User talk:Marcocapelle#Improper non-admin closure of CfD

This category has 1 entry. The 1 entry would technoically go in Category:Kingdom of Scotland expatriates in the Republic of Venice. Since the Republic of Venice lasts until 1797, it exists for 90 years after Scoland becomes part of the Kingdom of Great Britain, so the current name and the more precise name do not actually cover the same thing. As it is the category is hindering not helping navigation. The one person is also in Kingdom of Scotland expatriates in France, so we would only need to upmerge this to Expatraites in the Republic of Venice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Expatriates in the Republic of Venice has about 80 articles in it, however all except about 13 are people who were ambassadors assigned there. It may however have potential for expansion with existing articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Overall for people in places that are now Italy in the time frame from about 800 or earlier until 1860 we have a several lack of actually categorizing people by the specific state they lived in. I doubt it helps that we have 16th-century Venetians and 16th-century Neopolitans categories, that are meant to cover anyone from the Republic of Venice or the Kingdom of Naples during that century, but the name can easily be misread to refer only to the city and not the whole area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The category :Category:Belgian alchemists has 4 entries. 3 are people who died before 1700, which is still over a century before Belgium was formed in 1830. So they do not belong. The 4th is on someone who I think was a 20th-century figure. The article says he was an alchemist. I guess I could empty it down to just the 1 article, but I think we should just get rid of the whole thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} presumably the other three are "from the Spanish Netherlands", right? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I have put them there for now. Is 3 really enough. Gerhard Dorn lives late enough to count, but since the Spanish Netherlands only exists from 1555, before ot was the Habsburg Netherlands, he existed in both. He dies in 1584, and was only in his mid-20s or so (I believe we di not know the year he was born, but evidently the early 1530s), so he is mainly in the Spanish Netherlands. The kines between the Burgundian Netherlands/Habsburg Netherlands/Spanish Netherlands/Austrian Netherlands are not always super clear. 1549 sees Charkes V cen tralize administration. 1482 is when Mary of Burgundy dies, but at some level it goes from being running by her husband Maximilian to still being run by Maximilian as regent for his son. The states change over time in regards to boundaries. It gets complex.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The Category Belgian legal writers has 1 article. We at present only have 20 total countries with legal writers categories. Legal writers in theory are very connected to legal systems, which normally differ by country. 47 legal writers are directly in the parent. The one article in Belgian legal writers is on someone who died in 1581. Yes died that year. He died 249 years before Belgium was created. He lived in the Habsburg Netherlands and Spanish Netherlands (it is unclear that the changes in 1555 had much affect on those in the loelw countries). He may also have a connection to Spain. Initially I removed the article because he clearly does not belong, and I had no idea he was the only one. I realized he was the only one, and restored the article. It clearly does not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:On further review the "witch trials in Spain" Category made no sense so I removed it. The subject did study in France though. I also have doubts that "supporters of witch hunting" is a good Category. We do not normally categorize prleople by what thry supported, were in favor of, advocated etc. I really think an upsurge to legal writers would work. He is already in a lawyer Category for the polity he was from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Admin,

Kindly Review and move it to main article page: Draft:Vastav AI

Thank You! 103.151.188.13 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this category should just be merged to the People from Category. Someone does not need to be raised in a place to be from there, just to have a defining connection to there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This article has 1 entry. It is on a 12th-century philosopher who lived somewhere in West Africa, maybe in the Mali Empire. The issue is Malian referees to people from Mali, a country that adopted that name at independence. It was known as the French Soudan during the colonial era. To act as if there is a coherent continuing nationality connecting 11th-century people to the present is to engage in a presentation of the world that does not connect to reality. Plus we only have 1 article, which means the Category holds no navigational purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This category seems misnamed. I believe in theory it should be Category:Expatriates from Bohemia in the Dutch Republic. However right now it only has 1 article, so upmergimg to Category:People from Bohemia and to Category:Expatriates in the Duch Republic makes more sense for now. The Dutch Republic ends in about 1793 while it tkreally down not make sense to call people Czech Expatriates until there is a Czech Republic to be an Expatriate from, and that is not the case until 1993, so we are talking a 200 year gap. If the gap was the other way around, Expatriates from the Dutch Republic in the Czech Republic, it is possibly to be an expatriate from somewhere that no longer exists, sort of, in theory, maybe. However that would not exist because no one lives 200 years. However you cannot be an expatriate from somewhere before it is formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Article is in a dozen Czech categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The split between Habsburg Netherlands and Spanish Netherlands per our article is not the de facto independence of the Dutch Republic, but even earlier. It is per the article on the Spanish Netherlands in 1555. This is the year Philip II becomes the ruler and so only controls the Netherlands, the Duchy of Burgundy, Some studlff in Italy and Spain. He does not control the core Habsburg lands in and around modern Austria nor hold the title of Holy Roman Empire. All the Ambassadors currently in the article were not even born until after 1555, let alone serving as Ambassadors. Although this means the sub-cat probably would be better renamed to Ambassadors of England to the Spanish Netherlands. Although part of me wonders if with just 3 articles we should just upmerge to Ambassadors of the Kingdom of England and Ambassadors to the Spanish Netherlands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:As far as I can tell these 3 articles are the only 3 that are categorized as Ambassadors to the Habsburg Netherlands, and we have no articles categorized as Ambassadors to the Spanish Netherlands. I think we should just upmerge the sub-cat to Ambassadors of the Kingdom of England and Expatriates in the Spanish Netherlands. I am pretty sure there are a few merchants based in Antwerp from elsewhere in the 1555-1714 time frame who would fit in the latter category. On the other side Ambassadors of the Habsburg Netherlands has 7 entries, but thry are all post-1555 office holders, almost all post-1555 births, so it should also be renamed to Ambassadors of the Spanish Netherlands. Assuming that it is right and thry really were that, and not Ambassadors of Spain who were from the Spanish Netherlands. I did not do much more than look at the dates of birth and death, so I am not sure what government these 7 people were Ambassadors for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::There is also a Category Diplomats of the Habsburg Netherlands. Between the diplomats and Ambassadors cats there are only 11 articles. I did realize something though. From 1598-1921 the Spanish Netherlands were essentially an independent country. The ruling monarch was Albert VII with his wife Isabelle Clair. Her father was Philip II of Spain. He passed thr crown to them. Albert was both Philip's nephew on his mother's side and the grandson of Philip's father on his mother's side. So from 1598-1621 the Spanish Netherlands is a fully functioning country sending out diplomats. It is clear because they are serving the joint sovereign rulers, not the King of Spain. At other periods it is not as clear what entity the diplomats are representing. There is one person who the article says Charles II sent him as an emissary for the Spanish Netherlands, so it looks like in general these articles are so linked. I did find one person who was clearly said to have been a diplomat for Spain so I moved him to that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

