User talk:Rathfelder

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Medical dictionary definition articles

Hi! I see you're marking a number of medical articles for deletion because they are only dictionary definition sub-stubs without any longer-term promise of becoming proper articles. While I don't have a problem with that, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, could you please consider marking these pages with {{move to wiktionary}} instead, where dictionary definitions are welcomed? -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly will. I didn't realise I could do that. Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOE

Edits to Northern Ireland Federation of Sub-Aqua Clubs and British Underwater Sports Association

Hi Rathfelder, I noticed that you removed the Category:Supraorganizations from both the above articles. Can you please advise why you have done particularly both organisations meet the description of a supraorganisation as per the category page, i.e. membership is made of organisations rather than individuals? Please reply here. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I dispute the definition, and I have altered the article. I can't see any sign of anyone outside wikipedia using it in this sense. I don't think that is how the word is used in the real world. In the real world the term Supraorganization seems to imply some sort of overarching function, such as regulation. There are immense numbers of organisations whose members are other organisations. All the football leagues in the world for a start, and many religious and academic organisations. I am trying to make some sense of the category. Specifically I don't see that being composed of other organisations is a defining characteristic of organisations of the kind you mention, or indeed of most sporting organisations. So I can't see that anyone looking for a sub-aqua organisation would be looking for it under this category. Do you think anyone would refer to either as a supraorganisation? But I think Sports governing bodies probably do fit here. I know nothing about underwater sports, and you are entirely free to disagree with me and revert. But perhaps you could tell me if there is any organisation in that area which fits my view of the definition? Is there a rule making or standard setting organisation body?Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your insights in the word "Supraorganisation". A search online suggests that this could be an unintended WP by-product. A focused google search found the use of the word in texts concerned with international governance (i.e. treaties) and agencies within government. Generally, the word was spelt as supra-organization or supra organization. Also, none of the texts that I viewed were specifically concerned with supraorganizations. There may be some managerial texts that briefly discuss the concept. In response to your questions, I advise the following. Firstly, I think the term would only be used within academia; in other fields, terms such as peak bodies and umbrella organisations would probably prevail. Also, I think the prefix “supra” is not widely. Secondly, sports governing bodies do have a regulatory function in respect to sports rules. In respect to underwater sports, I think the best example of a supraorganisation would the Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques. Thirdly, a example of a standard setting organisation body would be the International Organization for Standardization. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is most helpful. I will continue my efforts to reduce inappropriate use of the category.Rathfelder (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello Rathfelder, you seems to be a destubator. Thank you for... just removing the stub tag in the articles and not assessing the respective talk. Wikiproject volleyball still have a quality scale and there is a policy for stubs that states that stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub. Also it says for removing the stub template, that Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template and this article for example have not been expanded since the tag were put in place and by the way, it is just two sentences. You are not either completing the destub correctly because you have not done this in any article recently: When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary and you have to.--Osplace 01:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The policy actually says " stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." I don't think it is appropriate in articles about sports teams to ignore the tabular information about their performance or the members of the squad. The same information could have been presented as prose. There is, in each of the volleyball articles, a lot of information. Far more than could be included in a dictionary article.

I don't see much correlation between the stub classification of articles and that on the talk pages. Many pages marked as stub are marked as start class on the talk page, if they are assessed at all, and many of the stub assessments are clearly outdated. I am working through the 1000 largest stubs. Most of them are clearly no longer stubs. These are all articles with more than 10,000 characters. There are screensful of useful information. I don't edit the assessments on the talk pages because I think they are performing a different function from the stub template on the article. Some articles are marked by several projects and are differently assessed by them. For example: Talk:Swansea District (UK Parliament constituency) is assessed differently by three different projects. Talk:Shamim Ara is Rated Start-class by 3 different projects, but had a stub template on the article itself. I don't feel competent to assess in terms of the projects.

If you disagree with my assessment that is fine, I'm not going to argue with you. It's a subjective decision. But the policy is quite clear:"Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable." And I find it difficult to see what is achieved be leaving these substantial articles in the stub list.Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have not read my comment. It does not matter if you do not see any relation between the stub classification of articles and that on the talk pages. The policy clearly says that When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary.

An article should have prose. The prose section is the main reason to promote them in the quality scale. Forget about the size. Is not whatever you want, if every single editor should do whatever it wants taking no consideration to policies what would happen? Stick to the policy. If is a large size it should be a huge stub, nothing else. When removing the tag, update the talk page, you have to. No matter if there is something different, both should read the same, if not you should help correct it, but by the policy, not your own idea. According to your talk page, you have been warned for this before, take that into consideration.--Osplace 18:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I have read your comments. But I don't agree with you. I am not part of your project. A project can have its own criteria for the classification of articles which I am not party to. One article may be part of several projects, (Russia women's national under-18 volleyball team is part of 4) and they may all have different criteria. In the case of the articles you reverted most had not been rated at all by the projects they were part of, so there was nothing for me to update. Florida Launch, which I just destubbed was rated start class by the Lacrosse project, but left as a stub. The policies you complain I am not following are not consistent, nor practical, and there is a lot of evidence that they are not often followed. In fact, the reality is that only a small minority of projects are operating at all. If your project is working I will not interfere with it.

