Johnpacklambert

Archives (Index)

2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Category:Sibling artists

When I came across this, I thought this was a genre I was unaware of. No, it says at the top "This category is for notable artists who have one of more siblings who are also notable artists." I think this is not a defining trait. Mabe if a group of siblings were a notable group. I also notice Sibling artist lacks an article. Do we have Category:Sibling politicians or even Category:Sibling muscians? We do have sibling performer groups, but that is where the article subject is such (although I am not sure how much of the group needs to be siblings, where the whole group is actually siblings it is clear, but what if you have 3 brothers and then a 4th unrelated man in the group? What if the 4th man marries a sister of the 3 brothers? My initial guess is the case works whether or not the 4th member marries into the family. On the other hand if you have an orchestra of 30 people, or a choir of 350 people, just because you have a set of siblings in there does not make it a sibling group. I am torn between if we need a clear formula, or if we go with sources saying things like "this group of brothers, along with a non-related person", versus sources being silent on the matter. Although with the choir of 350 people, no matter how many sources mention "oh, this set of sisters was in the choir" it does not cut it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• The sibbling musical groups says "This is a category for musical groups in which two or more members are siblings. Please note that groups do not have to consist entirely of siblings to be included." I think that is too loose of an inclusion criteria. It makes sense with groups of 3. Maybe even a bit more. However if your group is over 20 it is absurd to include it just because you have two sibblings, and if it is even 10, I think having 2 brothers, 2 sisters of a brother and a sister is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• We also have sibling filmmakers. Most of the actual contents are articles on groups of people, or at least more than 1. One is a list of "Indian film clans", some of these may be parent/child instead of siblings. There are a few individual articles, and there is no clear statement of scope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Gabonese painters

The category Gabonese painters has 1 article, it has s sub-cat that also has the 1 article. I think we could move that article to the category painters and Gabonese artists and we would better facilitate nacmvigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That change would still only give us 4 articles in the category Gabonese artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Zviad Tsikolia

The article Zviad Tsikolia is in the category Georgian designers. That is duplicative to Designers from Georgia (country) of which he is already in the industrial designers sub-cat. I have to admit I am less than convinced that architects, industrial designers, graphic designers, fashion designers, video game designers and game designers form a coherent group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Republic of Venice and Duchy of Milan

I just realized Brescia was part of the Republic of Venice from 1520 until 1797. It also was part of the Republic of Genice for I think nearly 200 years before 1512. I am not sure what else in modern Lombardy was part of the Republic of Venice and not in the Duchy of Milan. The Republic of Venice was an important state, not quite on the order of the Kingdom of Prussia, but still important. Like Prussia it sometimes takes some work to determine what was in the state at any given time. For the record I think we should move all categories to People from the Republic of Venice, Artists from the Republic of Venice, etc. The current form that mixes some that way and some Republic of Venice people makes it take more effort than should be needed to determine if a category exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Under categorized professions

We have lots of articles that in the lead it states the person practiced a certain profession or occupation, but the article is not in that category. I have seen this with medical doctor/physician. I have seen it a little with miller's. I have seen it a whole lot with industrialists and merchants. I believe I have even seen it with bankers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

With merchants they are so under categorized I have come across articles where there is a parenthetical disambiguation saying the person was a merchant but thry are not in the merchants category. I have come to the view that while businesspeople categories have a role, we should make sure anyone called a banker, a merchant or an industrialist is eomewhere in the tree for that term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The non-diffusing rule is poorly followed because the last rung rile is violated

The last rung rule says no category should have an ERGS sub'l-cat that does not have a sub-cat that is not ERGS. A huge number of categories havd only ERGS sub-cats. Too often we have diffused people and left parent cats blank. We need to fix this.

However with gender I think we need to also come up with an official list of what is diffusing. I am not sure we have one.

Diffusing gender cats:

1- any sport where you have seperate teams by sex. Women's basketball teams do not compete against men's basketball trams. Here we are really categorizing by league or team.

2. Any performing role where gender is clearly defining.

Thus we diffuse actors/actresses.

We diffuse singers. It helps we further diffuse them by voice range.

I think we can safely diffuse dancers, sex workers, and models.

I think that is the logical limit.

The one other we probably can diffuse is singer-songwriters.

