately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Empire people of Moldovan descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Russian Empire people of Moldovan descent has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1957 establishments in Kerala

A tag has been placed on Category:1957 establishments in Kerala requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Anarchists of the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Anarchists of the Russian Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be down to this edit. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP tracker

We are now to 988,294 biographies of living people based on the contents of Category:Living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are so rude

A Wikipedian has accused my actions of "lacking integrity". I am sick and tired of the personal insults and character assassination that is carried out by editors on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I have explained (more than once) that I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that the nomination lacked integrity, since it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. Those were cases where you were nominating only parts of the relevant category hierarchies. In another case, you attempted to nominate a full hierarchy even though it was very large, and I commended you for this.

I apologise for using words that seemed to be a personal insult. I expressed myself badly, and will try not to do so again. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if that had been said about someone voting keep in any given AFD or discussion about certain always-keep-voters, JPL. We'd all be sanctioned out the wazoo. Sorry you're going through this. CUPIDICAE💕 15:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, are there people who have 100% of all their AfD votes as delete? Contrary to popular belief I actually do at times vote keep on AfD. In fact all my bio related votes today may have so far been keep. Admitedly if that is so, it is more a sampling error, since it is just one vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so but I can give you an example of extremely disruptive keep votes from "seasoned editors" who will vote keep for a blatant hoax based on a user generated source even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. CUPIDICAE💕 17:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen arguements to keep that come close to being "this article has existed over 15 years so we should keep it." On Conan the Librarian the argument is "this article used to have false information, so we still need it to counter those falsehoods."John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are deletionists then I wonder what that makes me? Please do not be discouraged, John. I honestly wonder what Wikipedia would be like if the small minority of editors such as ourselves, that actually try to enforce the notability criteria, suddenly went. It would just be a paid-for spam fest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Spiderone, take away JPL, MER-C, Praxidicae, & other editors enforcing the notability threshold be met & fighting spam, Wikipedia would cease to have value. It’s just sheer double standard that so called deletionists are demonized and treated harshly when they occasionally make errors (when !voting) but the keep squad are never held accountable when the reverse occurs. Celestina007 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was investigating the article on Dallin H. Oaks, who clearly passes GNG, probably many years and sometimes months on its own, clearly passes academic notability as a former president of a university with about 30,00 enrollment, was a state supreme court justice, and possibly as a legal scholar was also notable. He probably passes author notability, maybe even for his post-1984 written works which are barely covered in the article. The article dates to 2003 (when he was only a little less notable than now, I think it can be convincingly argued that all those sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are notable, I still want to extended that to all general authorities and general officers ogf the church, but apostles are a clear pass). Oaks was then Philippines Area President and an apostle. The Philippines area had roughly 500,000 members then. I would argue either apostles or general authorities are eqivalent to Catholic Cardinals and area presidents are equivalent to Catholic archbishops, although this ignores the fact that in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints general authorities fully run the Church. Oaks is now in the 1st presidency, which has more authority than the 12, but not much, and the differences are much less now than pre-1970. However for the first 2 years the article was unsourced. Pre-2005 Wikipedia was atrociously lacking in sources. The problem still afflicts us in part because people ignore verifiability and then interpret source existence to argue to keep articles just because sources might exist but are hard to find instead of doing the hard work to find sources. As I said above I suspect that most Catholic bishops if people actually looked one could find sources on, but to pull an article basically at random has this [1] as its only source. That fails reliable source, fails indepdent source at least as it is applied when the person is a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and is not a multiple source. Why do we even have a seperate article that says as little as that article says? I see no reason that we could not contain everything that is in that article on the page Roman Catholic Diocese of Corumbá. I have tried this before, and what happens is people manage to dig up some, maybe not indepth, coverage (some of it is the type of coverage we did find on Benjamin de Hoyos and Michael John U. Teh but were told even though it was from a reliable source, and clearly indepdent and secondary, it was not substantive enough to count) and people will then accuse me of targeting article on non-Americans, and use all sorts of negative infective. The article will end up being inproved, which is not going to happen anytime soon otherwise. I could also start trying to trudge through sources, but since I am not fluent in Portuguese and very marginal in Spanish and French, I will have no good way to know what I dig up, and with some names not even be sure they refer to the same person. So I sit back and wait for someone else to tackle this true mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on the issue with Catholic bishops

To pick just one diocese, Roman Catholic Diocese of Corumbá is has had 14 bishops. We currently have articles on 5 of those. Of those only Antônio de Almeida Lustosa has any sources that are not a blog, and only Lustosa has multiple sources. Lustosa was also the only one who was an archbishop. Maybe considering all bishops default notable was a bridge too far. One blog as the source of all articles is not a good system. I know if we go to the US and pick basically at random a bishop Aloysius John Wycislo (I found him because the only archbishop I was sure I could spell his name totally off the top of my head was Adam Maida, and I picked one of his non-archbishop predecessors), we see sourcing that may pass GNG (I am not sure if those who wanted to delete articles on say Octaviano Tenorio or Yoshihiko Kikuchi would actually be persuaded by the actual level of coverage of Bishop Wycislo, but it is clearly much, much, much better than what we have on Bishop Costa). So some of this may reflect various factors that make it so we average toward better sources on articles on people in the Anglosphere, and in the US and Britain especially (maybe also Australia and New Zealand, I suspect that thought Jamaica is in the Anglosphere, we have under sourcing issues there, and I am sure there are other such cases). Clearly if the article on Bishop Costa cannot be more substantive, we would be served just as well redirecting him to the article on Roman Catholic Diocese of Corumbá and maybe making that article say just a little more on him, but having gone through this with a few articles on bishops in Nigeria, I suspect if people tried they may be able to dig up articles that actually say more about Bishop Costa than what we currently have in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Abadamloora has 2 sources. The Catholic hierachy blog, and the diocesan publication of the Wisconsin diocese that his diocese in Ghana was partnered with when he died. Does the second source meet GNG guidelines? If it does not, it is only because structural issues of how the Catholic Church is set up make it easier to argue indepdence than it is possible to in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1962 establishments in Tamil Nadu

A tag has been placed on Category:1962 establishments in Tamil Nadu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2015 establishments in West Bengal

A tag has been placed on Category:2015 establishments in West Bengal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Empire agnostics has been nominated for renaming

Category:Russian Empire agnostics has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change "Category" on the bio page for Dennis Carothers Stanfill from "Living people" to "Possibly living people"? It looks like vandalism.

Why did you change "Category" on the bio page for Dennis Carothers Stanfill from "Living people" to "Possibly living people"? It looks like vandalism. Somebody else almost immediately reversed your edit/vandalism.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1993 establishments in Assam

A tag has been placed on Category:1993 establishments in Assam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2002 establishments in Andhra Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:2002 establishments in Andhra Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2011 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

A tag has been placed on Category:2011 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2012 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

A tag has been placed on Category:2012 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2012 establishments in Ladakh

A tag has been placed on Category:2012 establishments in Ladakh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

The category Category:Living people currently has 988,970 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

The category Category:Living people now has 989,079 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2005 establishments in Chhatisgarh

A tag has been placed on Category:2005 establishments in Chhatisgarh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2019 establishments in Delhi

A tag has been placed on Category:2019 establishments in Delhi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments in Chhatisgarh by year

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Chhatisgarh by year requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Courtiers of the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Courtiers of the Russian Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2021 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

A tag has been placed on Category:2021 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) by year

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) by year requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: you emptied this nascent hierarchy stating that "This category structure does not exist right now",[2] but they seem to be valid, even if there is scope to improve links and parenting. Do you object to them being reinstated? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1 is the precedent for keeping them. – Fayenatic London 10:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:French emigrants to Cambodia

A tag has been placed on Category:French emigrants to Cambodia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1782 establishments in Norway

A tag has been placed on Category:1782 establishments in Norway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birds are not dinosaurs

These are English words which we use per their standard English usage. When people say "diosaur" they in no way mean birds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a semi-published author