NB not every article has prose. Lists don't have prose, and the policy says that lists are not stubs. But I think an article should be judged as a whole. How much information does it contain? That is why the policy says "usually". Of course I could deconstruct the tables and turn them into prose, and I suppose you would then concede that the articles are not stubs. Rathfelder (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing stub templates

Hi, I came across your edits today with removing stub templates, thanks for trying to help out with stub management of pages, however, when you do remove a stub template, can you please also change the rating on the talk page too? Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any relationship between assessment of stubs from projects and the general criteria for stubs. Every project can set its own definition, and different projects can and do assess the same article differently. See discussion above on my page under the heading Stubs. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood what I was asking, anyway, if you remove an AFL related stub, then can you please update the AFL rating on the talk page because they're directly related. I read the discussion above and I'm just reitirating what Osplace asked "when removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary." Flickerd (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But they aren't related at all. Projects set their own definition of a stub which may be quite different from the definition used in the encyclopedia, which is exactly what has happened in the case of the Collingwood Football Club articles. They are clearly not stubs within the criteria of the encyclopedia. If WikiProject Australian rules football wants to have their own criteria that is a matter for them. I am afraid I am not going to investigate the criteria used by each project. Especially as the explanation you appear to be using is not what is described on the project page. The status given by the project to an article on its talk page and the status of the article in the encyclopedia are two different things.Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't really be bothered with this, but continue to make your own rules which is evident in other conversations you've had on your talk page. Flickerd (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered why did you start a conversation? Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that you've removed stub templates from a few New Zealand election articles. Those articles where that has happened that are on my watchlist have hardly any prose, but long lists of candidates. Therefore, the article cannot possibly be start class, but it's reasonable to assign list class status to them. Going forward, can you please re-rate those NZ election articles as list class when you remove stub tags? Schwede66 08:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

List status is particular to individual projects. Stub status is across the encyclopedia, and the policy, as I understand it, is that lists, however imperfect, are not stubs WP:STUB. I'm afraid I cannot investigate the policies of every project, so I do not interfere with the status assigned by the project (s) on the talk page. Different projects can, and do, assign different status to the same article and adopt different criteria for the same status. That is a matter for them. Rathfelder (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to investigate anything. What I'm asking you is to change class to "list" when you remove stub tags from New Zealand politics articles. Schwede66 09:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You are asking me to remember a special procedure for those articles - of which I may see no more for months. I am working through the 1000 longest stubs. There may be no more New Zealand politics articles. I will try, but I may forget.Rathfelder (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Good. Thanks! Schwede66 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Combining CfD nominations

  1. Start with one category.
  2. For every next category, add an extra 'propose' line manually.
  3. Copy the script of the CfD template from the page of the first nominated category to the pages of the other categories, but change |1= into |1=section title. Usually the section title on the CfD page is identical to the first nomination category. For example |1=Category:Malaysian obstetricians.

Hopefully this helps? It's not super user friendly, but it's not super complicated either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