I think anyrhing else we should not diffuse, but make sure that they are in both a gender specific and a gender neutral category.

Songwriters in general, screen writers, dramatisrs and playwrights, novelists, poets and other writers we divide by gender we should ensure all articles are in gender neutral categories. It would help if last rung rules were more heavily followed. Politixians is one where we do well, because we have so many divisions. Writers and its sub-cats I think is where we break the rules the most. We used to have a rule against having both male and female sub-cats. For about a decade the only actors we divided by gender were pornographic actors. Then in the fall of 2012 there was an RfC that decided to break actor cats into male actor and actresses cats. I did a big chunk of that break up work. I think we have never fully written the new Category de facto rules that created.

In general I think scientists are not removed from gender neutral cats, but it might need dome review. Scholars is messier, in part because many are also writers are writers are overly diffused. I would argue that musicians who are not singers should be in a gender neutral cat if they are in a gender specific one. I know this is the oddest point in my schema, but I think that the fact that gender effects adult voice range makes this justifiable. I will accept that at least on a case by case basis other musical categories can be divided by gender, at least if we could write a lead article, but I do not think they should be diffused.

Artists also should not be diffused. The other tricky thing is performers such as comedians, mimes, circus performers, clowns, trapeze artists and the like. There are strong gender implications in these roles, and at least with trapeze artists what men and women actually do is often very different. Pupeteers is one I could see going either way. However I think the reality is that we just do not have enough articles in any of these to really justify total diffusion, and so I think we should if we have gender specific cats make them high level, and lower level cats leave people togerher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Puppeteers is done how this should be. We have female puppeteers, I think we should rename it women puppeteers. It has 112 articles. No sub-cats. This is wise. We have 33 sub-cats by nationality for puppeteers. 8 of those categories have only 1 article. That seems excessive. I am guessing at least all those should be upmerged, and maybe some of the other categories with less than 5 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• On further review probably television presenters and radio presenters can be fully diffused by gender. I am open either way with game show hosts. Comedians have largely been diffused by gender. The fact many are also actresses/male actors and or male or female models and or male or female TV presents might make this make sense. We have a few occupations like geisha and vendetta that are only female. Another case is beauty pageant contestants. These should be diffused by gender fully. Essentially for the same reasons as soorsports.

• For royalty a lot of positions we diffuse fully by gender. A King consort and a queen consort we treat as a different position. Nobles we at times diffuse by gender. We need to do better at not diffusing categories we mark as non-diffusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  Mimes we do not diffuse by gender. We only have at most 128 articles outside the fictional sub-cat. There are 26 sub-cats under nationality, with 7 of those having 1 article. I say at most 128 because some people may be in multiple nationality sub-cats. I am thinking we should make a rule to not divide any Category with under 200 total articles by nationality. I think we should also require at least 4 categories with over 10 articles for a nationality split. I think we should apply the sane rules to splitting American categories by state. Other countries might need slightly different rules. I think we should also state that for any Category to exist it either needs at least 5 articles or a very strong argument to allow it to exist with less than 5 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Overly diffused categories

Some overly diffused categories are the following.

1. Innkeepers. We only have 79 articles. I have exhsustively searched to get that many. We have an American sub-cat with 21 of the articles and a Wallachian with 3. About 50 in the parent. I think everything should go to the parent cat.
2. Jesters. Here we have 43 articles. 3 of them are topical, so 40 bios. I did not count the fictional sub-cat. Keeping that makes sense. We have 3 sub-cats. A British with 5 articles, that has one living person, 1 19th-century person and 5 who worked in the Kingdom of Scotland before 1707, at least 2 under Mary Queen of Scots, at least one was actually a French woman who might just have been an expatriate. We have female jesters with 1 article also in the British cat, the other 4 diffused. We have 7 English jesters, all from the Kingdom of England. Then we have 27 articles under the main cat, with I think 24 being bio. I am thinking we should really just have the main cat and the fictional sub-cat. We could upmerge female jesters to female entertainers as well. At present it violates the last rung rule. The other option would be to treat jesters like actors, and fully diffuse to male and female. I think the upmerging the female jesters to female entertainers is a better solution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Princesses by country