I just removed the most truly odd entry on an allegedly notable alumni "* Brandon D. Jones, semi-published author". What in the world is a semi-published author? The guy wrote a book, and it got half published? So it was like being published in serrial, in a magazine, and he only turned out about half of it, and the rest never came out? That is the only thing that maybe makes sense, and that just seems odd. Unless they meant to say self-published author. Even if he had a full book published that would not equate with default notability. Semi-published does not make any sense to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just a strange and roundabout way of admitting that the author isn't notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPL's sense of humor is premium and very healthy, @Spiderone, swear you didn’t laugh out loud when reading this the first time. This regaled me so fucking much. Lmaooo. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments in Ladakh

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Ladakh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2010 establishments in Ladakh

A tag has been placed on Category:2010 establishments in Ladakh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

There are currently 990,096 articles in Category:Living people.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2013 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (state)

A tag has been placed on Category:2013 establishments in Jammu and Kashmir (state) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Barcellona

I'm still not convinced this person is notable. If you propose this at WP:AfD, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1538 establishments in Japan

A tag has been placed on Category:1538 establishments in Japan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Russian Orthodox Christians from the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Russian Orthodox Christians from the Russian Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India state establishment categories

When creating India state establishment categories, please use {{EstcatIndiastate}}. Like {{EstcatUSstate}}, it requires no parameters, and automatically adds the relevant parents. This would save you from setting up only one of the relevant parent categories, which you have still been doing after I left you a reminder about this, e.g. Category:2007 establishments in Chhattisgarh.

For decades, there is also {{EstcatIndiastateDecade}}. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2001 establishments in Uttar Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:2001 establishments in Uttar Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some comments about you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Lebeau

If you care to respond. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1965 establishments in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea

A tag has been placed on Category:1965 establishments in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School notability

Hi, John. Hey, please don't PROD or AfD school district articles in the United States. As tax assessing bodies with fixed geographic boundries, they reach the level of inherent notability just as an incorporated city town or village would. All that is needed is proof of existence. Thanks. 174.254.192.241 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And while on the subject, it would likely cause less hassle for both you and everyone else if when you encounter a US lower school article that is not notable, simply redirect it to the school district (public) or diocese (parochial) or settlement (other private schools and schools in the other two catagories that don't have redirect targets). Please add {{r from school}} after the redirect markup, and if you get pushback, THEN go to AfD. Thanks. I think you'll find this good for your blood pressure and it will be good for mine too. I appreciate what you are doing, and with lower schools, I'm (almost) always gonna be with you on it. There's little opposition except from SPAs on the notion that lower schools generally lack notability. Let's try to limit the discussion to secondary schools. Many oppose gazetteer level notability for secondary schools (I don't), but that's certainly a spot on the continuum we can try to find a common ground. Let's not waste effort on lower schools. I appreciate what you do, man. 174.254.192.241 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong about school districts. We do not create articles on every water district, and other non-direct government entity that has taxing authority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, John! See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts. I've been involved in writing school district articles for over a decade and the practice is to pretty much have every school district to have an article when possible. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello, John,

When you tag an article for proposed deletion (PROD), please indicate this in the edit summary. If an editor removes the PROD tag and the page is reviewed in the future, it's important to see that it has already been PROD'd and typically this is determined by scanning the previous edit summaries to see if it has been PROD'd or nominated for deletion at AFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Matthew Deane (Australian actor)

The article Matthew Deane (Australian actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nota tagged since August 2016. Very little to no coverage; some non-notable easy-to-get awards and a bit of promotional stuff in Mormon papers. (Note: while on the surface WP:BEFORE may seem to show results, these actually refer to Matthew Deane Chanthavanij, an entirely different person.)

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts) has been nominated for renaming

Category:Springfield College (Massachusetts) has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2017 establishments in Himachal Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:2017 establishments in Himachal Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:British people in colonial Burma

A tag has been placed on Category:British people in colonial Burma requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:British people of colonial Malta

A tag has been placed on Category:British people of colonial Malta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider marking edits that only add/edit categories as "minor"

Can you please consider marking uncontroversial edits that only add/edit a few categories (e.g., [3], [4]) as "minor" edits? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk)

@ElKevbo: your advice is not consistent with Help:Minor_edit#What_not_to_mark_as_minor_changes. That "information page" specifies that actually adding/removing categories should not be marked as minor.

IMHO, changing the sort key in categories would be minor. I guess I might occasionally have marked a simple and indisputable correction to a category as minor; but generally, category changes are not minor. Even when they appear unimportant to the article, they are not minor in their effect on populating the category. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Adding or removing a category can on occasion also be major vandalism to the article. Consider this edit, twice repeated, to a BLP, for which I blocked the perpetrator. Category vandalism is pretty sneaky vandalism, too, quite likely to pass unnoticed, as this did for over a month. I understand that ElKevbo was specifically talking about uncontroversial category additions, but I worry that marking those as minor could serve as an excuse for a pretense of believing BLP vios by category being minor also. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your continuous fight against trash articles. I know, it is very hard to continuously comment on AfDs which clearly fails our guidelines. Best wishes for the future. Störm (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2001 establishments in the Republic of Artsakh

Hello, John,

I see you created this category. In doing so, you created several red link categories. Could you also create those as well? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1996 establishments in Kyrgystan

A tag has been placed on Category:1996 establishments in Kyrgystan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2000 establishments in Saint Kitts and Nevis

A tag has been placed on Category:2000 establishments in Saint Kitts and Nevis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic bishops by nationality

Hello, as you know, the above category was merged into Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country as a result of this discussion. You recently re-created the category. I understand that there has been some push-back on that CFD, and it may not reflect a broader consensus. So if you disagree with the result of that discussion, I suggest you take the issue to WP:DRV, which is designed for situations like this. We do need some degree of order, and part of that is not allowing users to simply re-create categories that were deleted because they disagree with the decision. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrew Killian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 establishments in Rajasthan

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 establishments in Rajasthan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2001 establishments in Andhra Prades has been nominated for deletion

Category:2001 establishments in Andhra Prades has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belize

Do you agree that Category:Bishops in Belize should definitely have Category:Bishops by country as a parent? It is less obvious that Category:Belizean bishops should also have Category:Bishops by country as a parent. That question is still open given the recent controversy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belizean bishops should have as a parent Category:Bishops by nationality. As long as we have such clearly by nationality categories, we should have the by nationality parent. I have a strong suspicion the latter category has been misapplied, but misapplication does not prove a category is unworkable, it just shows editors have been sloppy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be concerned that this might result in many articles having a double parentage (i.e. Bishops in Belize and Belizean bishops)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No that does not concern me. Although we could agree to a system where we treat one as the primary and do not double use it. However if we categorize by specific bishop someone was a bishops of and a general by nationality category this is not duplicative very much. Especially if we agree that bishops are a dispersing sub-set of priests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if all bishops were categorised to Bishops by country alone and to only add the second category (Bishops by nationality) if the state of the nation differed from that state of the country. That's very bad English. I don't know how to say it better. So if a French man was sent to Belize he would be in Bishops in Belize but not in Belizean bishops. I suppose he could be added to French bishops instead. So he would still have a double parentage now that I think about it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1995 establishments in Madya Pradesh

A tag has been placed on Category:1995 establishments in Madya Pradesh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1978 establishments in Costa Rica

A tag has been placed on Category:1978 establishments in Costa Rica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red link categories

Hello, John,

Please do not add nonexistent, red link categories to pages unless you plan on creating the categories. See WP:REDNO for details. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1702 establishments in Scotland

A tag has been placed on Category:1702 establishments in Scotland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For agreeing that Wikipedia is not a place for IMDb references in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Robertson JTZegers^Speak _Aura 15:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1788 establishments in Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:1788 establishments in Austria has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1885 establishments in Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:1885 establishments in Austria has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2014 establishments in Curacao

A tag has been placed on Category:2014 establishments in Curacao requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple Lot