De-stubbing

Thank you for removing stub templates from articles that are no longer considered stubs. As an experienced editor, you ought to know that articles are marked as stubs both using stub templates in the article itself and with article assessments on the talk pages. When de-stubbing, you should also update the assessments on the talk page. WP:DESTUB – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Each project has its own criteria for article status, and I am not in a position to investigate them all. I have a week to work through the 1000 longest stubs. There is not much correlation between the status on the articles and those on the talk pages, and indeed it appears not many projects are actually active. It is quite possible for the same article to have a different status on different projects - like this one New Ross (UK Parliament constituency) - the last one I did. If someone on a project thinks I've got it wrong then please correct me. Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I understand you position and, having read the discussion above (@Flickerd and Schwede66: courtesy ping), agree to a degree. In principle, each WP has its own assessment scale. In practice however, they seem to agree, especially in the low-end of the scale. I understand that you hesitate to update the ratings because doing so on a lot of pages means it's either prohibitively time consuming or leads to getting some assessments wrong. But what you're doing now is bound to end up with the wrong result every time. Stub templates and WP ratings are not supposed to disagree. While as a WP:VOLUNTEER you don't have to assess on the talk page, the guideline says you should. It's a bit like volunteering to add opening brackets of wls and transclusions but neverminding to close them, to be honest... a job half done that leaves behind a mess.
I'm not in a position to tell you what to do, other than follow our guidelines, but since this issue has been brought up a couple of times now, something should change. If I were you, I'd WP:BOLDly change each project's Stub rating to Start. If individual projects' members disagree with that assessment, then great, they can revise it to a more accurate one. But right now everyone including you agree that these are not stubs and should not be called Stubs in the assessment. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This should be a two way process. The last article I did Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1924 was rated start class by the project, but left as a stub on the article. 1973 Philadelphia Eagles season was rated start class by three separate projects - all of which left the stub on the article. I think this is a bigger problem than me. I'd like to see the two linked together. But I also find the common criteria for start class "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources." completely subjective. I don't want to get into arguments with people from projects who will not a lot more about these subjects than I do. I'm using very simple criteria - any article in the top 1000 longest stubs is not a stub unless there is something unusual about it - like a big infobox or a blank table.Rathfelder (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely agree: as long as we have two separate places for tagging article as stubs, there will be discrepancies and I've certainly seen them before. My gut instinct here is simply that if we don't think something is a stub, it's at minimum a start. It's expected that some project members will disagree, but my instinct is that in the vast majority of cases they won't. When they do, you too already agree that the project rating scale should take precedence, so it doesn't really sound like a particularly bitter fight. Personally I wish that ratings below GA will be handled by mw:ORES in the future. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Would you say that It's Like, You Know... is a stub? User:IJBall does - but he's using the project definition of a stub - which is not quite the same as WP:STUB Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
First, I would like to second Finnusertop, above – if you're going to remove stub tags then you also need to change the Talk page assessments at the same time. Second, in general, I find that you have been too aggressive in removing stub tags – you are removing them from articles that are just 1 or 2 sentences long (e.g. Jagger Eaton's Mega Life), or from articles that have just 1 real secondary source (e.g. It's Like, You Know...). Again, as per "all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this [stub] category" (which while not mentioned directly in WP:STUB, is mentioned in pretty much every WP assessment criteria I've ever seen...), we should only be removing 'stub' tags from articles that have 10 or more sentences and at least 2 or 3 good quality secondary sources. For an article like It's Like, You Know..., finding 1 or 2 additional sources shouldn't be that hard – in fact, that has been on my mental "To Do" list (I just haven't gotten around to it...). Just add 1 or 2 more sources to that one, and I agree that it will graduate to 'Start' class. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think your approach is consistent with the policy outlined in WP:STUB, which says nothing about quality or references. It is true that that approach is taken by most projects - which is why I think it is right to treat the stub assessment at the bottom of the article as having different criteria from that applied by the projects. And it is quite common to be assessed differently by different projects. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
No – the article assessment and the Talk page assessment should be in harmony. Further, the WP assessments on the Talk page should also be in harmony with each other – the only exception to that might be B-class vs. C-class assessments which might be different for different projects. But if an article is a 'Stub', it should be marked 'Stub' for all the listed WP's on the Talk page; ditto if 'Start' class. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
You can say that they should be, but they often aren't. And I take the WP:STUB policy as taking precedence over the policies of individual projects, each of which is at liberty to determine its own policies. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
That's an WP:Other stuff exists argument – just because some people are removing stub-tags but not updating the Talk page assessment doesn't mean you should. Frankly, you are probably going to start getting reverted just on the basis of removing stub tags without updating the Talk page assessments. Bottom line: WP:STUB and the WP assessments are supposed to work together – you're not supposed to pay attention to one, while ignoring the other. If an editor changes the WP assessments from 'Stub' to 'Start' on the Talk page, then they're supposed to remove the 'Stub'-tag from the article itself, and visa versa. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you want to shoot the messenger. I would say that in a very substantial minority of the stub articles I deal with - and I only deal systematically with the 1000 longest stubs - there are discrepancies between the stub categories on the article and those applied by the various projects. I haven't caused those discrepancies. And I don't actually see any policy which says they should work together, nor any harm if they don't. Each project is free to set its own policies. They are not forced to adopt the WP:STUB policy. Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sadly, I think most of these projects are inactive. I have destubbed at least 10,000 articles and only half a dozen people from projects have ever raised this as an issue. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Articles may be stubs for any of several reasons. Those include both a stub tag on the mainspace page, or a project rating on the talk: page. The overall assessment "Is this a stub?" is subjective, contextual, and depends on whether it's pessimistic or optimistic (can any one of these indicate stubs, or must all indicate stubs?) and also on which projects are seen as both in scope and reasonably up to date. As project ratings are almost never updated, I would place a very low weight on them. There's also the aspect that some projects might have different criteria or rating levels - "unsourced" varies a lot between BLP and others, or the quality of a source is regarded differently between contemporary politics and early medieval politics.
This issue is utterly trivial and a serious waste of time. If Rathfelder is removing stub tags from articles where they meet some basic level of sourcing, then thankyou for that. If you want to still see these as "only stubs" because you apply your own subjective rating to them based on more particular tests, or just because they have a project rating on the talk: page too, then feel free to judge them how you wish. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The point of marking articles as stubs is presumeably to help editors prioritise their work. In active projects that seems to work well. But I can't see what is achieved by marking articles with pages of information - however poor - as stubs. But if anyone wants to revert what I do that is up to them. I am not going to fight about it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus

I think we have reached a consensus along the following line: when a stub tag is removed from an article, any stub assessment on the talk page should at least be upgraded to start class. That would mirror the expectation of those editors who have commented above. If an article is of a higher class than start, that should be attended to by members of the respective Wikiproject. If anyone gives Rathfelder grief about updating an assessment to start class in line with this consensus, this discussion can be referred to. I suggest that captures the essence of what has been discussed.

  • Support as nominator. Schwede66 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well that's fine. But does this policy only apply to me? I'd say at least 100 of the 1000 stubs I just worked through had been upgraded to Start status on the talk page, but the article was still marked as a stub. Unless we find a way of tying the two together there is not much point worrying about it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of course there's no such consensus.
An editor removing the stub tag(s) might remove such a rating as outdated, they might choose to re-evaluate the article entirely, but stubbiness for either reason is independent. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I dont think my talk page is the place to establish a community concensus. Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely support that. (Note: This is independent of whether I agree with Rathfelder's opinion on upgrading from 'Stub' to 'Start' – but if you're going to remove the stub tag, the Talk page also needs to be updated.) The other option, of course, is for Rathfelder to drop this particular line of editing on their part, and perhaps actually try to tackle some genuine article improvement (e.g. adding sourcing) instead. There are plenty of us that are also keeping an eye on article assessment for various reasons, and we are certainly able to tackle this particular task ourselves. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal from categories

Why are you removing people from the American schoolteachers category entirely, rather than recategorizing them to the state(s) where they taught? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm doing both. They dont get in a schoolteacher category unless teaching was at least part of what makes them notable. WP:NONDEF, "...not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sharecare updates

Hi Rathfelder!

