User talk:Marcocapelle

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

Women nobility

Mason just asked me to stop creating new noblewomen categories. I think this is very unfair and an abuse of process. She has clearly not in Amy way presented an argument that being a noblewomam is not defining, and it is clearly a case where being such as a place where gender and occupation intersect a huge amount. So much so that most such categories as far as I can tell are fully diffused btmy gender. Dukes and Duchesses; Counts or Earls and Countesses, Barons and Baroness, Princesses and princesses. For most of these noble titles there is no gender neutral position. I do not think anyone would ever call a duchess a Duke or a Countess a count. Mason is the only of about 5 editors who has proposed deletion, and she has not really addressed how that would work. Does this mean delete Countess, duchess etc cats, or would we just delete the women nobility tree. And not allow say French noblewomen but allow French Duchesses? An issue here is some of the people who get placed directly in X nationality women are noblewomen for whom we either do not know the title, or do not have a category on the title. I think being a noblewomen is in the main more defining than being a Countess or a duchess. In a lot of cases the real difference between Countess and duchess is negligible. Some women are both simultaneously. Lastly is women nobility mean to collect articles on titles or people? Right now it's actual content is articles on titles, although only 2. I am thinking we want both categories, one to collect articles on titles, and another to collect articles on people

John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: there is no sense of urgency in creating new noblewomen categories, so let's first wait how the discussion plays out. I agree with you that deletion would raise issues and maybe at most a merge is possible. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has tried to argue Queens do not go here since royalty and nobility are different. However Royalty is a sub-cat of nobility. So it would seem we can place all royalty categories within nobility categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility by country

I do not think we want to move this to by nationality. The think is here we want to link the title to the country where it originates in, the actual residence of the holder of the title does not matter. I think we might want to go the other way around and change most categories to forms like "Counts in France" instead of "French counts". I also noticed that "royalty by country" is a sub-cat of this. Up until recently "royalty" was a sub-cat of "nobility", however an editor recently moved it out. He also left a very rude note on my talk page about this. The things is many people have at the same time held titles that were both royal and noble. So for a time the King of England was at the same time Duke of Normandy, Duke of Anjou and Duke of Aquitaine, all nobles titles in France. The King of Denmark was Duke of Holstein, and there are other examples. Also at times you had dukes and other holders of noble tiles who were de facto independent. It might be better to create a parent category "Nobility and royalty" and possibly rename some of the sub-cats along those lines. I think though we really should stay with country. "Nationality" is often a very poor way to descibe anything pre-1800, and that is when a large portion of the people who were nobility that we have articles actually lived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- This especially comes up because the Kingdom of France up until 1526 included the County of Flanders, the least French part of what is now Belgium. The Counts of Flanders are clearly "Counts in France", calling them "French counts" seems much more problematic. Also the Kingdom of the Netherlands from 1815-1830 includes modern Belgium, calling any nobles then "Nobles in the Netherlands" works, calling them "Dutch nobles" which is how it would be formulated on nationality lines, is more problematic. There are a lot more cases along these lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs of South Africa

One issue here is some of these were monarches in what is now South Africa before South Africa existed. However we have other similarly poorly named categories. Sometimes with no rhyme of reason. We have "Princes of the Holy Roman Empure" but "Princesses in the Holy Roman Empire". Neither is primarily the children of the Emperor. There were dozens of small principalities in the Holy Roman Empire, the top ranked people were mainly the electors and the King of Bohemia, but it does seem the average Duke had more power than the average prince. So I think in would do better. I think in general with nobility we should only use "Duke of foo", "prince of foo" etc when they are "Dukes of York" or "Princes of Wales" where that is an actual title. Which means "Princes in Wales" would be the various Princes in early Medieval times, and a distinct category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counts in the Holy Roman Empire

We have both Category:Counts in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:Counts of the Holy Roman Empire. I do not believe "Count of the Holy Roman Empire" was a title. I also do not believe there is any other discernable difference. Since it was not a title, we probably should use the in form, but even more clear we are not served by having 2 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of category

As per outcome Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_12#Category:South_Korean_food_writers, I've never merged a category, how is it done? LibStar (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: you don't need to do anything. The closer User:Queen of Hearts will take care of it. It'll be done probably within the next few days. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

African-American Civil rights movement

There was also a Latino civil rights movement in the US centered on the work of LULAC. So I think the disambiguation is very much needed. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massive removal of categories