I'm working on an ACW battle article involving the Temple Lot site in Independence, MO. I'm not very familiar with Mormon/LDS terminology, and I would like to get it right. Would referring to The attack of the 13th Missouri Cavalry shattered Confederate resistance at the Temple Lot, a religious site related to the Latter Day Saint movement be a reasonable way to describe the Temple Lot? Hog Farm _Talk 03:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a reasonable way to describe the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

Hello, John,

When you PROD an article, please state this in the edit summary. You've been editing for over 14 years and have over 400K edits, I don't know why you would omit something as simple as an accurate edit summary. If the PROD tag is removed, it's important that there is a record that the page has already been PROD'd in case another editor decides to tag it again. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons by Johnpacklambert. Thank you. Vaticidalprophet 05:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is what J needed today. The general trend of today has been one of my 10 worst days on Wikipedia ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have my sympathy and best wishes. I would not wish ANI on anyone. This too shall pass. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1885 establishments in Austria

A tag has been placed on Category:1885 establishments in Austria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1905 establishments in the Congo Free State

A tag has been placed on Category:1905 establishments in the Congo Free State requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion by this editor

You weighed in on an AfD recently regarding the Category:Our Lady of Częstochowa churches in the United States which was successfully deleted. I was poor in my defense of the category, and only have to ask, as you may be more proficient at sussing out these miscreant categories, but you made my point about these particular churches even more succinct, when you mentioned "....Christian Church has nothing to do with the Black Madonna of Częstochowa." and tossed in some nonsense about Pan-Africans and Egyptian theologies. These few churches in that category were the only ones I found that subscribed to the Icon of the black madonna, which was the reason for only those and not all of the PNCC churches in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New York being in the category. IMHO, you jumped the shark on this one, and totally missed the point. What's shared is their recognition of the Icon as the bastion of their church, they are not even all named the same. You have history with being called out for Category: AfD's , maybe a second look, I always listen to opposing views... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying the Shrine of the Black Madonna iui s nonsense. This is a shared name category pure and simple. Also you seem to be headed towards an even bigger issue. There is a Polish Natioal Catholic Church which is a distict group from the Roman Catholic Church. This is a shared rednamecategory pure and simple. It is not nonsense to bring up the Shrine of the Black Madonna, this is a real group that really exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Animators of the Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:Animators of the Russian 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Celebrity

Dam, and I mean dam, I don't think I have ever seen so much written about you on wikipedia at ANI level. You really have turned into a wiki celeb! Govvy (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish there was a limit to how long they could drag it out and leave the sword of death hovering over me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sword of death. Just keep doing your best to improve. Don't compromise your beliefs. We may not always agree but that's okay. Where we find common ground we will advance Wikipedia forward and where we disagree we will try to find compromise or it may just be that we have to agree to disagree so we can move forward. Do Not Quit. You'll regret it and come back anyway so you might as well stay and keep on keeping on. Not that every AfD needs it but I have read some of your !votes and when you clearly have thought through your answers and responded accordingly you have been amazing, again, regardless of whether I agreed with what was said or not. Wikipedia is better with you here, John. Trust me in that. --ARose Wolf 19:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolf: I just read your post, it felt like I was hearing parts of a Winston Churchill speech. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American women academics of Chinese descent has been nominated for merging

Category:American women academics of Chinese descent has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 15:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Been noticing your categorization work. It is a thankless job—I do not entirely understand it myself—but what I do know is that it helps out the encyclopedia in navigation. Thanks for your work, hope you continue to find enjoyment in this place, even when it comes to be a bit much. Urve (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazhar-ul-Islam

Hi. I hope you are well. You are invited to participate at this AFD discussion. If there are more participants, then it will be easier to get clear consensus. Hope, you will participate. Thanks and Have a nice day. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 11:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Falls, Idaho

Hi John Pack Lambert,

Thanks for drawing attention to the questionable date of origin for American Falls in the high school article. The 1800 date seems to have been widely disseminated, as the exact same wording is available on multiple websites. I dithered around a bit, and finally decided to leave out that date, since the more relevant 1879 date of the arrival of the original builder is at least after the known early expeditions to the area. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Phillips

Hello, just wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_Phillips_(journalist)_(2nd_nomination) and invite to take part in the discussion. Cloud200 (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

I promised you this and saw to it that you weren’t banned from editing in deletion discussions. Please do not let such threads weigh you down or stress you out. Keep up the good work JPL. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:British people of North Borneo

A tag has been placed on Category:British people of North Borneo 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Swiss emigrants to Mandatory Palestine

A tag has been placed on Category:Swiss emigrants to Mandatory Palestine 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing categories

I don't spend much time working on categories, so perhaps I am missing something, but could you explain this edit? Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment categories are not to have non-establishment categories as sub-cats. Only other by year establishment categories and articles should be in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, is that a policy, or a preference? Could you point me to something? Like I said, I don't do much with categories. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the way things are done. It makes no sense otherwise, because with categories most of the things do not belong in establishment categories and often have no relation to the year they would be placed under.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1903 establishments in the North West Territories

A tag has been placed on Category:1903 establishments in the North West Territories 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spanish emigrants to Kenya

A tag has been placed on Category:Spanish emigrants to Kenya 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spanish expatriate Roman Catholic bishops in Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:Spanish expatriate Roman Catholic bishops in Africa 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1959 establishments in Equatorial Guinea

A tag has been placed on Category:1959 establishments in Equatorial Guinea 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1889 establishments in South Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:1889 establishments in South Africa 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:School distrcits established in 1931

A tag has been placed on Category:School distrcits established in 1931 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Notice

Hello, Johnpacklambert. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A dark day

The dreaded day when there are over 1 million articles in Wikipedia in the Living people category has come. This is insane.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:School districts established in the 1867

A tag has been placed on Category:School districts established in the 1867 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School district establishment years and categories

This edit is one of many that have added categories for when a district was established. This article merely says that a school building opened in 2006, it does not say that the district was established that year. Other edits in other articles have used a date when a school was opened as the year the district was established, when there is no indication that the school was opened as part of the school district. Please be far more careful in making such edits. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School districts

It is amazing how many school district articles exist with no information on when they were formed. This is a very disheartening situation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Marion High School (old) (Ohio)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Marion High School (old) (Ohio) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pages you've created

For future reference if you are the author and only substantial contributor to a page, you may request deletion by blanking or placing {{db-author}} on the page see CSD WP:G7. In addition pages obviously created in error, by you or anyone else may be tagged with {{db-error}} see CSD WP:G6. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellings

Hello, John,

I've deleted 6 or 7 categories you've created where the title has used "distrcits" instead of "districts". I'm not sure why this particular misspelling keeps reoccurring. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1664 establishments in Norway

A tag has been placed on Category:1664 establishments in Norway 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1884 establishments in the South African Republic

Hello, John,

It looks like you are responsible for creating some South African Republic categories, like this one, that have multiple red link categories, some of which were deleted through CFD discussions. You can find more of these nonexistent, red link categories if you go to Special:WantedCategories and search for "South African Republic".

If you are going to create categories, could you also take a moment or two and create the parent categories or configure the new category page so that these red link categories are removed from the page? I'm sure you do not intend for your editing to cause work for other editors to clean up but that is what is happening. I know you are an expert on categories so this information should not be news to you. See WP:REDNO for more information on why red link categories should be eliminated whenever they appear, either through removing the red link category from the page or by creating the category. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This situation apparently also happened with Category:1959 establishments in the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands. Please do not continue this behavior and create categories containing red link categories. You're a extremely experienced editor and should know better. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 establishments in Libya

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 establishments in Libya 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 establishments in the South African Republic

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 establishments in the South African Republic 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 establishments in Vietnam

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 establishments in Vietnam 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1870 establishments in South Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:1870 establishments in South Africa 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

I have some thoughts related to issues I have seen lately and other developments.