I work with Sharecare and am helping flag appropriate updates to the article. Do you have a moment to review a request at Talk:Sharecare? I saw you've also made changes to improve the article against Wikipedia standards, so I thought this could be of interest to you.

(Reaching out instead of making the edit myself in keeping with Wikipedia Terms of Use & conflict of interest rules).

Thanks! SCbhaynes (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything published which documents this? Rathfelder (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! Yes. I noted this in my Number of Employees post on Sharecare's Talk page, but the current citation used in the article verifies more recent details, "as of September 2020", than those reflected in the Sharecare article which shows "(2019)". This update seems straightforward enough, but I won't edit the article myself per the site's guidelines regarding my conflict of interest. Thanks in advance for considering, and for any assistance you might offer. SCbhaynes (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Rathfelder. You can disregard my above reply, as that request has been handled. I have an updated request though, seeking help to update the Sharecare article's listed subsidiaries. I have posted requests to a few WikiProjects that I thought might be relevant, but my open request on Sharecare's Talk page remains unanswered. Is there any chance you'd be willing to take another look and help out? Continuing to avoid editing the article myself due to my conflict of interest. Thanks again. SCbhaynes (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust survivor and other categories

I reverted your edit at Henri Kichka but think that there is a bigger issue which it might be worth clearing up around the tree of categories around Category:Holocaust survivors and Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors which do not overlap very well. There were plenty of non-Jewish political prisoners held in concentration camps who cannot be described as survivors of the Holocaust which we currently define in the article as "the World War II genocide of the European Jews". This problem is currently replicated across the sub-categories, such as Category:Politicians who died in the Holocaust and Category:Politicians who died in Nazi concentration camps (currently a sub-category). I am not sure what the solution would be.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Category:Holocaust survivors had a note (which I have removed) which referred to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum definition:
The Museum honors as survivors any persons, Jewish or non-Jewish, who were displaced, persecuted, or discriminated against due to the racial, religious, ethnic, social, and political policies of the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945. In addition to former inmates of concentration camps, ghettos, and prisons, this definition includes, among others, people who were refugees or were in hiding.
That embraces pretty much the entire population of Eastern Europe. Far too wide for categorisation. But categorisation is imprecise. I dont see how your reversion helps.  Henri Kichka was a Buchenwald concentration camp survivor. That is fairly precise, and a subcategory of Holocaust survivors. Categorisation is heirarchical, but it doesnt follow that everything in the lowest subcategory must always meet the full definition of the highest. Rathfelder (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I do not know anything about the definition you quote, but I can quite believe that the USHMM has a remit which extends beyond the Holocaust into other forms of political and racial discrimination during World War II - this would not be particularly unusual, not least since many such centres have subsequently extended their scope to deal with the Rwandan Genocide and other unrelated post-war events (USHMM among them). However, this does not distract from the fact that boundaries of the term Holocaust is not that you have cited. It is hardly a fringe theory to distinguish between different forms of persecution carried out by the same regime (even in the same camps) and attempts to blur the two are often negationist in origin (cf the "Polocaust" saga). My issue is how to address this problem, not whether it exists. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I can only talk about the articles we actually have, and they are at least 95% about Jewish people (as defined by the Nazis). There are not enough about non-Jewish people to justify breaking down the sub-categories into Jewish and not, whatever words you use. I'm really working on the concentration camp survivors and ghetto inmates. I dont think I have seen any articles which describe non-Jewish people as Holocaust survivors, and I dont think including a very small number of non-Jews into the concentration camp survivors categories undermines the point you are making. If anything I am concerned that there dont seem to be articles about the other groups who were persecuted. Rathfelder (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I cannot comment on this but I do not believe it to be correct. Category:Belgian people who died in Nazi concentration camps for example includes 7 names of whom only two are Jewish. However, it is a sub-category of Category:People who died in the Holocaust by nationality and Category:People who died in the Holocaust. Personally, I think the solution would be to create a series of Category:Holocaust survivors from Foo while keeping Category:Foo concentration camp survivors entirely separate and outside the Holocaust category trees. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I havent looked at the categories of people who died. They may be different. But equally Belgium is rather different from Eastern Europe. One of the main points of the subcategories as I see them is that the deal with how people survived, or not. A very different question from nationality. And nationality in Europe between 1933 and 1945 is quite problematic in itself. Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I think nationality would have to refer to pre-war nation states ("Holocaust survivors from Poland [in the United States]" rather than "American Holocaust survivors", for example). @Buidhe: do you have a perspective on this? Perhaps we could open this for an RFC.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I certainly think what we have now is a bit of a mess. But I'm not sure what we could put to an RFC. Partly its a mess because in reality its very messy. Full of contested definitions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The USHMM may use a different definition but I believe the common academic usage of "holocaust survivor" is for Jews only, restricting the word "Holocaust" to the genocide of Jews as opposed to other forms of Nazi persecution and crimes. Also, requiring RS to state someone is a holocaust survivor is also necessary per WP:V. Pre-war nationality is likely more defining than post-war. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The article, Holocaust survivors, to which we have to adhere, uses the wider definition. "the term includes anyone who was discriminated against, displaced or persecuted as a result of the policies and actions of the Nazis and their allies and, in addition to Jews who were uniquely targeted for complete annihilation, it includes those who were persecuted as a result of the Nazis' racial theories, such as the Romani people and Slavs, along with others who were seen as "undesirables" such as homosexuals, or for political reasons, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Communists."Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For the record, the definition at Holocaust survivor has now been changed by consensus. It's clearly the categorisation now which is the issue. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