An editor just placed Irish immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies as a subcat of Irish immigrants to the United Ststes. This is just plain wromg. The United States is a different place than the Thirteen Colonies. This is one of the really unjustified category decisions that treat the political reality that exists today as if it divides the world for all time and forever. We need to stop making catrgories this way. Immigration to the Thirteen Colonies is nit a subcategory of immigration to the United States, it is a totally different thing in a titally different place. Immigration is country to country, and we should reflect this in how we build categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear Marcocapelle,

Anne Darwin was not from Malvern (she went there to die, read the article). Could you please repair your edit? Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{done}} Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I just came across :Category:Flemish expatriates in Italy which only has 1 article. The problem is that Flemish is a fairly inprecise term. I think that where the one person was from in the category was actually part of the Duchy of Brabant however at the time he was from the area in the 17th-century, which is his entire life, the general way to refer to the area is the Spanish Netherlands, and we have a :Category:People from the Spanish Netherlands because sub-categorizing by Flanders, Brabant, Artois (at least before it is annexed by France), etc. really is not meaningful at that point. On the other hand there is not really an Italy to be an expatriate in. He was in Rome, so in the Papal States. We have :Category:Expatriates in the Papal States. Category:Expatriates from the Spanish Netherlands has not been formed. So for now the article probably should be put in Category:People from the Spanish Netherlands and at least if people believe the time spent in Rome is defining also in Category:Expatriates in the Papal States. I do not think we need a one article intersection category, so I do not think we need Category:Expatriates from the Spanish Netherlands in the Papal States at this time, but that is what we should name this category. The name could be changed to Expatriates from the County of Flanders in the Kingdom of Italy, to cover people in the Kingdom of Italy in about the 10th-century who were from the Kingdom of Flanders. I have a strong suspicion we have few people who would in theory fit in that category, and the maybe one article we would have would be the daughter of the Count of Flanders who then married the Kingdom of Italy and went there to reign. I am not sure there is any such person, but there might. I am unconvinced that putting people in such royal marriages in expatriate and or emigration categories makes sense at all, but if we were to do it (I am not sure there is even an article on a person who fits this description), the person sound more like they would belong in Category:Emigrants from the County of Flanders to the Kingdom of Italy. However pre-1000 it is very hard to decide what is and what is not emigration within Frankish lands, in part because the Franks pretty much sub-divide each of their territories between each child to create new rulerships, but calling movement between these places either emigration or expatriation, especially when it connects to royal marriages just does not seem the right approach to creating meaningful categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

In usage on Wikipedia we use "Turkish" to refer to people who are connected with the modern nation of Turkey, formed in 1922. Only 2 of these people borderline fit that description. One is the grandson of the last Ottoman Sultan, whose mother may have at one point been a citizen or resident of Turkey. The other is the son of that first person. Every other article is either A-on a name/family, which I am not sure belong in this category at all or 2-on people of Turkic descent, most of whom lived long before 1922. Since the Mughal Emperors were Turkic in origin (I think), and since there were lots of other Turkic people who came into India, and they had lots of descendants, these categories could be expanded. I am not sure though that "Turkic descent" is really a defining category. I really think the best option is to delete this mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is this so named when the parent is Women poets. All other sub-cats that use a term use women. The one exception is "fictional female poets" and that might be so it can contain non-human females.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:There are nearly 180 categories that use women poets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The category Czech alchemists has 2 articles. Both of them are actually 16th-century people from Bohemia. If we are to keep it we would best rename in Alchemists from Bohemia. I am unconvinced we need a category for two articles though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ambassador categories reflect governments. The Netherlands in any meaningful ways, as a coherent linked state that receives Ambassadors, begins in 1814. At the time England ends as a seperate country sending its own Ambassadors in 1707 they are sent to The Dutch Republic. I think this should be renamed to Ambassadors of England to the Dutch Republic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

For reasons that are not in the least clear we have :Category:Fishers but we have an article entitled Fisherman. The reality is the vast majority of sources, and basically all our articles use the term "fisherman". I really think we should rename this to fishermen. It looks like the tree is combining people who are fishermen as an occupation and people who do sport fishing. I think we probably should have seperate Category trees for the two so ce they are not actually the sane thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some may doubt whether bring a fisherman is defining to many notable people. I just cane across the article on John Dennys where he clearly is defined by being a fisherman. Maybe not notable for that per se, he is notable as an "angling poet", but if he was not a fisherman I doubt he would have been any good as a poet. Sort of like how Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, may not be notable as an engineer per se, but his being an engineer color's what makes him notable so much that it is without debate defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:* It is plausible that fishers is used as a set designation while fisherman is the topic. Using fishermen as a set designation sounds odd considering that women may be part of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::* Our articles universally say the person was a "fisherman". That is the universally used term. As this search shows [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22women+fishermen%22&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1146US1146&oq=%22women+fishermen%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQABgKGIAEMgkIAhAAGAoYgAQyCQgDEAAYChiABDIJCAQQABgKGIAEMggIBRAAGBYYHjINCAYQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAcQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAgQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAkQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCDQ4NTZqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] "women fishermen" is a term people actually use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Some of the virologists in 1 article categories are in no other categories by nationality. So thry should I think be selectively upmerged to the X nationality scientists unless they are in another sub-category of that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The category Category:Ryukyuan people of Chinese descent is an odd category. Ryukyuan is said to be a category by ethnicity. I do not think it makes sense to categorize people as ethnicity A of descent B. I think if we need to keep this at all it should be renamed to Category:People from the Ryukyu Kingdom of Chinese descent. For the same reason that we should not mix ethnicity and nationality as if they are the same thing, we should rename the 18th-century Ryukyuan people and earlier categories to 18th-century people from the Ryukyu Kingdom, etc. Since the Ryukyu Kingdom ends in 1879, I think we should create 19th-century people from the Ryukyu Kingdom, and then merge any post-1879 and the 10 20th-century articles to Ryukyu people and its sub-categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Leaving this for later, I am too unfamiliair with the topic right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should rename Category:Bohemian nobility to Category:Nobility from Bohemia. "Bohemian" is also a term used for people with a certain type of life-style, especially around 1900. There were some who were in this lifestyle who were nobles, so the term is potentially confusing. Also, because of how it is confusing, we have few other uses of Bohemian. 