1. No article should be placed in multiple location of establishment categories, with the rare excepotion that the thing was actually established in two places at once. For example we do not but something in the Azerbaijan and the Soviet Union establishment categories, we only choose one. Some editors are trying to do both by current location and by location at the time. We should only do by location at the time. A Yeshivah established in 1925 in Tel Aviv was not established in Israel but in Mandatory Palestine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. We should not categorize the same establishment multiple times. Thus right now both Brigham Young University and Brigham Young High School are said to have been established in 1875. What was established in 1875 was Brigham Young Academy. This is the date Brigham Young University claims as its establishment. The name Brigham Young University was first used in about 1901. So maybe that is when we should date its establishment from.
3. We are over 5,000 articles in the Category:2021 deaths. This means it is on track to be the largest deaths by year category we have. Falling pandemic death rates, lower overall death rates in the summer months and other factors may or may not mean we stay on track. We shall see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of AfC

I submitted an article through the Articles for Creation process back on Feb. 11 of this year. It is still pending. This is way too long of a wait.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2015 establishments in Nagaland

A tag has been placed on Category:2015 establishments in Nagaland 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian establishments in the Russian Empire by year

Now that 1912 has been deleted, are you planning to do a batch nomination for the remaining anomalous years? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1870s establishments in Libya

A tag has been placed on Category:1870s establishments in Libya 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 in Libya

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 in Libya 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1877 in the South African Republic

A tag has been placed on Category:1877 in the South African Republic 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Czechoslovak mycologists

A tag has been placed on Category:Czechoslovak mycologists 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands by year has been nominated for merging to Category:Establishments in Okinawa by year

Category:Establishments in United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands by year has been nominated for merging to Category:Establishments in Okinawa by year. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optimizely: Categories

Hi John, trying to understand your logic for removing the top level categories on this page. Why can't a page be in both a parent and child category? There are plenty of individual pages on Category:2010 establishments in the United States. Should all those removed? How could a company ever be listed on that page without also being in a child category?

I see you created a talk page on the article itself, we can continue the conversation there.Salsakesh (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Category:Companies established in 2010 would have the following A-companies that function in multiple places, so they have no clear place of establishments, 2-companies that were established in countries that do not have a sub-cat, and 3-companies whose articles do not make clear where they were established. Even then it should only have those if these is no difussing sub-cat such as Category:Software companies established in 2010 the article could be placed in. So yes, Category:Companies established in 2010 should be nearly empty. Likewise Category:2010 establishments in the United States should only include articles that all the following apply to A-they are not about railroald stations, tv shows or companies, if that applies they go in the sub-cats, and b-they can not be linked to a specific state. That is why Category:2010 establishments in California is larger than Category:2010 establishments in the United States. There are lots of musical groups connected to the US that the articles are not clear on what state they were formed in, which is a big reason why the listed parent is not bigger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Canadian Paul 06:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite repeated pleas to be careful when removing Category:Living people from individuals who are clearly noted as being alive recently, you continue to remove it. This is in addition to the dozens of removals where a quick check of the references would have verified that the individual in question was still living. Due to the gravity of this actions as they impact WP:BLP, in addition to your unwillingness to discuss this issue with editors, I have no choice but to block you to prevent further disruption to the project. Please consider the disruptive impact of your edits, not to mention the amount of work other editors have to put in to correct these mistakes, and the importance of engaging the project as a community. Canadian Paul 06:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Johnpacklambert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This basically is a reaction to my editing the article Bruce L. Douglas. That article has one listed source, from the early 1970s. Yes, the article also states he won a recognition in 2015, which I missed before I made my edit, which I am very sorry about. I will be more reserved and make sure to review the article more thoroughly in the future. Still, this amounts to punishing me for editing an article which other editors did not bother to post with any sources more recent than almost 50 years ago. To me this is a clear over-reaction. A block that is total and lasts a total of 1 week is way, way too much of a block for such an action, especially since it was a good faith revision based on the lack of any listed sources that were less than 40 years old. I am very, very sorry that I did not review the article more throughly and I will make sure to do so in the future. To impose a block of an entire week over what amounted to a legitimate mistake based on the lack of listed recent sources on an article is an extreme overreaction and not justified in this case. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm afraid this unblock request shows a failure to understand the reasons for the block. It is not for one "mistake", it is for persistently and knowingly editing in a way which you have been repeatedly asked not to do. JBW (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am sorry your request has been declined. I think it is an ovverreaction. Sorry to see this happen. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs better guidelines on more than local notability for biographies

Wikipedia needs much, much clearer guidelines that 2 articles in a hyper local paper do not make someone notable. That there are any keep votes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Acree shows that many editors are either unable or unwilling to discern what topics are notable and which ones are totally local concerns that do not merit any coverage at all in a worldwide encyclopedia. The same issues of local coverage is why we reject almost all articles on institutions lower than high schools and why we should start reje4cting most articles on high schools. The reality is that in most of the world the nature of local media and local secondary education means we will rarely have articles on most secondary educational institutions. The fact that we have deleted a whole slew of such articles on secondary institutions in India and the Philippines means that this is clearly an issue where we will end up under covering some areas and over covering some others if we follow our current policies. However of we required something more than a local paper having a few articles on the local football team, we would more quickly remove a lot of insubstantial articles on high schools that are not needed in the long run. The current policies also can at times lead to putting undue weight on a high school student arrested for a bomb threat, which has no importance to the high school in its overall history. The fact that well over half of the articles on US high schools, maybe even two thirds, do not in any way say when they were established tells me we are dealing with subjects of little true importantance. Virtually every article we have on a college says when it was established. That is only true of maybe half the articles we have on sub-units of colleges, some of which use the name college, but the later are not as notable as people seem to think. Research Institutes so often end up being articles sourced only to their own website that this is one of the major sources of true cruft in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia still suffers from poor planning

Wikipedia still suffers from being set up with down right horrible planning. The legacy of the early wild west days of the project is still hurting Wikipedia a lot. It still has a huge number of articles that in no way would meet any even half reasonable inclusion criteria. The number of articles sourced only to the unreliable IMDb is staggering. The notion that every film that had a commercial realese is notable we have never accepted in theory, but in practice we have come close to allowing it to be an as applied standard, with disasatrous results.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are more absurd results. It seems that at one point Wikipedia had an article on every name that appears in The Lord of the Rings. We may have at one point also reached that absurd level for The Silmarillion. At one point we seemed to accept that everyone who had ever won a Miss America state competion (such as Miss Delaware) or a Miss USA state competion was notable. Although we only provided coverage of all such candidates for a few years. We also at one point accepted that anyone who was a "major party" nominee for US house in the US was notable, although there also we never came close to providing anywhere near complete coverage, leavcing us open to be turned into a free campaign platform. The absurd lengthenths we have been taken in coverage of local politicians in Louisana, New Jersey and Dedham, Massachusetts are only exceeeded by the other absurdities connected with our coverage of Dedham. There are many other idiocyncratic examples of coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs better policies against abuse

Wikipedia needs better policies against abuse. We in theory do not allow the creation of autobiographies, but we get so many that we clearly do not make creating articles hard enough, and do not have strong enough deterents against misusing the platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has too many categories

Wikipedia has too many categories. This especially applies to award categories and eponymous categories. There are also too many American categories that are split out by state or city with no good reason, and we are too willing to allow extremely small occupation by nationality categories. We have also failed over and over again to apply ERGS rules in good ways, and end up with too many categories that intersect occupation with ethnicity in ways that are not defining. Even worse, we have allowed the application of ethnicity and descent categories in some cases where the person in question did not know they had such. The caution that every point in a person's life is not worth categorizing by is too rarely headed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a unique and disruptive use of the term "secondary source"