x–y relations and expatriates/emigrants

Hello. You keep removing the "x–y relations" categories from the categories "x expatriates in y" and "x emigrants to y" (e.g. [1]). Other editors also keep adding them back after you've removed them, like User:Good Olfactory here: [2][3][4]. At the moment, we have this many categories that are categorized into the bilateral relations categories:

  • 8,033 expatriate
  • 189 emigrant (this number is much lower because almost all emigrant categories (3,219 at the moment) are categorized into the "x people of y descent" categories, which are categorized into the "x–y relations" categories)

My opinion is that as migration always has cultural, political and economic effects (and: bilateralism is the conduct of political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states), those expatriate/emigrant categories fit into the "x–y relations" categories. But as you seem to disagree, I think we should ask others' opinions first, because this concerns thousands of categories (linked above) that have been in this state for years. 87.95.206.253 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I think its a pragmatic question. In some situation emigration affects relationships between states. In others it doesnt. But emigrants do not belong in "x people of y descent" categories. That is misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's misleading. One meaning of a "FOOian person" is a "person from FOO". It doesn't necessarily mean nationality or citizenship. If a person is a "BARian emigrant to FOO", they have become a person from FOO, or a FOOian person. And being from BAR originally, they are of BARian descent. The emigrants categories were really placed in the descent categories for ease of navigation among the bewildering number of related categories. It's not supposed to be an exact one-to-one equivalence in every situation. Categories are meant to be easy to use and help you navigate through articles with related characteristics. Removing these connections is making it more difficult. Now that two users have suggested as much, we should probably pause the removal of these. We should probably have an RFC on the issue of whether the emigrants category should (1) be placed in the person of descent categories; (2) be placed in the bilateral relations category; or (3) be placed in neither. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • A person from Foo is ambiguous. A Fooian person isnt. People dont necessarily become Fooian because they live there. Fooian is a nationality. Some migrants change their nationality but many dont. Very few articles say anything about nationality. Not everyone from BAR is of BARian descent. I dont see how it helps navigation to mix up immigrants from BAR with FOOish people of BARian descent. Rathfelder (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • The expatriate categories are dominated by sportspeople. I dont see how they affect bilateral international relations. Rathfelder (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Well, I think you should stop removing these categories until the issue is discussed more broadly. Clearly there is disagreement. I disagree that FOOian means, necessarily, nationality. (And even if it does, many people assume that "nationality" = "citizenship", but it does not. There is a difference between being a national of a country and being a citizen of a country.) I'm going to start constructing an RfC, so I would appreciate your forbearance until then. I suspect the other users who have talked to you about this would also appreciate it. Actually, I probably won't get to an RfC for a little while. I guess a good place to leave it is for both sides to recognize that there is disagreement as to how the categorization should work with these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Categorisation of clergy

I think we need some guidance or policy for dealing with ecclesiastical complexity.

These ideas have come from the work I've done on established churches. I'm not sure how well they would work on other religions or denominations.

We need to distinguish between articles about bishops/archbishops and articles about the dioceses - even though the diocese articles usually contain a list of incumbents.

There is a fairly clear religious hierarchy in established churches: From Category:Christians to Category:Christian clergy to priests (or ministers) to bishops to archbishops and, in the Roman Catholic church, to cardinals and popes. Category:Religious leaders,Category:Priests and Category:Clergy are not confined to Christian denominations. Ordained clergy should not normally be in these wide categories, nor in categories of believers like Category:American Roman Catholics unless they change their faith. It seems sensible to categorise articles by the high point of an ecclesiastical career unless, for example, the different stages were in different countries. So Category:Nigerian cardinals do not also need to be in Category:Nigerian Roman Catholic bishops, though they would be in a diocesan category.

Bishops should primarily be categorised by the country of their diocese, not, normally, their personal nationality, and the same considerations should apply to archbishops. They are both attached to a location and that is what makes them notable. We use Bishops of Blah to indicate that Blah is the name of the diocese. Bishops in Foo means that the diocese is in Foo. We should try to categorise all the bishops and archbishops by diocese, although that is not always practicable (and titular bishops dont really have dioceses), but the country categories should primarily be populated with the diocesan subcategories.

Fooish bishops indicates their personal nationality and can be used for expatriate/migrant bishops. But generally its clearer to categorise migrants as Fooish priests, because generally they are consecrated in their diocese, not in their country of origin. That is not true of cardinals, and they should be categorised by nationality. Lower rank clergy might need to be categorised either by nationality or by location, or sometimes by both. The country to which they are attached should, as far as possible, be the country as it was when they were there, not the country now, because established churches were entangled with the state.