4 sub-cats already use the form nobility from Bohemia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• A parent category is Category:People from Bohemia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This category for people exploring this 1 city in India has 1 article. The 1 article is also in Explorers of South Asia, and the article makes clear the subject actually explored several cities in South Asia, not just Ayodhya.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The category English expatriates in the Mughal Empire at present has 2 articles in the ambassadors sub-cat and 1 article in the main category. It might be expandable. The problem is that the Mughal Empire technically exists until 1857. It begans to decline after 1707, but it is still possible to be an expatriate there as late as the 1750s. So this is not actually the same as Category:Kingdom of England expatriates in the Mughal Empire (although the ambassador sub-cat would be). However the one person in the category died pre-1707. I think because it could include post-1707 people, we would be off be renaming this category to Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of England in the Mughal Empire, or probably even better just upmerging for now into Category:Expatriates in the Mughal Empire and Category:Expatriates from the Kingdom of England. People who spent a few months doing merchant activities along the very edges of the empire do not really belong in this category, even less so people who were merchants in areas clearly under English rule (like Bombay), who may have made a month's trip into the Mughal Empire 1 time. I think that is going to be most of the people from the Kingdom of England who were in what is now India during the 16th and 17th centuries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on :Category:Ancient Hinduism 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!} 06:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this category should be renamed to Category:Baroque composers from Bohemia. If you dig down our articles define Baroque composers as those who composed from approximately 1600 to 1760. So That is the time frame. We are in general categorizing musicians by nation/country they are subjects of, not by ethnicity. Large numbers of people living throughout Bohemia in this time frame were ethnically German. At least among the nobility at this time even those with Czech ancestry often functioned in German. This is also before the awakening of National consciousness in the 19th-century, so this way of describing people in largely anachronistic. We also have in general renamed to from Bohemia for this time frame.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:The catehory 17th-century Czech people in a redirect to 17th-century people from Bohemia. If that is the case, than Baroque composers, who are defined as composing in the time frame 1600-1760 should follow that lead. The sane redirect has been done for 18th-century Czech people. So for the entire time frame of the Baroque we have decided that From Bohemia, not Czech, is the best way to describe the people involved. This would suggest we would be best off renaming this category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Our article defines Baroque composers as those who composed from about 1600 until about 1760. There was no Belgium in that time. I removed the one article on a person who worked after about 1714, so everyone left in the category would fall under a category named Baroque composers from the Spanish Netherlands. This is probably what this category would best be renamed to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nominated for merge to Flemish. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think :Category:Slaves by nationality is a very poorly named category. We in generally categorize slaves by the country where they were enslaved, not the country they were from originally. I think it would be much more accurate if we renamed the categories from say American slaves, Brazilian slaves, etc to Slaves in the United States, Slaves in Brazil etc. and renamed the parent category from Slaves by nationality to Slaves by country. There are several other topics we categorize by country not nationality, and I think this is another one that would help from that categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Likewise I think we should rename a category like Category:Slaves from the Ottoman Empire to Category:Slaves in the Ottoman Empire. Several of the people are people who spent most of their life elsewhere, but were for a time enslaved people in the Ottoman Empire. So saying they were from the Ottoman Empire is disputable, but saying they were slaves in the Ottoman Empire is clearly accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering we use Category:16th-century people from Bohemia, I think Category:Czech Renaissance humanists would be better off renamed to Renaissance humanists from Bohemia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Why does this category exist? I would think either people are connected enough to be categorized as "from" the place, pr the connection is not defining enough to categorize them in this way at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Right now we have Category:Milliners cover all people involved in hat making. This is historically inaccurate. The character is Alice in Wonderland is "the mad hatter" never "the mad milliner". Hatters made men's hats. Milliners were involved with women's hats. We probably should just rename the Category to Category:Hatters and milliners, since in the 19th-century a milliner would never be called a hatter either, but today the professions are less distinct, and our number of notable people from either profession is not super huge. I just ended up placing an immigrant to the Plymouth Colony in the milliner category, even though he was a hat maker, never even remotely considered a milliner, because that is what we currently do, despite its significant historical inaccuracies. I was tempted to start a new hatter category, but decided it would be better to discuss this. Although I did bring this up a year or so ago, and people supported it, it was in a discussion on the categories Wiki group, but no one did anything about it. It us frustrating to be restricted from participating in CfD discussions, especially since the events that caused that restriction to be imposed had absolutely nothing to do with CFD at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems an odd catrgory. Especially since it is a mix of biography and non-biography articles. Also most of it is thinks that happened long before 1776. It begs the question "is this ship/person First in the United States, or first in English/British Colonies on mainland North America". They are not even remotely the same. Is the first thing in Puerto Rico first in the US since it is now under US control? First in Florida? First in New Mexico? Also what 8s meant by "first from social group" also seems odd. This if it is a coherent topic might be much better covered by an article with a list than a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Restored the parent cat due to his founding of Alpha Delta tau.Naraht (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Naraht}} there shouldn't be any articles in the parent cat as they are already in one of the subcats, see WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Since the subcats are Non-diffusing, that doesn't apply. He started one group that is in a subcategory and one group that doesn't fit into any of the subcategories.Naraht (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Naraht}} they aren't non-diffusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Just marked them as being so. Entirely possible for someone to have started more than one group including a fraternity and a sorority, so even if there was a category for the type of group that Alpha Delta Tau is (the cat was recently deleted since Abram W. Harris was the only article in it), it should count as non-diffusing. Let me know if having other members of the Fraternties and sororities Wikiproject chime in would be useful.