Wikipedia uses an understanding of secondary source at variance with how it is used by most historians. Most historians consider a report, especially from a local newspaper, on an event or thing to be a primary source. Wikipedia treats articles in newspapers as secondary sources. This is a very bad policy in a lot of cases. Actually both sides of this policy are bad. There are newspaper articles that are secondary sources and some that are primary sources, and the exact lines depend on meaning and definition. However any policy that acts as if all articles are either is bad. Wikipedia would be better off if we started giving any mention in truly scholarly publications a lot more weight than newspaper articles. We also need to start enforcing the no original research policy better. Too many articles mention census information on a person. While including such is doable if it was included in a published secondary source, in some cases the Wikipedia editor seems to have indepdently gone and found the person on the census and extracted information that way. In some cases it is less than clear how they know that it is the right person. Even less clear is that the editor has the skill to treat the census the way you need to treat any primary source, as limited in its meaning and needing to be considered in the context it was created. In the case of available US census information this is being a comiled summary of enumerations filled out by a person other than the subject, so that especially things like how a name was spelled may not reflect anything more than the views of the census enumerator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's worst inclusion rule

In my view Wikipedia's worst rule is treating all competitors in the olympics as if they are default public figures. This is probably the most glaring exemption to the general notability guidelines multiple sources we currently have. a huge number of articles on olympians only report their involvment in one olympics and say nothing about their life before or since. This is probably the largest group of people falsely placed in Category:Living people, some of whom have been dead since before Wikipedia was launched, and they are a disproportionately large componant of Category:Possibly living people. Both are a direct result of them being by and large non-public figures. This is even more true of the time when the olympics had strict rules requiring those who participated to be amatures. Even some cases where one would think we would have substantial coverage, like the Jamaican bobsled team, if you dig down you realize we have very little content on the real people who really did form a part of that team.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category horror

In category discussion no matter how bad a category is, fixing it on its own causes people to attack you. This is a bad situation, since some category structures run to theoretically hundreds of categories, and expecting people to nominate them all to fix just one is absurd. Luckily we have not imposed such absurdity on articles. Also, Fayentic London is just wrong. We should not have any anachronistic categories that do not express a reality on the gound at the time. Wikipedia right now is drowning in anachronism. I am also tried of the popularity of assaulting people at CfD. No one there every suggests we give special praise to those who have done exceptional good jobs. I will not back down in speaking against those who try to create a whiggish impression that the way things are is exactly the way things ought to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this refers to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_12#1902_establishments_in_Lithuania.

Sometimes you do a batch nomination, like Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_13#pre-1917_establishments_in_Latvia, which is helpful (although it was still incomplete). Other times you pick off individual years. I don't understand how you argue "Each category should be considered on its specific merits" but then immediately state "These categories are wrong" without stating specific merits.

I was not wrong to state that other CFDs have ended in consensus that certain anachronistic categories are useful. You may disagree with that consensus, but you are incorrect to deny the existence of the consensus at that time. A few years ago we tried a RFC to set a principle one way or the other, but that ended with no consensus.

Credit is sometimes given at CFD for exceptionally good jobs; I could provide examples if you wish. But we all do better in Wikipedia if we are content with our own work. I think you have agreed before that WP:DGAF can be a healthy attitude.

I was surprised to see that you have been sanctioned. I hope a short break will prove to be helpful.

Best wishes – Fayenatic London 17:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record, the polite discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_17#North-West_Territories_establishments includes an example of anachronistic locations being stated in source documents. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- You are calling for assaulting people which is totally uncalled for. My nominatio clearly improved things and your approach is backward. If you want polite discussions you need to start it by ending the practice of going around and threatening people with assault for not enslaving themselves to the overly demanding process of entering into discussions according to your preconceived notions. It is very tedious to create a nomination on the level you demand, and to threten people with assault for not conforming to such a tedious demand is entriely uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, what threats and assaults are you talking about? WP:TROUT? That is intended as a humorous rebuke. I have a userbox inviting it on my own user page for when I make mistakes. Please, keep a sense of proportion. If you did not grow up with Monty Python and do not get the joke, I apologise for a poor choice of words.
  - Anyway, I came here to say that I just commended you for the group nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_18#Establishments_in_the_Russian_Empire_when_there_was_no_Lithuania. Thank you for completing this despite finding it "very tedious", and some other complementary nominations on the same page. Thanks and well done. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what is the point of that. I write a long, detailed explanation pointing out how these categories can not possibly work, and then I have rabid nationalist argue to keep them without even recognizing my very clear reasons as to why these categories are not right. We should get rid of all ana chronistic categories, but a few ignorant people who ignore both reason and historical fact and make lots of noise with no sense are able to impose this wrongheaded set up on the rest of us. This is why I hate dealing with categories, because no one actually recognizes when you do the work to hunt down sources, maps etc. and show that there was no unit that even came close to being the supposed place and just clamor to keep the categories as is. Wikipedia then allows a few irresposible users who engage in lieing to advance the cause of various natiolisms to destroy any reasonable scheme to properly categorize things in a way that reflects the reality on the ground in a given year. This is frustrating, and it is those of us who try to be historically accurate who get critizes and the radib nationalists who do not do any study and essentially repeat the same hollow claims get off scot free. I am sick of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historical categories by period

I wish there was a central discussion for all of your systematic changes to period categories. You clearly have some model for this, but I can’t divine what it is or whether it is consistent (e.g., do you envision removing “in Germany” categories before 1871 and “in Russia” categories before 1917 and in 1922–1991?). Is there a main guideline we can refer to? If not, it would be helpful to explain your principles and present them to the community, rather that have people vote on scores of individual categories based on their preference and not your obscure (to me, anyway) conceptual model. Thanks. —Michael Z. 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the basic principal is we reflect the politcal reality on the gound at the time. Lithuania was not a political unit in the years referred to, so your argument does not hold water there. Ukraine was even less a political unit, which even you admit, citing 3 areas that made up some of modern Ukraine at the time. pre-1871 Germany is a messy subject, but you are welcome to work on it. We do have Soviet Union categories. The issue there is there was a recognizsed sub-unit of the Soviet Union that was named Russia. Wheather we should have a category for that sub-unit is open for debate, but it is a doable situation because we do have categories for other sub-units. As pointed out neither Ukraine nor Lithuania was in any way a recognized politcal sub-unit of the Russian Empire at the times in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where does this “basic model” come from? Why are you restricting country to the sense of “political unit,” and why in some cases to state and others to “sub-unit”? Is there a guideline for this categorization, or is this your personal view? We have hundreds of “History of [country]” articles on a model that is based on reliable sources and that you are completely contradicting. —Michael Z. 15:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not contradicting these. This is brought about by the clear consensus that when we have categories for the establishments of things, they reflect definable boundaries at the time the establishment is happening. It derives out of the fact that categories have to be clearly definable, and so they need to be based on clearly definable units, such as the Russian Empire, not amosphous places that had no defined boundaries at the time. Otherwise we end up imposing the present on the past, and then there is no good reason to deny categorization to hoped for polities that do not exist at the present. The whole thing becomes a mess, so the only reasonable way to do this is to follow political boundaries at the time. Thus we have the Russian Empire categories in the years in question. So you see we have categories that reflect such realities, yet you are trying to ignore them and impose present categories that have no meaning. As I have said multiple times there is no recognized, definable, boundaried Ukraine or Lithuania in 1899, there is no sub-unit of the Russian Empire known by that name, so we should not have categories using that name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Where is this consensus described? What you’re doing is still ill defined, and you are unrealistically optimistic by envisioning these clear boundaries throughout history (you are only reinforcing nineteenth-century imperial aspirations by using lines on old maps that did not reflect reality: a rejection of current historiography and a disservice to our readers). If it was already clear, you wouldn’t be moving scores of categories at once. Please consult first. —Michael Z. 19:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  No, the boundaries in any year are clear. The problem is people trying to impose modern boundaries through all history, which is just plain wrong. When we categorize something as established in a given year in a given place, we should use places as they existed in that year. There was no Lithuania or Ukraine in 1899. There was a Russian Empire with a clearly defined boundary. The Russian Empire really did control these areas, this is not about some unrealized "imperialistic aspirations", this is about the real and actual control of the areas in question by Russian authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  No, it is not about “control,” nor “clearly defined boundary,” nor did I say it is necessarily about imposing “modern boundaries.” The category tree is named “by country,” and it is about countries. As these are historical categories, and as category names are aimed at readers, the names should reflect historical articles’ usage as is determined by reliable sources.
  