Rv. These were historical **geography** categories hence their usage was perfecttly valid. I reverted your removals. If you disagree, please explain. --Altenmann >talk 04:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there was a dicussion about this (I admit I may not be aware of it), please include its link to edit summaries. If there was no such discussion, it is not a good idea of embarking on massive changes without talking them through. --Altenmann >talk 04:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: there have been numerous discussions in the course of years. An example is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_21#Places_by_former_East_German_administrative_division. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think there must be a general RFC in WT:CAT, because these "numerous discussions" missed my attention. I do see your point made in CFD, but I do have arguments against it. I will start the RFC tomorrow. I will let you know. --Altenmann >talk 05:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking this through and finally agreed that categorization by old subdivision has little value --Altenmann >talk 18:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counts of the Russian Empire

The dwscriptor for this category sats that thry are "counts in the Russian Empire". I think we should remame it to in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments in the Crimean Khanate

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in the Crimean Khanate indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noblemen

Articles almost always describe the subject as a "nobleman" not another term. There is no actual argument for upmerging this category. No one has pointed out any issues with the fact that historically knights were nobles and ladies were noblewomen, where lady is a term for a position of rank. There is no argument advanced to upmerge this. Just a blank statement that we do not want to subdivide noblemen and noblewomen. Noblemen and noblewomen have different roles, different functions and are very different at least for most of history. I think it makes perfect sense to subdivide them. Especially since many of the subcats that do exist (especially some for barons) are under 5 articles. It would be much better to merge some barons categories up to the by country noblemen categories than to leave them as is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of being attacked by Mason

I am tired of bring attacked by the editor Mason. She attacked me for removing someone who died in 1718 from the 18th-century people from the Russian Empire, even though the Russian Empire did not exist until 1718. She also reverted my removal of Reinoud van Brederode (1567–1633) from Ambassadors from the Netherlands catrgories. The Netherlands were formed in 1815 and so there were no Ambassadors from the Netherlands before that. I am tired of her insistence that she is absolutely right and especially of her insinuation that if I do not comply with her demands I will never by allied to participate in AfD ever again. That was beyond the pale of rudeness. I thought that the by century categories existed as a method to subdivide other things. It is telling that until my recent placement of the person who she complained about removal from the 18th-century people from the Russian Empire directly in the 18th-century people category there was no person in the 18th-century people category directly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian military personnel of the Great Northern War

Category:Russian military personnel of the Great Northern War is another place where this comes up. Our article explicitly says this was a conflict between the Tsardom of Russia and the Swedish Empire. The creation of the Russian Empire is by our article defined as a consequence of this war. For these reasons I moved the military personnel Category under the Tsardom of Russia tree and edited the information to correctly reflect that these people were in the military of the Tsardom of Russia. With cases where we are categorizing direct government agents, that is Ambassadors, military personnel, civil servants, royalty, judges, maybe nobility and a few others, the specific polity is very important. We clearly should not categorize people are serving the Russian Empire when thry actually act before the Russian Empire existed. It is very frustrating to do edits that correctly reflect history and follow the existing articles only to have them reverted by an editor who seems most intent on imposing modern boundaries on all out understanding of the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This categories parent, Russian people of the Great Northern War, only has this category as a sub-cat. No direct articles. This category is in other ways in the Great Northern War and Russian categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French immigrants to Canada

Can we at least agree that people who moved from France to New France do not belong in this category. I am thinking such a high percentage of People of New France (which probably should be renamed People from New France) were born in France that it makes no sense to create a French emigrants to New France, but we should not conflate them with Frebch immigrants to Canada, that at its broadest should be limited to Beitish and Commonwealth Canada, and makes no sense if it includes areas before British rakeover.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edlers

I was going to create a category Edlers in the Holy Roman Empire (I really think in is the right preposition here) but it seems like there is such a push to preserve Austria/German distinction pre-1805 that it will take a CfD to create such a category. There are 5 of the 15 Edlers of Germany who are pre-1805, and at least a few of the 86 Edlers of Austria who fall in that time period. I have no idea why the Austria category is so much bigger. I am not sure Austria is the right term since the title was abolished with the fall of Austria-Hungary, but I am not sure an Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary split makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: to me this looks like a case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think all edler categories should be deleted. This may be true. I do not have a good grasp one way or the other on the system of titles in the Holy Roman Empire and its successor states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17th-century mayors of places in the United States

