iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnpacklambert
User talk:Johnpacklambert - Wikipedia Jump to content

User talk:Johnpacklambert

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Philip I Philadelphus

[edit]

Philip I Philadelphus is the only article in 83 BC deaths. Except there is debate as to whether he died in that year of 75 BC instead. It would probably be best if we moved his article to 1st-century BC deaths, and for now ended the 83 BC deaths category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chapel Christian Academy

[edit]
Notice

The article Chapel Christian Academy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Now closed. Run of the mill, private school. Not enough information to merge.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thank you, Mr. Lambert. Bearian (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rating and sourcing of Monroe Berkowitz

[edit]

Dear Mr. Lambert, while I’m still here on your page, can you please rate this stub as a Start-class, and add any relevant sources or categories? Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Possibly fictious people from the Roman Empire

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Possibly fictious people from the Roman Empire 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. ✗plicit 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Possibly fictious people from Europe

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Possibly fictious people from Europe 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. ✗plicit 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish/Portuguese people too soon

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Category:Kingdom of Scotland people

[edit]

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

Editing of era styles

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will keep this in mind. The bigger issue with Ancient categories is we have excessive numbers of overly small birth and death year categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert&oldid=1263146856"