  There is an entire subject field of history about Ukraine, for example, and a large entire set of articles about the History of Ukraine, and you are trying to wipe it out of the category trees because Ukraine’s history does not conveniently fit your personal views about what constitutes a country. This is contrary to the practice of historiography, contrary to the way it is represented in Wikipedia, and an egregious example of imposing your own WP:BIAS.
  
  In short, it is about consensus historical countries that you refuse to accept as countries.
  
  You are trying to impose a personal interpretation by making sweeping category changes, and since you haven’t discussed it in one place, you are now having to deal with a dozen uncoordinated discussions responding to specific cases by editors who agree or disagree almost randomly based on details and still with no chance of coming to any consensus for a systematic overall structure. I suggest you put these temporarily on hold and start a comprehensive discussion on the nature of category trees that cross the “by year” and “by country” branches, or all of this energy might end up with another random mess that’s only partly different from the previous random mess. —Michael Z. 14:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not my personal inperpreation. It is the reality of the time, that there was no Ukraine in 1899, that there is no way to define Ukraine in 1899. Each discussion relates to a specific place and time and the issues are different. It is you who fails to actually engage with the reality of specific times in history and tries to treat everything in a uniform way, and so who fails to actually engage with the discussions at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is difficult to have meaningful discussions at CFD when faced with multiple walls of text. It is also awkward to have multiple discussions at CFD going on regarding the same basic issue rather than consolidating the discussion into one place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult having a discussion at CfD with people who refuse to engage the specifics of the actual discussion and refuse to recognize historical reality and try to impose the presnt on th past. On the second point, I group as many entries as was reasonable. However, it only makes sense to group things when there are like issues at play. The splitting up of the discussions makes 100% sense, what does not is the general refusal to engage with various discussions as they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CFD participants definitely value brevity when making different points. (That's something I'm still working on myself!) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible practices in alumni lists

Lists of notable alumni when they list a graduation year should always put all 4 years. We are not on paper, so we have no realistic size limits, so we do not need to engage in practicies adopted when people were trying to fit a lot of information into a little space. The most egregious use of these 2 year dates I have seen related to institutions that are over 100 years old. Once an institution passes 100 years of age saying someone graduated in '02 in no way tells one what year is actually being refered to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronistic Categories

JPL,

I completely share your conceptual view on avoiding anachronistic category and believe I've !voted in favor of all your proposals. I'm honestly surprised the nominations have proven so controversial. From a strategic standpoint, it may make sense to hold off on additional nominations until the ones for Ukraine are closed so we have some sense of where the consensus lies.

Just a tactical suggestion for your consideration. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 editors who are fighting this. I am sick and tired of so few people deciding the course of Wikipedia. I am tired of doing research, and yet having people just outright misrepresent things, and try to claim that some how having three distinct area named Polonia, Volhinia nad Ruthenia which collectively leave out large swaths of Ukraine equates to there being a place called Ukraine. I am even more mad that editors are allowed to unilaterally force a category I create like Category:1894 establishments in Lagos Colony into the Nigeria category, even though there is no conceivable way to say Nigeria even if it in some sense existed in that year included the Lagos colony. When I try to express myself all I get is rudeness. Some days I wish we had never allowed any sub-national establishments categories at all. This would be a lot easier if we had disallowed such 100 percent. Even if no one has yet claimed that Ukraine was an actual clearly established sub-national unit. I feel truly unapreciated for all the work I do to try and improve Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am so fed up with being told that my view that the Russian Empire, the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire had boundaries that included every inch of modern Ukraine and Poland in 1899 is a "personal interpretation". It is an indisputed fact. I am even more fed up with people trying to classify three distinct sub-regions of a larger state as somehow showing that a particular place existed at a particular time.
In 1700 Guinea was a distinct area in the European mind, this does not mean we should classify anything as having been established in Guinea in that year. Just because a name can be invoked and people think it has a generalized boundary does not mean it is an area we can use to classify that things were established there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sick and tire of being attacked for having the view that if something was sestablished in an area that was indisputably part of the Russian Empire, it should be in any category other than the one for the Russian Empire. Especially when the proposed other place did not exist, but instead was split between multiple places with different names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I share your frustration about these categories, and that the nominations seem likely to end in no consensus. I'm also concerned that this seems to really be getting under your skin, especially with this edit summary. That really surprised me since I've always enjoyed our conversations even when we've disagreed! - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really do feel he is undermining my contributions to Wikipedia in a backhanded way. If he does not want to let Category:1894 establishments in Lagos Colony stnad on its own, he should be forced to sent it to AfC, not to surreptitiously undermine it by stealth adding a category it does not belong in. He has does the same thing in impossing South Africa categories before that place was created in 1910.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Perth Boys School

The article is about the physical building not the institution. Dan arndt (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ariel S. Ballif for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ariel S. Ballif is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel S. Ballif until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain wrong caegorization

I just moved John Greig (bishop) from the 1925 births category to the 1865 births category. I have no idea how some people get some categorizations so totally wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect inclusion in Living people category

I just moved someone to 1999 deaths whose article already stated they died in 1999. This is a pretty extreme case since Wikipedia was not even born until 2001, and the article in question was started in December of 2004.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Michael Z. 18:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why bishop categorization is sub-standard

We have horrible categorization of bishops that often is not very good. This is largely because so many of our articles on bishops are poor extrations of what is said at the Catholic hierarchy website on them. Catholic hierarchy is a blog with directory style articles on its subjects. Just look at this entry [5] which is the sole source of the Wikipedia article on the subject. It does not even give the place of the subject's birth, I have no idea where that information actually came from in the Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1639 establishments in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

A tag has been placed on Category:1639 establishments in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Yugoslav female discus throwers

A tag has been placed on Category:Yugoslav female discus throwers 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missed death information

I just moved two articles into death year categories from the living people category. These were on people born in 1994 and 1996. Wikipedia was not even started until 2001, so the articles have always been incorrect in stating the subjects were living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18 year old hoax?

I saw that you mentioned "we have hoaxes that have existed over 18 years" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Church International. What is that referring to? The oldest hoaxes listed at WP:HOAXLIST are only 15 years old; this would be the longest lived by a substantial margin. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a note to thank you (belatedly) for this clarifying note you left on my talk page. It's very helpful, and I've pointed to it several times in in AfD discussions. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Flora Benson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flora Benson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flora Benson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to notify you of this (as article creator), but it slipped my mind at the time. I'm glad there is a bot that does this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthew E. Mason (July 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robertsky was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matthew E. Mason and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Matthew E. Mason, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– robertsky (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – robertsky (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Michael Z. 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth

The top year of birth category in Wikipedia is 1988 with 17447 entries. 1989 is just behind it with 17444. 1987, 1986 and 1985 also have over 17000 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ottoman Empire Romanians

A tag has been placed on Category:Ottoman Empire Romanians 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at AN/I pertaining Lugnuts.

I was a bit shocked to see these comments “Lugnuts should be banned from creating new articles. He has over and over again shown a complete disregard for the GNG”. against Lugnuts, I would have thought as one who has been the target of multiple editors at ANI, you would have shown a little more compassion(or at least not attempt to initiate a process that would make article creations for them impossible) In the same manner I stuck out my head for you more than I can count from pitch fork welding editors who wanted to crucify you, I presumed you’d appreciate the predicaments of Lugnuts and be a little nicer. Think about this. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Lugnuts is a major cause of the problem of Wikipedia being flooded with useless stubs. I am not going to back away from my views on this, especially since he has been one of the editors who has most ignored GNG and tried to force it to be subperseded by subject specific guidelines that in no way approximate passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whist the notability aspect is debatable, my point was(and still is) you could have been more amiable or empathetic before commenting, as you know first hand how it feels to be attacked by several editors simultaneously at ANI, I remember in your last three ANI incidents or fourth incident (can’t remember all too well now) that it was my final comment that led to the ANI being closed without any action against you. I also note that you mentioned Lugnuts is a major cause of the problem of Wikipedia being flooded with useless stubs I think its unfair to refer to the work of a long standing editor with over a million edits as “useless” in the same manner people called your !votes at AFD useless (which I defended you severally) I would have thought that you’d extend the same kindness to others. I do agree with you that they mass create stubs a lot, but all those stubs largely meet WP:PSA, I however do appreciate your stance on this, after-all, it is indeed your opinion and it’s your prerogative to air your opinions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact in the matter of editing Gayle Bluth, Lugnuts fought tooth and nail to leave the article a basically unsourced stub. He removed information that I put in there that was sourced to a publication of the Smithsonian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Baird

Hi - You say in your edit summary "Baird's death is cited to the Telegraph". The only telegraph citation I see is "Lady Baird died on 14 May 2009".^[1] When I try and open the citation it says "Messages are disabled for this announcement." I cannot see any statement in the main text that Sir Thomas Baird died in 2019 with or without a citation. Please can you explain? Dormskirk (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Baird". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 1 June 2019.