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::* {{ping|Naraht}} that does not make any sense. Non-diffusing means that all articles in a category should also be in the parent category or in a sibling. Non-diffusing categories are an escape in WP:FINALRUNG issues, but that does not apply here. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that a lot of people are in this category. We generally do not put biographies in non-biogrpahical categories. I am not sure what they should be called though. We may have a mix of Catgory:Writers of works that are Commedia dell'arte and Category:Actors in Commedia dell'arte. Do you think that these would be workable cateogries, or would it border on performer by performance categories, or maybe the writers would work but the actors would not. What do you think?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} I created an actors subcategory but :Category:Commedia dell'arte still is a bit of a hodgepodge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Well it is an improvement to have an actors cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

We have a category :Category:Consorts of Brandenburg. This is poorly named. It should be named something like Category:Consorts of the rulers of Brandenburg. It is a sub-cat of "German consorts". If we need such a parent at all, based on the contents here, its parent really should be something like Category:Consorts of rulers in the Holy Roman Empire. I think I will unilaterally create that one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The Category :Category:Burials at Watford is Burials by basically a city, not by a cenetery/equivalent. I believe we want these by city/state/county/country etc. Cats to only have Cemetery sub-cats, which this does not, so we probably do not want it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that Wikipedia has 16th-century Breton people and 17th-century Bretton people as categories. The thing is that in 1526 Brittany goes from being a mostly independent country to being an integral part of France. Reflecting this I recently created a category Category:People from the Province of Brittany, to specifically cover people from the Province of Brittany from 1536-1790. This is part of the series People by French province abolished in 1790. The various categories are meant to cover people by the French Provinces from when they were created. It is a complex set of categories. Since the Provinces had been created at various times. Almost a third of France in 1780 had at one point been in the Holy Roman Empire, and the process of acquisition happens at various times over about 500 years. Plus at least one of the Provinces, the one around Orlean, had been vmcreated by merger in about 1550. It gets even more crazy because several of the places, like Normandy and Brittany, were earlier basically quasi-indepedent states, and many are used as names of regions recreated at a later date. I am trying to build categorization where we link people to the actual regional polity thry actually lived in. I think this is a lit easier if we use from formations instead of demonyms. We generally do not use demon's for sub-nationsl entities, only for places where it is at least theoretically clear who is and who is not a national. For this reason I think we should either merge 17th-century Breton people to People from the Province of Brittany or at least rename it to 17th-century people from the Province of Brittany. "Bretton" is often taken to be an ethnic or linguistic identifier. We want to instead cover people who were resident in the Province of Brittany definingly in the period. Since there is no clear citizenship in Brittany while it is integrally part of France, I think we are best off avoiding applying there is and just using the People from form of category name. I am not sure that Bretton is the best watmy to describe and categorize people pre-1536, but I think we do not want to use it at all after that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do we have :Category:17th-century Canadian poets? There is no Canada per se until at arguably the earliest the British takeover in 1760, although as a name of a place that is legally recognized it is more 1791. This category has one French-born poet who was also the head of New France and one English-born poet who was colonial governor of the Emglish Colony of Newfoundland, which would not even merge into Canada until 1949.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was going to suggest merging, but the issue is 18th-century Canadian poets are all late 18th-century, most post-American revolution, migrants to Nova Scotia (and only 4 articles), so I think this category of 17th scholarship be snapped, they are really a French and an English poet. We might repurpose and merge the 18th century cat with some 1oth century to make Catmtegory:Poets from the Colony of Nova Scotia, but that might take some work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

This category :Category:Dutch emigrants to the British Virgin Islands is misleading lyrics named. The British Virgin Islands come under English control in 1672, it is not technically British until 1707. The articles here are 1-a person from the Dutch Republic who settled, I think as a pirate, in the early 17th-century on these small little governed Caribbean islands, I believe under claimed Spanish control. 2-the man from the Dutch Republic who administered the Islands up until they came under British control in 1672.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:The second guy on further review was the owner of Tortuga, he bought it from the Dutch West India Company. I think we could just merge these two people to Category:Emigrants from the Dutch Republic. Either that or delete the Category and put the guy who bought Tortuga from the Dutch West India Company into Category:Dutch West India Company people, the other one is still there, on the theory that as someone the company was willing to sell ownership rights to he had enough connection to fit in the Category. Clearly neither of these are emigrants to the British Virgin Islands/I guess English Virgin Islands, or whatever the area may best be called from 1672-1707. I can see an argument to allow Category:Immigrants to the British Virgin Islands cover everyone from 1672 forward, but I do not think it makes any sense to use the term in relation to people migrating to the area before 1672.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::On digging deeper I realized we have an article Dutch Caribbean which covers all places in the Caribbean that have ever been Dutch, including Araba and Sint Martin and I think Saba to the present. So I just added these two people to the existing category :Category:People from the Dutch Caribbean. I think we can now delete this misleading named Category that isolates them from their actual area of operation, which was the Dutch Caribbean.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better olif we renamed 17th-century American people to either 17th-century people from the 13 Colonies or in some ways to 17th-century people to English North American mainland Colonies, or maybe to 17thth century people to English North American Colonies, but that would slightly broaden the scope. Any way we go what we want is the category to cover people living in English contelrolled areas that eventually become the 13 Colonies, although that name makes no sense until after 1730. We do not want to include people in New Netherland, New Sweden along the Delaware, Cherokee people living beyond English control, let alone people in Spanish Florida (even parts of modern Georgia in Spanish Florida), New France, even when operating in the modern United States, and absolutely not people in Nuevo Mexico and Tejas. We do want to include Pocahontas also known as Rebecca Rolfe, and other non-English as well as English people living in actually English Colonies, including ethnic Dutch residents of New York after the English take control. Less clear is if English subjects in Bermuda, Barbados, Newfoundland, and in the latter years Jamaica, should be put in this category. The 13 Colonies name I think is the easiest to control scope, although it is technically anachronistic, because there were not 13 Colonies until well into the 18th-century. American is imposing later naming conventions, ignoring the fact that the earliest are almost all immigrants so the People from the Thirteen Colonies seems a better way to identify them, and to easily taken to mean people who lived under the control of powers other than England. I thinkbit still is the best since it connects to a clear article. If we are going to use another name, it has to be English something because the Colonies are not British until 1707, because there is no Britain to be British under until 1707.