It should not be necessary to prefix all these categories with Roman Catholic/Anglican/ Orthodox unless more than one denomination is possible in that time and place. So we dont need to say Roman Catholic before the 11th century, and in Western European countries not before the reformation affected that country.

Religions do sometimes divide the world in their own way - not using political country divisions - and we may need to use these, but they need to be clearly indicated if they are not to cause confusion.

Marcocapelle, John Pack Lambert, Oculi, Laurel Lodged, Fayenatic, Peterkingiron I would like to know what you think of this attempt to devise a way forward. In particular I would like to find some resolution to the problem of migrant bishops which will not lead back to the confused mess we have now.Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • There is not going to be consensus about pursuing this in any of the discussions that are currently open. Once they are closed the best is to ask User:Good Olfactory to revert the merge closure in the very first discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I notice the first discussion is up for deletion review. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that we should start again. Shall I withdraw those nominations? Rathfelder (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I really think we need to recognize that bishops are a sub-set of priests. Thus the following makes more sense. A-Bishops should be categorized by nationality. They should not be assigned nationality for a place they were only after they became a priest unless we have very compelling evidence otherwise. B-since bishops are a subset of priests, no bishop should be in a by nationality priest category, unless we make the deliberate decision that the category is too small to split out bishops. C-I think we should look at this as a denominational issue, and I see no reason to have transdenominational categories for priests or bishops by nationality. If we do, we should treat pre-reformation categories as seperate. D-If we do not put bishops in by nationality priest categories, this means that placing every bishop in a category by his nationality and a category linked to the diocese(s) where he was bishop is not going to lead to excessive category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of that, although we need to recognise that there are enormously more articles about bishops than about priests. Many small countries have a bishop category but no priests. And I dont think we would get agreement to remove transdenominational categories for priests or bishops by nationality.

I think we should exploit the ambiguity of nationality. If we characterise bishops by nationality, so for each country there is a category of Fooish bishops, then we can have a subcategory of Bishops in Foo - where not all the individual bishops will personally be Fooish - if its needed. Those in the superior category will be the Fooish bishops who served somewhere else. The Bishops in Foo can be subcategorised by diocese in Foo. The migrant bishops will be categorised as Fooish bishops but also as Bishops in Bar. If we go about it like that perhaps we only need one superior category - Bishops by nationality.Rathfelder (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

People from Foo

Hi, I note you have been removing "People from City" categories for a number of Belgian articles without discussion. At Oscar Michiels, you said this was because the Category:Royal Military Academy (Belgium) faculty fitted into Category:People from Brussels and I assume the same logic underpins your other deletions. This does not follow at all. It is perfectly possible to teach at a Brussels-based institution without coming from Brussels. At very least, this kind of change to the entire purpose of the category tree should have been discussed! Please revert so it can be dealt with constructively. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Throughout the encyclopedia "People from a city by occupation" includes employees of organisations based in the city. "From" is completely ambiguous. But being born in a place is not, in itself, defining. Categories are supposed to be defining. If members of the faculty are notable that is sufficient to make them people from Brussels. Categories are heirarchical. People should not be in Category:People from Brussels if they are also in a subcategory. Please see WP:SUBCAT. Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I've been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade and have never seen a "People from Foo City" category working as you claim - from may be ambiguous in some senses I accept, but it is obvious that a person does not become from a city simply by virtue of holding a post there. Again, please revert and gain consensus per WP:BRD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Here from Wikipedia talk:Categorization‎. In general, I have typically seen "people from city" used to classify people who were *born* in that city, and "people from city by occupation" subcategories used to split large unwieldy categories (still of people born in that city). Categories used in this way should definitely not be removed. They may also reasonably be used for people with strong non-birth associations with a city, but that does not justify their removal as birth categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Birth is not defining. By occupation from a city clearly does not imply being born there. I am not removing categories. Quite the opposite. But categories are heirarchical. WP:COPPLACE says, very clearly "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual."Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In fact, the place of birth is so clearly defining that a large number of nations use it as the primary determinant of citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
      • And some dont. But nationality and location are not the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Additionally, the location of childhood plays a large role in determining most people's later lives, not to mention such fundamentals as the dialect that they speak. This may or may not be the same as the location of birth but most biographies don't distinguishing carefully. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I find it difficult to see how these considerations bear on the categorisation of the Royal Military Academy (Belgium) faculty. They were clearly people whose occupation was in Brussels. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, I see you are going ahead with edits to this effect in spite of the discussion here. Regardless of the merits of your argument, this behaviour is verging on disruptive. As for your claim above, it is perfectly possible to teach in institution in City A while never living there. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
To say a person is from a city does not mean that they were born there, not that they lived there. It is where they did what made them notable. I am following well established policy. If you want to change that policy this is not the place to do it. Rathfelder (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with Brigade Piron. We have usually used these categories only for people who were born or grew up in a city (i.e. are from there in the usual sense of the term). Changing this to people who may have lived or worked there for a bit is fundamentally changing the whole system of categorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Insofar it is desirable at all to categorize people by populated place at all, it is completely reasonable to have Category:Academics of the University of Oxford as a subcategory of Category:People from Oxford. Biographies are interesting from an encyclopedic point of view because of special things that people did or achieved in their life. If teaching at Oxford is the primary reason why people are notable they should be in an Oxford category if any at all. While we also categorize people by place of growing up, that is less relevant - it is (usually) not what makes people special. In any case "from" is ambiguous enough to allow both place of notability and place of growing up. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rathfelder and Marcocapelle. While users are free to apply such categories in a way that recognizes birthplace and/or place of growing up, I don't see any reason why the concept is not flexible enough to include people who lived in the city because of their occupation. A person can be "from" multiple places. I've seen it used in all these ways quite a bit in WP categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Help please?

