User talk:Smasongarrison

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

Archives

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

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

Winifred Reuning

Hi Mason - thanks for reviewing the page I created, Winifred Reuning. I see she has been categorized as an explorer, but I don't think that's correct, and it's not reflected in the page. She was a long-time writer and editor, and had a glacier named after her, but did not "explore" Antarctica as far as I'm aware. Blackballnz (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would she be a better fit for People of Antarctica? ^SMason_Garrison 03:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I think that's apt. I'll make the change. Blackballnz (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar discussion

There is a similar discussion on Technical requests on EU articles similar to those proposed category renaming. Only four articles have the EU-country as the article title. You can add your two cents there as three of them were changed to the wrong format. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization

Hello, Mason,

I think we have a problem with overcategorization with editor User:KinoFan2021 who has a focus on creating new categories for screenwriters who have some connection to Disney films. I think one article had a dozen screenwriter categories on it which seems excessive. I'm not sure if you do much work with film categories but if you could review his recent contributions, I think that would be helpful. Thanks for any assistance you can provide here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out ^SMason_Garrison 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is definitely a classic case of overcat. ^SMason_Garrison 12:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at Category:Films with screenplays by American writers and I definitely think that this category could be pruned. There are other categories that KinoFan2021 made before their category creations were noticed. I think we should have a general rule (I think it's true for musicians) that there is no category for a writer's work if we don't have an article for the writer that would establish notability. I've already emptied some of the categories but they are easy to find because most of them just have one article in the category. What do you think? Should they be done manually or go through CFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -- I agree it's filled with a ton of tiny categories often with one or two pages. I think that the same logic can be applied as when I nominated a ton of family categories that had like one or two people in them. The categories weren't helpful for navigation. I think we should probably nominate a few test cases to get a sense of the community's feeling; just in case there's something obvious that we're both missing. ^SMason_Garrison 03:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
626	Religion in Lebanon (talk)	Add sources
247	History of Washington, D.C. (talk)	Add sources
64	Streets and highways of Washington, D.C. (talk)	Add sources
404	Christianity in Lebanon (talk)	Add sources
4	Robert Maitland O'Reilly (talk)	Add sources
72	George B. Cortelyou (talk)	Add sources
158	Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (talk)	Cleanup
20	Henry Markham (talk)	Cleanup
80	Thomas More University (talk)	Cleanup
44	Timeline of Washington, D.C. (talk)	Expand
2,681	Florence (talk)	Expand
820	Maronite Church (talk)	Expand
201	Robert Delaunay (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
11	Jacobello del Fiore (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
49	Samuel Jean Pozzi (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4	Manufacturing clause (talk)	Merge
66	Nawar people (talk)	Merge
12	X-23 (one-shot) (talk)	Merge
23	Alexander Robey Shepherd (talk)	Wikify
2	Harvey Lee Ross House (talk)	Wikify
35	Goupil & Cie (talk)	Wikify
2	Vicki L. Gregory (talk)	Orphan
2	Rosa Monfasani (talk)	Orphan
4	María del Carmen Pérez Cuadra (talk)	Orphan
7	Eliyahu de Vidas (talk)	Stub
14	Burleith (talk)	Stub
6	John Watkinson Douglass (talk)	Stub
6	Carmen Berenguer (talk)	Stub
6	Henry G. Shirley (talk)	Stub
2	Henry R. Myles (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious worker categories

Hello, Mason,

I just did a query to find empty categories and I found lot of categories you recently created for religious workers from different countries. Will you be filling these in the near future? I don't want to tag them if you are still working on a project. I'd wait any way but I thought I'd check. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I'm working on filling them in -- actually right now. :) ^SMason_Garrison 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have realized that. Most of our prolific category creators do not leave empty categories hanging around for a long period of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol usually true -- but I've definitely forgotten to populate a category after I've created it. So it's totally reasonable thing to tag them if they've been around for a day or so. It's a helpful reminder! ^SMason_Garrison 22:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century Albanian sportswomen

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century Albanian sportswomen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 18:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century Azerbaijani sportswomen

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century Azerbaijani sportswomen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 18:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century Bangladeshi sportswomen

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century Bangladeshi sportswomen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 18:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century Belarusian sportswomen

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century Belarusian sportswomen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 18:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

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

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 3 § Category:People by criminal charge

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 3 § Category:People by criminal charge on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RachelTensions (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:798 births

Category:798 births has 1 article. The article states this is only an approximate birth year for the subject. I believe we should upmerge the carmtegory into 1790s births since we should not be more precise than we can be accurate. There are at least 5 missing birth year categories between that year and 1000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think its worth looking to see if the category can be populated. ^SMason_Garrison 00:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean 798? Because 1798 has over a 1000 people in it. ^SMason_Garrison 00:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant 798. I am not sure how I mistyped that. Based on various other factors I highly suspect these categories cannot be populated. In fact they are probably in general over populated. People in general are too willing to put specific birth years when if you look deeply at the sources you come to realize we have less precision than one would expect. The decade categories with all sib-catrgories in the pre-1000 time frame in general have under 100 articles, and some of those are people who even the decade of their birth is not known very precisely. Some of these articles in turn either lack sources amor are sourced only to things like a family try in ancestry and other sources that are not reliable. We also have some people whose actual existence is disputed and thus their very birth thrown in, and I found about 5 people in birth categories pre-1000 or so who actually were born about a century later and their birth year had been mistyped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