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Should we really have Category:17th-century Romanian people when there was no Romania at the time. There was Moldavoa, Wallachia, and Transylvania which I believe by the end of the century was clearly ruled by the Kingdom of Hungary under Habsburg rule. These are supposed to be categories by the place people are citizens/subjects of, but there was no Romania to be a citizen/subject of. Considering how many of the people, especially the ones who have articles, in Transylvania were actually Hungarian or German by ethnicity, this category really amounts to imposing mid-19th century, and because of Transylvania, 20th-century geopolitical decisions several centuries before they occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} at least now :Category:17th-century Romanian people has become a container category after I diffused it to Moldavian and Wallachian. The Romanian subcats of it may still be diffused to Moldavian and Wallachian but I am going to leave that to someone else. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Well military is fully diffused. I do have to wonder if we do not let biographical articles go directly in say Romanian women, then why do we diffuse women by nationality and century. I really think we should only directly place articles in gender categories by occupation, governmrntal office (which I guess is a type of occupation), and other very specific intersections where gender is seen to be defining (like male/female suicides). I at least think say 19th-century American women should be fully diffused to 19th-century American women writers, 19th-century American women artists, 19th-century American women educators, etc. And not have any direct educators. The rules for diffusion for gender are different than for ethnicity. We are perfectly happy to have people in American Latino and Hispanic people, Native American people, African American people, Sri Lankan Tamil people, Kurdish people, etc. and not diffuse them at all, but we do not want to split every article into either American women or American men.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The Category Category:Algerian emigrants to Egypt has one article. The article is on a 17th-century person who moved between the two places when they were both part of the Ottoman Empire. I do not think this is immigration, so at present the category should most likely be deleted because the one article in it is not on an immigrant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The first person in this category was a member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots. These were civilian pilots who supported military operations during the war, but were designated as civilians. The key question we need to answer is "how is this category scope limited so it does not become every woman in the US who was a civilian during World War II". I am not sure we want the journalists here at all. However why is Women Aurforce Service Pilots (were they just WWII or is it broader do we need an "in WWII modifier"? Not its own category. What other people would have this as a notable categoryJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

We have :Category:Royal mistresses but it has subcats with names like :Category:Mistresses of French royalty. It would seem to me to make more sense if we named the parent category "mistresses or royalty", both because it would match and because it would be more clear. Right now it is possible to misinterpret (maybe not likely, but it is a way to understand the term) to see "royal mistresses", not as people who are the mistress of a royal person, but as a women who is royal and a mistress. The later in theory exist, nothing prevents them from existing, and I am sure there are some cases of such somewhere. Even if royal mistress is normally used to mean exactly the same thing as "mistress of royalty", the later term is clearly more precise, and since we use it in the subcats .John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} that will surely be opposed because of the article title Royal mistress. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Which really should be renamed to Mistresses of royalty. A royal mistress would be a person who is royal who is a mistress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The Category :Category:Ambassadors of Spain has 102 sib-catehories. A full 50 of these have 1 article. Yet it also has 16 direct articles, so we do accept direct contents, this is not a container Category. I would say this is the most shallow Category tree I have ever seen, but I may have seen Ambassador categories that have higher percentages of 1 article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I just realized that Category:Ambassadors of Mali to India, has 1 article. That article is in 10 Ambassador categories. All 10 of them have 1 article. The article says that person presented his credentials to only 8 heads of state while Ambassador. I am not sure I have ever seen a case of a person being in so many one article categories. I fear it is not even close to a record.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a technically falsely named category. With just 1 exception (and he was even born before this was the case) this category is really people from Nancy, Duchy of Lorraine. Up until 1766 Lorraine was not part of France, but part of the Holy Roman Empire. However for several centuries it was nearly de facto independent. I think we should rename this to Category:Nobility from the Duchy of Lorraine. Especially since right now it looks like Category:House of Lorraine is trying to cover that. The problem is that after Francis married Marie Teresa, the main part of the House of Lorraine is off ruling Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary, as well as various places in Italy. Marie Antonette the Queen of Louis XVI was part of the House of Lorraine, but she was not from Lorraine at all. On the other hand before 1473 there was another house that ruled Lorraine, but it was the same Duchy. Plus if we make this Nobility from the Duchy of Lorraibe we can include lower level nobles who were not part of the House of Lorraine. Technically I could try cresting a Nobility from the Duchy of Lorraine Category, but it would largely overlap this and add Category clutter. Nobility by City is a category scheme we have little of. We do have a Category:Nobility from the Republic of Genoa, and a few others that look like thry are by city, but thry are really by the State that shared the name of the city. The state here is not named Nancy, but the Duchy of Lorraine, so I think we should use that name. We may have a few other Nobility by city where the city is not the same in name as a state. Since the noble categories are grouping people basically by the political entity their titles were issued from, and not always by where they actually lived, I think we probably should get rid of similar categories. However most do not mislead as to what country these people were nobles in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:There was another branch of the House of Lorraine who became the Counts if Harcourt in 1557. This was a title in Normandy, so they were actually French, and like most of the French nobility mainly lived in Paris from some point in the 17th-century. So Nobility from the Duchy of Lorraine is not the same as House of Lorraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::It appears it was decided that all female members of the House of Lorraine belong in the category :Category:Princesses of Lorraine. I think this category exists because A. Lorraine was a de facto independent state with a ruler who was in effect a monarch. B. The assumption is that "Peoncess" is the title usable for female members of a royal house who are not the queen. C. From what I see we do put people in both Queen of England and English Pricesses cats, etc. I suspect Elizabeth I and Queen Anne are in both. For Queens consort, as long as they married the furniture king before he was king, we put them in the X princesses or Primcess of X Category. I just looked up Anne. She is in both English and Scottish Princesses. There at least it is largely limited