I think in this case I actually took the fact that he was in the death category and placed that death in the article. Having reviewed the available sources, there does not seem to be any indication that Baird is dead, and it is almost certain that if he were dead we would be able to source it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. It is good to know it was just a mistake. I was alerted by the edit summaries "Someone keeps amending this page saying he has died, but he is alive and well" and "Someone keeps putting him down as having died in May 2019. He is still alive!" It is essential that WP:BLP is observed at all times as declaring a person dead when they are not causes unnecessary distress for families, friends and the individual concerned. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriates category

Hi! I have a quick question: do the expatriates categories refer to people that have lived in a country or only to those that are currently residing in it? Thanks beforehand! --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- All Wikipedia categories are non-temporary. So now category refers to people only who currently do so. So the answer is anyone who is a national of country x who has ever "lived" in country y is an x expatriate in y. So Gerrit W. Gong, an American who received his master's and Ph.D. at the University of Oxford and also was on a rowing team there falls under Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom. He is not directly in that category since he is in Category:American Rhodes Scholars, which is a diffusing sub-category of Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom. To pick one of the few of these categories over 1000 articles, Category:American expatriate basketball people in France (which is roughly twice as big as the direct contents of Category:American expatriates in France) many of the entries are in multiple basketball related categories. For example Larry Abney is in 12 related categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tricky thing is figuring out how long being in a particular foriegn country makes someone an expatriate. Ezra Taft Benson is in Category:American expatriates in Germany. There is a specific quote in Sheri Dew's biography of Gordon B. Hinckley about one Christmas when Hinckley and his wife Marjorie Pay Hinckley stayed at the home of Benson and his wife Flora Benson in Frankfurt, Germany. I would have to look into this more, but I am not sure this was ever technically a house owned by Benson, I think it was owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I do not think it was the Europe Mission Office, so it was a private house. The Benson's were in Europe multiple years, living in Germany but overseeing Church operations throughout continental Europe. Benson was the key moving force in eastablishing recognition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Italy, with his previous role as US secretary of state, and had a role in the Church being recognized in Spain. Benson also was the moving force in establishing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Finland, but that was 20 years before when he left Flora and the children in the US and was there just after World War II and constantly traveling. So Benson ends up in the category American expatriates in Germany and in a sub-category of Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom based on his time as a missionary for 2 years in the United Kingdom the 1920s. His trips to the Soviet Union, Finland, Italy, Spain, and several other countries both in Europe and in Latin America, Asia and the Pacific, never rise to the level of categorizing him as an expatriate in any other country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is sometimes a hard call to figure out what the minimum time in a country is for expatriate classification. My general rule is if you are a graduate of a university there you count, if you are stationed at a military base there you count, if you have a diplomatic posting there you count. However having closely studied the life of Russell M. Nelson, I have come to realize that now all visiting academic postings are enough to count. If someone was a year or more as a fully placed professor at a university in a country, at least in a situatution where they lived in a country (I live in Detroit and have had work collegues who lived in Windsor, Ontario while working in Detroit and thus had never actually been resident in the US) you are going to count. Nelson had titles as visiting professor in Uruguay, and I believe Mexico, and a multi-year affiliation with a university in China, and was on a special team that vistied all the MASH units in Korea during the Korean war, and may have had an appointment in Mexico similar to the one in Uruguay. However the Korean War assignment also involved being in Japan part of the time. OK, I went and looked it up. In 1981 Nelson had appointments as a visiting professor in both Chile and Mexico, but at the time he was working as a cardiac surgeon based in Salt Lake City, these were short term appointments. His psotion in Uruguay was so only during one month. In both those years I think he also went to work with a university in China. Nelson is in the category Category:United States Army personnel of the Korean War which is a sub-cat of Category:American military personnel of the Korean War which is a sub-cat of Category:American expatriates in South Korea. He is not in any other expatriate category, because although he had visited well over 50 countries, in a huge variety of capacities, first 2 with the US army, then a whole bunch as a medical doctor going to conferences and the like, then a little later for very short recognitions as a visting academic medical professional, and then a huge number as an aposlte and then president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, none of these assignements every rose to the level of living outside the US.
On the other hand Dallin H. Oaks was for 2 years Area President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Philippines, and is in the category Category:American expatriates in the Philippines due to this 2 year assignment where he lived in that country (although he still did travel a few times back to the US during that period), Jeffrey R. Holland, likewise was area president in Chile and is in the category Category:American expatriates in Chile, he was earlier when a general authority seventy area president in the United Kingdom for 3 years, and so is in the category Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom but in a sub-category because he was previously a missionary there. It takes some thinking about the situations to get these right. An Area President in going to be an expatriate in the place he is assigned if he is not a native (Joseph W. Sitati is a native of Kenya, where he is based as president of the African Central Area, previously when he was in the Africa Southeast (since rename to South) Area Presidency, he was based in South Africa, I need to go make sure we have that categorization done right.) Papal Nuncios to give another example, and bishops, will count as expatriates where they are assigned, but the Pope does not become an expatriate with each visit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The trickies case I am still debating is Lloyd Alexander. I think I need to add him to Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom, he was there in total close to a year. WWII veterans are probalby under categorized as expatriates, but they moved around so much it is hard to pin them down. For example I just added L. Tom Perry to Category:American expatriates in Japan. He was connected with the force doing the post-WWII occupation of Japan and assisted in rebuilding a Christian Church in Nagasaki. I am not going to throw him into any category directly connected with Saipan or other islands in the PAcific campaign he was involved in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general if you are born to nationals of a particular country who then return to that country in a country where they are foreigners, you count as an expatriate in that country where you were born. This is very clear if your parents are diplomats of a country other than your birth. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course on the other end, there is a question of when someone goes from being an expatriate to being an emigrant. If they become naturalized they will be. However they do not have to actually be naturalized, and many articles do not say if they were. It is a hard call, and a lot of articles really do not give enough information to make it very well. What is clear to me is that we have far more articles that can fall under the emigration and expatriates trees than have been placed in them. You can in fact be a country a emigrate to country b and later be a country b emigrate to country c. In theory you can be a country a emigrate to country b, and a country a emigrate to country c, but for this to really be the right way to categorize you, you also have to be a country b emigrate to country a. If you go directly from country b to country c and are not logically conisdered a national of country b going to country c, but a national of country a going to country c, you were an expatriate and not an emigrant in country b. We do not however have to follow the policies particular governments used to admit people, because some of these past policies were clearly not reflective of logical reality. For example pre-1965 the US simulteneously had A-no limits at all on emigration from Latin America, Canada or the Caribbean, b-disallowed naturalization of people from the "Asia Pacific Triangle", c-for most purposes counted people as nationals based on place of birth, not citizenship status, d-for Asia Pacific Triangle issues, would count the child of Japanese nationals born in Brazil as Japanese, not Brazilian, even if the person in question had never set foot in Japan. Clearly no matter what the government said, if we can find a Maria Takagashi born in Sao Paulo in 1937 and living there exclusively for the first 18 years of her life who snuck into the US in 1955 she would without question be a Brazilian emigrant to the United States, not a Japanese emigrant to the United States. The one possible complication would be if Takagashi's father was a diplomat, but even in that case, if she had never actually visited Japan I would still say she was not Japanese, and most Japanese in Brazil in 1937 were farmers not diplomats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That's very comprehensive, fortunately it seem that it will be a good reference for future articles. I'll let you know if I have any other questions. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick message on the expatriate cats! I don't think I agree with the idea that those studying abroad are by necessity expatriates in the common sense of the word - the expatriate article has little if any mention of university students being expatriates. That said, I don't care that much and as long as there is a clear understanding one way or another it doesn't matter. If students being included is what you're going for, I would try and find some sources describing them as expats and add them to the expat article so there's at least consensus between the mainspace and the categories. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis is just plain stupidity on your part. Expatriates are nationals of one country in another category. It is that plain simple. You are fighting against the actual meaning of the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on expatriates is just plain horrible. For one thing it overly focuses on well off expatriates. If we go by some of its thrust, we would basically not have an easy category to put people who worked for 6 months as a Filipino maid in UAE or 3 years as a Filipino domestic worker in Hong Kong, but would have a place for an Argentine banker who worked 3 years in Oman. That is a horrible way to set up categories. If I do a search for "expatriate student" I get 38,000 hits, showing that this is a term, and that people in actual language usage consider students to be expatriates. An expatriate is a national of one country living in another. The basic format is we have X nationals, we in theory should have just one category Category:American nationals in France. However someone at some point decided that we should split it and have Category:American expatriates in France and Category:American emigrants to France. Category:American expatriates in France covers all Americans who lived in France, from Mitt Romney to Molly Spotted Elk to lots of other people, who do not in some way cross the threshold and become actually French. For other reasons, that at times border on headache causing, we have decided we create almost no sub-categories of x emigrants to y, with the odd exception for Jewish emigrants who were escapaing Nazism, an odd exception that I am not convinced is justified, and for other reasons that I think are less well thought out than people realize, we have a huge number of sub-categories of the expatriate categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization is about basic terms. So you need to look at basic terms. That is where you look in the expatriate article. At the opening. It states "an expatriate is a person residing in a country other than their native country." So we have to define "native country" and "resding". Gerrit W. Gong studying multiple years for multiple degrees in the United Kingdom clearly is residing there, and the United Kingdom is not his native country. He is thus by definition an expatriate. "native country" should not be read "county of birth" in this case, but "county of nationality or allegiance". 99% of people born in a country even if they lack formal citizenship would be considered in some ways nationals of the same country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the largest number of expatriates are neither students nor diplomats. In the current world there are huge numbers of employees of various companies who have been sent by their company to other countries. These people need to where possible be placed in the appropriate expatriate categories, however because of the realities of Wikipedia notability policy, and sourcing, these people are not going to be the main source of such categorization, and finding those articles to categorize is even harder. Harold Atcherley is a good representation of a business expatriate. However that seems to be only in a few cases connected with his notability. George C. Butte on the other hand is the type of expatriate who actually as an expatriate held a level of position that made hom notable, but there are not many of these. What is clear is there is a huge amount of work to do in categorizing expatriates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the expatriate actors categories?