794 has the same issue, although the subject there the year has both an indication of bring approximate and a question mark indicating it is a guess, so there is probably even less reason to have that article in 794 births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'd be really hesitant to upmerge a single year of birth, without some sort of consensus that we should do the same for other birth years. But it is an interesting thought ^SMason_Garrison 00:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we should get rid of all specific birth year categories pre-1000. A large percentage of these people at best we know their birth year in a different calendar. We have cases where what we know is the subject was born about some year in the Islamic calendar. Most Idlamic calendar years are 2 years in the Julian calendar. So what we know is they were born about either of 2 years in the Julian calendar. However as I have said we are missing about 5 years that have no birth articles, so it is not like we even have a complete set. Plus in both these cases the current articles do not belong there. I would have taken them out because their placement there is incorrect and against established precedent, but I was trying to be congenial. It would be nice if you at least acknowledged the fact that the article in 798 and the article in 794 do not fit there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a large number of pre-1300 or so articles are incorrectly in birth categories because people have misinterpreted fl to mean birth, when almost no one was active in a noticed way from birth. Another set the year the person started as a king or other ruler has been misinterpreted as a birth year. This is an issue with a lot of articles on monarchs of places in South Asia. It is also an issue elsewhere. For example Orso Ipato was incorrectly placed in a category based on the year he began as Doge, which is not the year he was born. I have seen cases of pirates who flourished it says for 5 years where those were put as birth and death years. No, 5 year Olds were not pirates. Some people do not pay attention while editing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page

I am about to create a note on my talk page you may want to check.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors of Iraq to Morocco

Thank-you for nominating this category. 21 of the 41 sub-cats of Ambassadors of Irqlaq have only 1 article. It has been about a year since small cat was deprecated. Yet people still mention it, instead of the current guidelines of narrow cat. It's legacy of propping up empty systems also still lives with is. Thankyou for making a luttle bit of a dent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! ^SMason_Garrison 01:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of Indian royalty in the British Indian Army

Hello, Smasongarrison. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of Indian royalty in the British Indian Army".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of former Indian royalty in the Pakistani Army

Hello, Smasongarrison. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of former Indian royalty in the Pakistani Army".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of Indian royalty in the Indian Army

Hello, Smasongarrison. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of Indian royalty in the Indian Army".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music) on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mother runners

This is such an irregular Category I am confused as to the intent of the scope? Is it meant to cover all people who were in some I guess defining way runners after they gave birth to a child? Or is it meant ti include women who were involved in running while raising a child? I am not sure we have any Category for anything that intersects the two. We have Mothers of y monarch categories, but the analog here would be Mothers of runners, which is something else and would be exceptionally trivial. The fact is this is so undeveloped a method of categorization that we do not know which of the above applies. It gets even more odd. There are probably some women who did most of their running career before having a child, but did a few end of career runs that might be categorized as while they were a mother. Either answer on what this means also makes it seem incredibly intrusive. One treats having a child as a medical condition. While there is some truth to this, we do not have a mother soortspeople Category, and it would be overall just as defining (well non-defining, but no more non-defining) to swimmers, gymnasts, ballerinas, basketball players, soccer players, volleyball players, etc. On the other hand if we are categorizing by current raising a child, even a step or adopted one, it is still as non-defining. I think we could actually find more sourcing for a mother-politician Category. Although there the nightmare would be, besides the fact that it is somewhat hit and miss who gets do described, we have the question of who we out in it. Do we need them actively engaged in politics while actively being a mother, or is it meant to class those women in politics who have children as separate from those who do not. It is a mix of trivialness and inteusiveness I do not think we want to consider. I hope we nip this bad scheme in the bud before it expands John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% -- it's definitely irregular and doesn't fit within the wikipedia categorization. ^SMason_Garrison 16:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Fleischer (judge) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Fleischer (judge) 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/David Fleischer (judge) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious leaders categories

Hi, thanks for correcting an edit of mine on Chilean clergy.

Where you are adding this code on Fooian religious leaders,

[[Category:Religion in {{GetCountryNameFromAdjective|{{Title demonym}}}}|Leaders]]

the parent should rather be "{{Title demonym}} religious workers" where that category exists.

Maybe it would be worth automating all of this in a category header template for religious leaders by nationality. – Fayenatic London 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! And yes, that's a good idea! I've actually been toying with making a header template by nationality. I've been testing some test cases like Template:Academics by nationality and century category header/nationality. ^SMason_Garrison 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Happy holidays and a prosperous 2025!

I was skimming Psychology to find a good picture to put here, and then I got distracted by the illustration of the Stroop effect. Brains are so cool!

Mason, it has been a pleasure to work with you over this past year. Your dedication maintaining the plethora of category header templates, your responsiveness to requests to implement various discussions (regardless of how much work it might take to do them!), and your creativity in coming up with ways to repurpose categories are noticed and appreciated :) Thank you for everything this year, and here's to another productive year improving what could reasonably be called humanity's greatest collection of knowledge – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wishing all the best to you and yours in 2025, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is so thoughtful of you! Thank you so much for the kind words and appreciation!!!!! ^SMason_Garrison 03:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Mason :) Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]