to either the daughters of the monarch, or people who were recognized by title. It is not clear that the title of even the daughters of the Duke of Lorraine himself were titled princess. If we limited it to them, it might at least be a functional use. We instead use it also for 4th and 5th generation members if a cadet branch of the ruling house. I think this use is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::* Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposal to rename this to Category:Military leaders of the Tsardom of Russia. I think that is incorrect. That implies there is a title "Military leader of the Tsardom of Russia", either formally or de facto so we can say "Ivan Alexovich was the military leader of the Tsardom of Russia." We would not say that. We would say something like "Ivan Alexovich served as a military leader for the Tsardom of Russia." I wish I had thought deeper on the title for this category. I think it should be "Category:Military leaders for the Tsardom of Russia", which would match the existing "Category:Diplomats for the Tsardom of Russia". I also think we should rename Category:Military personnel of the Tsardom of Russia" to "Military personnel for the Tsardom of Russia". I think in most cases we should limit "of" to cases where it is an actual title or at least a position you only have one holder of at a time, while in cases where multiple people at once hold the position, but it is clearly tied to holding the position for a particular state, we should use "for". So we have :Category:Diplomats for France and :Category:Consuls for the Russian Empire and a whole lot of similar categories. Right now they may all be with diplomatic positions, but I think military positions work as well. We have :Category:Duchesses in Germany and :Category:Counts in Italy and similar, but that is beause these are tied to in theory administering particular places, and being there, at least part of the time. Many diplomats serve outside their home country, so "Diplomats in Germany" or "Diplomats in Italy" would invite articles on diplomats for France, Spain, etc. serving in those countries. While military leaders are more often based and operating in their home countries, they spend enough time abroad, especially during wars which are often the most defining part of their career, that "in" would not work. We do also have :Category:Colonial officials for France and a few similar categories so it is not just diplomats who are designated as "for". I am thinking there are more categories that should use in and for, and less that should use of. However Changing these two Tsardom of Russia categories is a good first step. If for no other reason than that unless it is clearly invoking a title, using "of" twice in the same category name is probably not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Proposed split. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I just realized that :Category:Nobility from Florence is a nobility by city category we probably need to split up. It is merging together what should be named :Category:Nobility from the Republic of Florence (such did actually exist), :Category:Nobility from the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (which is probably what we should rename :Category:Tuscan nobility to, while at the same time purging :Category:Nobility from the Republic of Lucca since that is people from a different polity). I am thinking we should then create a :Category:Nobility from the Kingdom of Italy category to cover people from 1861 - about 1945, the end year being a bit fuzzy. Then we should purge anyone post-1948. Per our article Italian nobility (which is defined as "in the Italian peninsula, so should we exclude people from the Savoyard state and the Republic of Venice because neither is clearly on the peninsula, and from the Kingdom of Sicily, we actually are using it as "people from states that were based within the current boundaries of Italy (we are not sure if this means 1875 or 1925) but we are a bit fuzzy about properly including everyone from the Savoyard state, and not clear if all subjects of the Republic of Venice were Italian, and we maybe exclude those from South Tyrol, at least when we do not overuse modern boundaries)." I think we can use :Category:Italian nobility as a parent category. Then have Nobility from the Papal States, Nobility from the Kingdom of Naples, Nobility from the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Nobility from the Republic of Lucca, etc. Although I think "in" would maybe be an even better name for all these sub-cats. So I would actually think calling it Category:Nobility in the Republic of Florence, Nobility in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, Nobility in the Kingdom of Italy, would be better. This is not saying the title holder was in that place, but whatever noble title the person held was in that place. It is basically a short form of "Nolble people in the Nobility system of the Republic of Florence" etc. So "Nobility in the Savoyard state" includes a person who lived his whole life in Paris, if he holds a title that was part of the Savoyard state noble system, and "Nobility in the Papal States", excludes a Duke of York or a Count of Anjou who actually lived in Rome during the 13th-century. I do not know any examples of the above. Using "from" instead of "in" would not actually solve the problem with these theoreticals. We can illustrate the problem with the last person who actually held the technically title Queen of England, Queen Anne. She is both a "Scottish princess" and an "English princess". I am not sure she ever actually lived in Scotland (If her father-in-law had not already died when she married George, she might also be a Princess from Denmark-Norway without ever having been there either, maybe that should be renamed to Category:Princesses in Denmark-Norway). "English" and "Scottish" modify the scope of her being the princess, they do not have any bearing to where she actually lived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Check. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that the distribution of people between :Category:Explorers; :Category:Sailors and :Category:Navigators is often haphazard. There are land based explorers, and I guess there are navigators who are not actually explorers, and I guess the navigator is the person who is in charge of determining where the vessel will go, so you have a lot of sailors who are not navigators (although the navigator is more likely to be notable). So these do not technically overlap, but which of these three categories people are in is not consistent. I also know that technically you have air navigators. I am wondering though if the last group is justified in being distinguished from aviators. Amelia Earhart is just in the aviators categories. We have however Duane R. Bushey in Category:American navigators because he was a flight navigator with the Air Force. Most people in Category:Flight navigators are not also in the respective X nationality navigators category. Do you think we want to treat "navigators" as just referring to people navigating boats, and have flight navigators as a seperate category, or do you think we want to mix boat/ship and flight navigators all in one category? Should "American navigators" be assumed to be just boat/ship, and flight is a seperate category, that we leave unified unless we sub-divide into "American flight navigators", or do we want to seperate out one tree by flight and other types of navigator and another by the intersection of being a navigator and the country the person was a national of? It looks like right now about half of the flight navigators are in British navigators, American navigators etc. sub-cats, and the other half are not. Some because we do not have a by place they were nationals of sub-cat that applies, but for example François Coli is not categorized as a French navigator even though that category exist. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The Category Category:Czech Executioners has 1 entry. It is a person who lived from abound 1550-1640. I may be a little off on these years. So they were an executioner in Bohemia, when that was directly ruled by the HR Emperor and in the HR Empire. So I think it would make most sense in this case to merge to Category:Executioners from the Holy Roman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:On further review I realized I could only find in the Executioners tree one other person who was from the Holy Roman Empire. So just upmerging to Executioners is probably the best. We only have about 105 articles in the whole tree (maybe a few less if there is overlap) and several other categories have 1 article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This category has 1 direct entry, Malyuta Skuratov who was from the Tsardom of Russia, and then the sub-cat for the regicides of Nicholas II. That later Category is also under Soviet executioners. I think just upmerging this category and leaving Soviet executioners as the only parent in the executioners tree to Regicides of Nicholas II would be best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Executioners has 8 more sub-cats with 1 article and 4 with 2 articles. I think it would be best if we upmerged all of these. I also think that since executioners are by definition agents of the government we should call the category Executioners by country, or possibly just upmerge it since it will be down to about 5 categories anyway. The parent will only have 2.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There are 5 categories for Tuberculosis deaths by state that only have 1 article. These are Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Wyoming and Alaska. I believe these should be upmerged to Tuberculosis Deaths in the United States, which at present has 9 direct articles anyway. In general we do not categorize people by the place they died, we only subdivide when a category gets to large for reasonable navigation, but there is no rule we have to create 1 article categories that hinder navigation, and the state someone died in is not defining by itself, so we should just upmerge these to Tubuerculosis deaths in the United States. I do not believe we should upmerge to Infectious disease deaths in X state because dying of infectious disease is not a defining characteristic, it is just a grouping category for sub-catgiries. I have to admit I am not convinced we need these death type grouping deaths categories at all. I really think we should simplify the tree to have just Deaths by cause, then sub-cats of specific causes, and then subdivide those by location when needed, and only have for say Michigan Category:Deaths in Michigan, consisting of solely specific causes deaths that we would put articles in. I do not think we need a category like Deaths by infectious disease in Michigan at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the exact meaning of :Category:Early colonists in America? I am not sure if there is an clear limit for "early". We have various by century categories, and we have categories for people by every one of the 13 colonies. I see no actual benefit from this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We have a category :Category:20th-century Moroccan businesspeople but it is the only by century category we have. Even though Morocco has existed for a long time, we only have about 50 people in Category:Moroccan businesspeople. I think splitting by century is not needed at this point and we should upmerge the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have created an article titled Province of Brittany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• This source [https://www.ulster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1567487/1304.pdf] makes it clear that the edict of union creates Brittany as a province of France, with a very different legal status than it had before that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• That is a source put online by the University of Ulster I believe. Yves Coatiny has written multiple books on the history of Brittany and related subjects. It is a reliable source, even if the link I have does not make its exact original publication information clear. I realized that the entire section in Duchy of Brittany covering the time period in question has no sources at all. We can source that Birttany was a province of France from 1532 until 1790. This is very different than it being a largerly indepdent Duchy prior to 1532. This change clearly makes sense as something we should reflect in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• On the other hand those who argued that we did not previously have an article on Province of Brittany, ignored the fact we have an article Provinces of France, with 2 maps that show the boundaries of all the provinces of France, including the Province of Brittany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Actually the page I just linked has at least 3 maps that show the boundaries of the provinces of France on the eve of the French Revolution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This category seems to have been widely applied to anyone who had any connection with the debate on slavery and in any form advocated any form of slavery ever. A lot of these people were not actually activists. Some the article does not even mention slavery or make it clear what they did to merit inclusion. I think this should probably be deleted, because it seems to be being used to mean "people who ever advocated for slavery, in any form (including some who clearly created systems of gradual emancipation)". It is basically being used to tag people as being "pro-slavery" in opinion, and then treating as one a range of opinions on the issue. It is probably best to just delete because it has been so widely and misapplied as basically an opinion category. However if we are going to keep it, we should very heavily purge it so it is in fact limited to activists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you think people from the Duchy of Brittany before the edict of union in 1532 should be in French categories at all. Clearly people from the Duchy of Lorraine before it is annexed to France in 1766 do not belong in French categories, since it was under the Holy Roman Empire. Brittany though is a trickier issue. It is de jure under the Kingdom of Frqnce but pre-1532 de facto nearly independent. Some of the time from the 1490s in personal union with France as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} tricky indeed, so I would not change the status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I am thinking it is workable to categorize anyone who was from an area de jure part of the Kingdom of France as French. At one point we seemed to be categorizing everyone from European mainland current France from almost at least after Charlemagne on as French, with possibly the Lone exception of 1871-1918 people from Alsace-Lorraine, without exception. I have been as I find them moving people from Savoy, Lorraine and other areas not then in France by any definition at the time out of the French categories. I have not moved anyone from post-974 Brittany out of the French cats. I am not sure to what extend they are in French cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I think right now we place people in various Spanish categories as long as they lived in a part of what is in 2025 Spain after it was clearly no longer in Al-Andalus. I really think we should not have anyone who died before Ferdinand (Fernando) and Isabella became joint rulers in a Spanish Category at all. I would say that is a reasonable year. Even though for while technically Fernando was de jure ruler of the Crown of Aragon and his daughter Juana was de jure ruler of the Crown of Castile, Fernando managed to marginalize his daughter and de the effective ruler of both Crowns. Since the various kingdoms continue to exist until about 1707 I think it is reasonable to have some categories at that level, like we have categories by provinces and other sub-national units. I do not think it is reasonable to call an artist who died in 1450 a Spanish artists, and fir soldiers, knights and other people directly connected with the government I think it is an even worse idea. It works well enough for people from the start of joint leadership on, even though at first it is just a personal union, but not in my view before that point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Our article is named Duchy of Lorraine while the category is named :Category:People from Lorraine (duchy). It would seem to me that it would be best if we used the sane name and formatting for both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:We have :Category:Duchy of Lorraine as well, so the people from Category is different than other categories as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::We do not call it Category:People from Russian (empire) or Category:People from Austria (empire) or Category:People from Russia (tsardom). In general we only use parenthetical disambiguation when we do so in articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::* {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} I have listed it for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::*:We