Sorry to impose but I noticed you submitted a delete proposition on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 24. I was wondering if you could guide me to add one of my own? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is confusing and no help. I tried doing it on my own but I think I messed up, see here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Armegon (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What you need is Wikipedia:Twinkle. Rathfelder (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I never used twinkle before. How do I use it? Armegon (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

enable the "Twinkle" gadget in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page. (Don't forget to click "Save" at the bottom of the list of gadgets!)Rathfelder (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! You and this tinkle thing helped IMMENSELY!! I heard of it before but never bothered to learn what it is or use it 'til now. Again, thank you so much!! You just saved me some stress. Armegon (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I use it all the time! Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn proposal

Hey, when you withdraw a proposal that did not meanwhile gain support from any other editor, like here, it is ok to speedily close the discussion yourself. The procedure is very simple:

  • insert a blank line after the section title and put this bit of script {{subst:cfd top|'''withdrawn'''}} {{subst:nac}} ~~~~ on this line
  • put this bit of script {{subst:cfd bottom}} underneath the discussion
  • preview whether this looks ok
  • save if it looks ok
  • and do not forget to remove the CfD tags from the category pages

Instructions are more elaborate on this page. Don't feel you have to do this, it's just nice if you would. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Marc Guéhi

I understand the reasoning; however, multiple nations seem to have a category 'XXX emigrants to England' which include more contemporary persons. There are also some cats for 'XXX emigrants to the *Kingdom of* England' applying before 1707. Based on what you say, seems the categorisation project might have a bit of tidying up to do. Also, what about 'English emigrants to XXX'? Eagleash (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed a mess. I think it reflects English people's confused ideas about nationality. I thought I'd start with some of the smallest categories.Rathfelder (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the various subcats will need to be put up for discussion, could be best to bundle if possible. And... then there's 'expatriate (occupation) in England'. Then we come to things like '19xx establishments in England' should that be UK as well? I've seen several instances of articles being moved to the subcat. It's definitely an extended area for discussion and will probably need to be enshrined somewhere as policy; subject to consensus. Eagleash (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed its a big job, which I have been avoiding. I'm pleased to find we agree. I think it will be controversial, but I think the migration case is strong. Migration is about changing nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
That's one use of it... someone needs to tell all those birds flying south for the winter, that they are now South African... Google search results FWIW. Eagleash (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Glory Leppänen

Just so I know, why did you remove the 'People from Paris' cat from Glory Leppänen? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Categories are supposed to relate to the notability of the subject. There is no mention of her doing anything notable in France. It seems likely that she left Paris as a baby - unless you know different? Rathfelder (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Category: Polish Jews

Hi. Coming to check the page Category:Polish Jews today, a category I have been using frequently for my work for the last 10 years, I found that it was almost empty. On checking the pages of several people who used to be included in this category, it appeared that you were the user who had made most of the changes, in order to put each individual into smaller categories such as 20th-century Polish Jews etc. Could you please tell me why you have done this? Was there a discussion about this somewhere? I can understand the desire for precision, but having an overall Polish Jews category was much, much more helpful. I think it would be much better to have the original category restored to these pages, even if alongside the sub-categories you've added. I've never used HotCat, but I'd be willing to restore the pages manually unless you have a specific reason why you wanted to remove the umbrella Polish Jews category from these pages? Thank you. AmethystFloris (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The categorisation system is heirarchical. Biographies are all categorised both by geography and by century. Nothing new about this. Over-large categories are generally deprecated. Rathfelder (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Will you oppose me if I re-add the category to each page? AmethystFloris (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I certainly will. You had better read Wikipedia:Categorization Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The specific guidelines are fairly discretionary -- I don't agree that the category is "over-large". From a historical-cultural perspective, the Jews in Poland are aguably the most important Jewish community in Europe. As a researcher, it's much more helpful to have an over-arching category as a first port of call. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
But the community has clearly changed over time. Rathfelder (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't make any difference to historical study. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This scheme is not just about Poland. All biographies are categorised by time and place. Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That still doesn't preclude both categories being potentially included. The category served a useful and helpful purpose. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And it still does. But Wikipedia categorisation is heirarchical. Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
There are a lot of other subcategories - Rabbis, Ghetto inmates etc. Not created by me. Rathfelder (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
It serves very little purpose now that it's been removed from the majority of pages. There is considerable overlap between the Jews in Poland and the study of the Holocaust. Education on the Holocaust is of vital importance in terms of user accessibility, especially for lay-users. The category aided this purpose significantly. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you have fundamentally missed the point of the categorisation system. Rathfelder (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that prioritising the categorisation system over the importance of the dissemination of information, which is what an encyclopedia is for, is inappropriate and unhelpful. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont see why the study of the holocaust is impeded by locating articles by time and place. Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Because it was a lot more helpful to have an overall category as an initial starting point. We're going round in circles. I believe that the importance of this category in terms of Holocaust education supports its re-addition. You don't. We both clearly feel strongly about this issue. Why don't we both take a few days to think over the other's position. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
You can quite easily collect a list to include all the articles you are interested in. But you cant disrupt the categorisation system for your private purposes. Rathfelder (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not talking about my private purposes. The permenant removal of this category has significant negative impact on the education of the Holocaust. I think that fact gives the category enough worth to support its re-addition. As I said, perhaps we should take a few days to think about what each of us has said instead of going back and forth like this. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Its not been removed. Its been subdivided. And not just by me. Rathfelder (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
It has been removed from the individual pages in order to be subdivided. I think that serves an unhelpful purpose. And, indeed, no, not just by you; but you've already told me that you would specifically oppose my re-addition of the category to the individual pages -- which is why I'm having this conversation with you. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nondiffusing categories