I do not think we should have this category. There was no United States until at least 1776, well into the 18th-century. I think the 17th-century Pennsylvania mayors category should be upmerged instead to Mayors in the Thirteen Colonies. I also wish I have named that category Mayors of places in the Thirteen Colonies, to match the sibblings we do have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16th-century people of the Thirteen Colonies

I think it would be better to use from and to rename the parent to People from the Thirteen Colonies as well. We have been trending to use of instead of from. At one point we remained all the categories of people from the specific Colonies to People from colonial New York, People from colonial Pennsylvania, etc. So it would seem logical to use the from form in the parent as well. The occuapat8onal categories, Surveyors from the Thirteen Colonies, Merchants from the Thirteen Colonies, Printers from the Thirteen Colonies, Artists from the Thirteen Colonies all pretty much use from (except Kayors in the Thirteen Colonies, which should be renamed to Mayors of places in the Thirteen Colonies, and that using in instrument of from is our standard proceedure).John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islam and slavery

Hello, Marcocapelle.

I was a little suprised to see a request for speedy deletion/renaming for Category:Islam and slavery. This should perhaps not be a speedy-issue, since this category is a sub-category of a main category that must correspond to its eqvivalent sub categories.

You can not erase the "Category:Islam and slavery" without erazing the eqvivalent: "Category:Christianity and slavery" and "Category:Judaism and slavery". Wikipedia must be consistent: erase all of these categories, or none of them.

These categories are useful for articles about the religion's rules and attituedes toward the institution of slavery. For example, the article Concubinage in Islam is suitable to have in the category "Category:Islam and slavery".

I do not object creating a sub categories such as for example "Category:History of slavery in the Muslim world", but the "Category:Islam and slavery" have a separate purpose. You can create "Category:History of slavery in the Muslim world" without deleting or renaming "Category:Islam and slavery".

In short: If you erase "Category:Islam and slavery" and "Category:Islam and slavery" and "Category:Judaism and slavery" as well. They all have - or should have - the same use. I am not sure if I write this on the correct page, so please excuse me if I do not, but I thought I should point out an observation. My very best greetings--Aciram (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram: feel free to leave an "oppose" at WP:CFDS. I'd like to stress though that the nomination does not concern any kind of erasure. Renaming does not impact the existence or the content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little uncertain exactly where to post my comment. I can add - since you also did - that a renaming would in a sense be an "erasure" since a new name would have a new meaning and would not longer correspond to its sister-categories.--Aciram (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Americans

I think we should either rename the 17th-century categories to 17th-century people from the Thirteen Colonies. True there are not 13 colonies until 1732, but in our article we have accepted the term to refer to the grneral region for all its history. On further thought I think 16th-century American is so anachronistic we should scap all such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Muses

The argument that this is not ambiguous because the other category would be Greek muses should not be considered worthwhile. Any category disambiguation that relies on people correctly noticing which category has an upper case letter and which has a lower cases letter is not disambiguating enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing artists

The Drawing artists should not be merged to daughtsmen. That term is A-ambiguous, B-toiblesome because it ends in -men and c. Introduces an Emglish variation issue that could be solved by using a different term. If you look up the article Draughtsman you will find there are 6 different occupations that are covered there. The current draughtsman tree is at least to some extent merging the Drawing artist and the drafter terms and has some people who are both. That is only the first problem. The second is that the term ends in -men. We generally avoid using a term that ends in that way. In fact this may be the only Category where a term ends in -men and is not actually gender specific. Fisherman are called fishers, businessmen, which at one point was so unmbiquitous is businesspeople unless we have specific men, policemen, firemen, postman and so on we avoid using. The best term is actually drawers. The problem is that is the same word used for A-parts of a dresser, cabinet or desk, b-an item of clothing and c-people who take water out of a well. So even Drawers (people) would be potentially ambiguous. The best we could do is drawers (artists) which might be better than the current name. C. Even if we ignore that draughtsman is both ambiguous and potentially excluding some of the content, we have the issue that in the US and some other places that use English the preferred spelling is draftsman. Lastly having looked at the sources "draughtsman" or "draftsman" is also not always how these people are described. Many reliable sources just say the person was an artist and mention that thry had notable drawings without ever trying to use a word to say what they were doing. Either "drawing artist" or "Drawers (artists)" is about the best we can do. Either will be far clearer and less ambiguous than the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on Numberblocks

Please add Category:British English-language television shows to this article. Thanks, 86.123.229.72 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]