will see if that works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I notice we have an as yet small and undeveloped tree of people murdered by year. Some people in this category are in people assassinated. I am wondering if it might make more sense to have it renamed people killed in x year as well as people killed in x decade. Right now we have to distinguish people murdered from people killed in action in war, people executed and I guess people killed by others in what was ruled not actually a murder. We are already merging assassinations and other murders. If we made it people killed we would only have to determine if the cause of death was by someone else (I think we would want Suicides seperate, but maybe they could be a subcat and merged with years that have only a few articles). Right now a huge number of these categories have 1 entry. So we need to either broaden the scope or upmerge to decades. In some cases it will be hard to decipher if something was an execution in a place with little due process or a murder. Others it will be hard to say if they were murdered in a war zone or just a casualty of battle. There is at least an argument to be made to have one Category for all types of killings and have everyone killed in the sane year in 1 category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I can find several categories (:Category:Hungarians in Romania, :Category:Kurds in Syria, :Category:Armenians in Azerbaijan, :Category:Poles in Lithuania), where the "X people in Y country" category is not employed for the people, with the descent categories being used instead. If you wish, I could easily cite many examples across categories in which the descent categories are used for figures with full, partial or no (probably because they've lived in the other state for decades and are citizens) blood of the "X descent". Because this is a common practice in Wikipedia, I believe changes across articles like the one you attempted need discussion or we desynchronise articles. Super Ψ Dro 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Super Dromaeosaurus}} that is weird. These people never lived in Romania, nor did their ancestors. How can you then say they are of Romanian descent? The articles are also in :Category:Romanians of Vojvodina and that is correct when you assume that Romanian means "Romanian ethnicity" here instead of "Romanian ancestry". Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

: It is like stating that all Jews also belong in a category "of Israeli descent". Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Because their parents, grandparents, or other ancestors were ethnic Romanians. Though much of the category is regarding full-blooded Romanians. I do not see the distinction you're making between ethnicity and ancestry, they go together. This is the practice common for nation states, maybe it could be different for other countries such as the US as "American" is not an ethnicity. I am not sure I understood your point over Jews, but "Israeli" is not an ethnicity so such a thing would not be possible. Super Ψ Dro 12:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::* {{ping|Super Dromaeosaurus}} the descent categories are for people whose ancestors migrated from one country to another. Categorizing American people by European descent makes perfect sense. In contrast, ethnicity is about what people are themselves instead of what nationality their ancestors were. Jews is what people are themselves, and likewise Romanians (in Vojvodina) is what people are themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::What you have described is simply not how the categories are applied in Wikipedia, at least regarding Europe. :Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent is full of ethnic Hungarians who did not move from Romania. Super Ψ Dro 13:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::* {{ping|Super Dromaeosaurus}} if that is the case then they should be moved or purged too. Categories like :Category:Hungarians in Vojvodina exist for a good reason, they should be used, and they should not be confused with a descent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am willing to accept whatever change if it is agreed upon in a centralized discussion on these categories. I am only against breaking common practice in a single case out of many and leaving the rest the same. Super Ψ Dro 17:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Cornelis Jol is the only article in infectious disease deaths in Sao Tome and Principe. This is also the only article in the entire Category:Deaths in Sao Tome and Principe Category tree at all. He is already in Category:Deaths from malaria. We do not directly categorize people by place of death. I think this means that people should just bd in Deaths from malaria unless there is a sub-cat of that that thry fit in. I do not think it makes sense to have 3 categories to categorize 1 article, so I think we should delete all the Deaths in Sao Tome and Principe categories and just leave Jol in the Deaths from malaria category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Categorization about the extent to which biographies should be in non-biographical categories you may want to view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hendrik Brouwer is in Category:Explorers of South America, Category:Explorers of Argentina and Categoruly:Explorers of Chile. This seems excessive, since he basically had one journey that explored Chile and Argentina. I think it would make more sense. Especially since Argetina is not even a place until the 19th century, and Rio de la Plata is a distinct place only from about 1776, to merge Explorers of Argentina and Explorers of Chile into Exploers of South America. Most exploring pre-dates modern countries, ignores what borders there were, and in the case of these two countries, especially Chile, is primarily sea based and so easily covers large areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Earlier today I created a category :Category:Iron founders based on the existence of the article Iron founder and people being described as such. I just realized there is an older more developed Category :Category:Ironmasters which appears to be the sane occupation. So the two categories probably should be merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I have posted too much on your page. I have tried to slow down. Eric I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg is a person who died in I believe the 16th-century. He was in a category for people from Lower Saxony. Lower Saxony was formed in 1946. It did not existed before that date anymore than Pakistan existed before 1947 or Israel before 1948. So I feel that such categorization is wrong. My removal was reverted without explanation. Not even a courtesy of trying to explain why this was done. We clearly should not be categorizing people as from a German state hundreds of years before it was created. This is very frustrating how people reimpose anachronism in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:This probably doubly holds for a category like military personnel. I have doubts that organizing that by any origin Category other than the military someone served in makes sense. Our sorting of pre-1870 people from what is now Germany by military served in is at present very poor. I am not sure the best way to move forward, because some of these militaries served in will have few articles, but organizing pre-1870 people by states formed in the 1940s is not a good way to approach this at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• George, Duke of Brunswick also had Lower Saxony reimposed. There in the edit summary I even explained there was no Lower Saxony before the 20th-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Looking at the articles I placed Eric on Category:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) personnel since it says he served alongside the Emperor. He is otherwise categorized by his various titles. George the article makes no mention at all of military service, so unless someone is going to add additional sourced text that shows it, he should not be in such a category. The portrait of him in Armour is not reliable evidence he was military personnel. A painter can paint you in clothes you never wore, and just wearing armor does not make someone military personnel. Without sourcing showing that he had military service it is not possible to determine what exact Category he would belong in. It would possibly be one related to the military of Hanover/Brunswick, but it is not clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)