If Category:British women academics is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:British academics, then presumably Category:Black British women academics (which you've just created) should be a non-diffusing subcat of Category:Black British academics? My head starts to spin about these, and I'm not confident enough about the syntax to just change the code myself. What do you think? As it stands, Carlene Firmin doesn't appear in any parent categories of Category:Black British women academics. Compare Category:African-American women academics, which is non-diffusing subcat of two parent cats, as are Category:Native American women academics and Category:New Zealand Māori women academics. PamD 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we need male categories to justify removing the non-diffusing women categories. I think I have managed this with the various categories of singers, but there is a lot more work to be done. Its clear that very large numbers of editors do not understand non-diffusing categories, so we should try to reduce their use. And this problem is even worse when you have intersections of two sorts of non-diffusing categories. Rathfelder (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Royalty and nobility are two entirely different things and can neither be interchanged nor sorted one under the other. Please read the articles if you need clarity on this! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to use the article's talk page rather than edit warring. And you also need to adhere to what the word "heirarchical" means. A pear cannot be categorized under apples just because apples are more popular or prettier that pears. Nobility is not any part of royalty. Read the articles (second request)! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Look at the royalty categories. They are all part of the Nobility category tree for their country. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Who did that, you? In those few cases where that may be the case, they need to be fixed since royalty and nobility are 2 completely different things, comparable to doctor and nurses or chief executives and department heads. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussions about categorisation need to be at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That's for discussing whether or not categories should be deleted or name-changed, not for the misuse of categories whose existence are non-problematic. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I dont know anywhere else for such discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The categories each have talk pages where their use ot misuse can be discussed.
Will you please stop doing this until the discussions reach consensus? The word nobility is not applicable in those cases. Read that article. If you object to our article, please start a discussion there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a very well established concensus which is displayed at Category:Nobility and its subcategories. You are at liberty to challenge it, but until you establish something different I will follow it. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
That is not correct. On the contrary the introductory text on that page is "Articles relating to the nobility, a social class normally ranked immediately below royalty" which directly contradicts what you wrote now.
Your continuing to do damage though you now must be aware of what nobility is, and is not, can clearly be considered disruptive editing, for administrative review, and I am warning you not to continue. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I am counting how many times you keep categorizing royalty as nobility, knowing that it's wrong, and that will used against you if you don't stop it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 (2)

Accusing someone of disruptive editing is clearly the kind of personal attack which none of us are allowed to make. Discuss and comment in a civil manner. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

Hello Rathfelder,

I have admired from afar your systematic work of categorizing biographies of Italians, and in this regard I have a question for you: often arrive on articles dedicated to Italians of the past (before 1860) users who, often in perfect good faith, sometimes less, remove the nationality "Italian" by inserting the citizenship of the pre-unification state of the person in question (Tuscan, Neapolitan, Roman, etc.). Now, it is evident that on Wikipedia (as in the real world) there is a consensus to recognize an Italian (or German, other people who reached unification in the nineteenth century) nationality at least since the late Middle Ages, but where is this consensus described? Is there a guideline that allows to avoid debilitating discussions with users (among other things often totally ignorant) who do not know the history of Italians, and of other peoples who have achieved late (or never) their national state? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any general policy. Each historical/geographical entity has to be considered. There does seem to be agreement that we shouldnt call people Belgian before 1800, as the term wasnt generally used. And both Spain and France in the middle ages can be divided fairly easily. But as far as I can see both Italy and Germany were terms in general use long before either was unified. In Germany most of the states were so small as to make it impractical to have 18th century writers from Baden. But the Italian states were bigger and more stable, so I have tried to make some Venetian and Sicilian categories. But we have a general agreement that categories should have at least 5 articles, so its not practical to divide all of them like that - so we have Category:4th-century Italian people and not much attention to division by state until the 12th century. There are certainly enough articles to divide Category:16th-century Italian painters into states, but nobody seems to have tried. I'm afraid this isnt very helpful. You have to use your judgement. And bear in mind that categorisation is a process of successive approximation. Perfection is the enemy of improvement. Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for article publications.

Please I wanted an article to be published. I'll love to have your contact to meet you personal and negotiate regarding the work Elvmeen (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:15th-century Spanish troubadours has been nominated for merging

Category:15th-century Spanish troubadours 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ARathfelder">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rathfelder&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>