I am debating in my own mind whether we need the expatriate actors categories. I will explain why this is a mess. So we have a category like Category:American film actresses. The decision seems to be that this is for actresses who are "American" who act in film, not for actresses in films that were American. The fact that probably 75% of actresses in American films, or maybe even more, are American, and that over 90% of American films actresses who are notable (and here I may be low balling the number) are notable at least in part for works in American films, although I may be underestimating the effect of Spaghetti westerns, makes these a classic case where most of the time we do not have to answer the question. However there are a large enough number of people who are actors and actresses from a few countries in a few other countries, that they seem to be worth so categorizing, thus we have a category like Category:Canadian expatriate film actresses in the United States with over 100 entries. 100 years ago this was actually however a much more staightforward thing. 100 years ago films were almost all shot in a particular place, studio lots. So if you were in a Hollywood film, you had to come to California to work on it, and if you were in a British film you would be in a place in England, a German film you would be in Germany, and that was about it. The films were also silent, so language did not play a big part. 85 years ago (1936), language did play a part, but films were largely still shot on studio lots. After World War II you start to get films shot on sight. By the 1970s you have Star Wars shot in Tunisia, and Britain, and California, but one would not argue that any of the cast became nationals of the places the films were shot. You probably have more people in acting living long periods of time in countries other than their birth today than in the 1930s, but it may be not easy to tell this from quick glances at articles, and may in some cases say less about their acting careers than we believe it does. Even as I write this I begin to realize one thing though, I really have less sense of which movies are shot on location and which are shot on stages than I used to. I guess my extreme examples of this are ones like Mary Poppins" which I first watched as a child well under 10. It was probably my second watching that I tried to analize spatial housing distribution in London from the film, only later realizing it was shot on sound stages in LA, and was thus not a good source for making observations about London. I have noticed in the last year that American moveies seem to play up lots of locations across Europe, but we very rarely get specific and indepth names locations in the US outside of New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco. I may be simplifying it a little, but no matter how broadly you define those three metro areas they end up being the setting of a disproportionately high number of American films set in the US. Although there are cases of films set in places other than they are filmed, and some of the works I can think of that fall in the rublic of these 3 places are animations, so the issue here has nothing to do with where the works are actually filmed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The cateogry I was thinking of is actually Category:Canadian expatriate actresses in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Irene Becerril for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irene Becerril is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Becerril until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PepperBeast (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian emigrants to Belgium

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian emigrants to Belgium 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Düsseldorf faculty has been nominated for renaming

Category:University of Düsseldorf faculty has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotcat not working

The program seems to not be letting my quickly add categories at the bottom of pages. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Holy Roman Empire emgirants to the Kingdom of Great Britain

A tag has been placed on Category:Holy Roman Empire emgirants to the Kingdom of Great Britain 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1549 establishments in India

A tag has been placed on Category:1549 establishments in India 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1556 establishments in India

A tag has been placed on Category:1556 establishments in India 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1994 establishments in Honduras

A tag has been placed on Category:1994 establishments in Honduras 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2014 establishments in Tonga

A tag has been placed on Category:2014 establishments in Tonga 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevene Bowers King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leroy Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iranian expatriates in Czechoslovakia

A tag has been placed on Category:Iranian expatriates in Czechoslovakia 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Roma people from Spain

A tag has been placed on Category:Roma people from Spain 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Romani people from Spain

A tag has been placed on Category:Romani people from Spain 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving pages without consensus

I noticed that you've been renaming a lot of pages and changing "Mormonism" to "Latter-day Saint belief". "Mormonism" is a useful term that encompasses cultural beliefs not contained within Latter-day Saint doctrine. You are making pages less accurate by changing their names. Please get consensus on talk pages before changing the name of a page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It states specifically "In August 2018, the church's president, Russell M. Nelson, asked members of the church and others to cease using the terms "LDS", "Mormon", and "Mormonism" to refer to the church, its membership, or its belief system, and instead to call the church by its full and official name.[76][77] I will not use this depricated term. It is useful for marginzaliing and attacking. The current consensus is designed to oppress, to stop the voice of, to destroy all articles I create, and I will not sit idely by and let it go on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are not about cultural beliefs. They are almost all specifically about doctrine. So there is no justifiecation to not use the name. The term is not useful. This consensus was built by people who refuse to accept the right of people to determine what they are called, and instead encourage the activities of a newspaper that has nevger apologized for its role in denying women the right to vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of "cultural usefulness" is of course just a way to try to silence those of us who are serious about trying to actually use the proper name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as much as possible. With the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejecting the term "Mormonsim", and the next largest denomination in the Latter-day Saint movement even more strongly rejecting the term, there is no coherent way to argue to continue to use the term for anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right of control

I have a right to remove any comment from my talk page that I find offensive, and will exercise it as I see fit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Baird". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 1 June 2019.

[1]