We have a princesses by country category. I am not sure this is the best name. We want to make it clear we are categorizing by the country where they held the rank, not always where they lived. If they lived somewhere, but held a rank elsewhere that is key. Also, Titles are complex. I think we want to group all people from say the Holy Roman Empire who held the title of Princess, but many were princesses of very small statelets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Millwrights

The Category header says the Category is "not for modern millwrights". This seems odd. So we exclude current millwrights. We allow only "traditional" millwrights. This seems just silly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop deleting categories out of process

Please look to see if removing someone from a category empties the category, like you did for Category:Czech patrons of music https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Franz_von_Lobkowitz&oldid=1229928627 I and others have asked you repeatedly to not do this. Mason (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• • The fact is people living in Bohemia are not for sure Czech. We should not impose ethnicity on people for whom we do not know it. Especially when the category is not really meant to be ethnic but national. I will be more careful to otherwise leave people in the categories they are meant to be in. However we should not go around assuming and imposing Czechness on people from 18th-century Bohemia. A huge number of those people self-identified as Germans, or would have thought of themselves in other ways and would not recognize themselves as Czech, not just in the Sudetenland, but in other parts of Bohemia as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    • OK, I see. However this is not an "out of process emptying". This is the person should not be in the category. We should not have a lock on poor categorization just because someone goes ahead and creates a 1 articles category and places someone who does not belong there in it. This is a very frustrating outcome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Joseph Franz von Lobkowitz is an article that only says this person was a noble from Bohemia. It never uses the word "Czech" to describe him. He died in 1816 and was born in 1772. In the article on the Czech national awakening we learn "Czech language had been more or less eradicated from state administration, literature, schools, Charles University, and among the upper classes." So he almost certainly did not speak Czech, and it is very unlikely he would have thought of himself as Czech. He was a noble. The first Czech grammar is only published in 1809, 7 years before he died, and it is the year after he died that medieval Czech use in manuscripts is first proclaimed. I am now being yelled at over removing him from the Czech patrons of the arts category because he was the only one, although there is no justification for placing him in that category at all. The article never calls him Czech, and all the evidence is that he was not Czech. To force him to stay in the category just because the category creator was lazy and never added any other article to the category just seems wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Although he died in Bohemia, he was born in Vienna, and seems to have lived a large part of his life there. Since during his whole life both these places (I know I am using a city and a region), were under Habsburg control, and they were either both in the Holy Roman Empire or both in the Austrian Empire, Lobkowitz would never really have had to even in his own mind decide if he was a national of Austria with land holdings in Bohemia, or a Bohemian expatriate in Austria, because that was not how any political division worked on the de facto level, yes when he was born Vienna was in the Archduchy of Austria, but real practical political issues outside of the minutia of government administration meant he was functional in one land. This is a key reason why trying to impose modern terms on the past makes a mess. However here we do not even have modern terms being used in the article, the article never calls him Czech or anything like that. That is only introduced through the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• My summary of this edit was inadequate. At the time this person lived the notability of Bohemia was basically all in any meaningful way not Czech. However my edit summary made it clear this was being done because the person in question did not fit the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Patrons of music

I had not looked at the patrons of music categories until just now. The above edit was made based on the fact that the subject clearly did not fit as a Czech patron of music.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• He is in Hadyn's patrons, so in that tree if he is not in the Austrian Category. The Austrian category is one of 5 sub-cats of patrons of music that have 1 article. Further the Beligan patrons of music category only has 1 article on an actual Belgian, the other 2 lived centuries before Belgium was created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• There are at most 91 articles in ccategories that are patrons of music by a nationality. I see no reason why we are dispersing this category tree by nationality at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Art collectors by nationality wrong placement

I just noticed that Norton Dodge is in the category Russian art collectors. He is not Russian, or Soviet. He was a collector of art from the Soviet Union, specifically art made by dissidents during the Stalin regime. He is in Soviet art, so I will remove him from the Russian art collectors cat. This cat is meant to categorize people who collected art by where they are from, not people by what type of art they collected. We might want to rename it to Art collectors from Russia. And also rename its sibbling categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Kolodzei Art Foundation, which was mainly supported by Dodge, was also in the Russian art collectors cat. I removed it. It was already in Russian art directly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• There was a Art collectors from the Russian Empire category. Which would be different from Collectors of art from the Russian Empire. It now has 27 articles, the Russian art collectors has 22. I am still not fully convinced that it makes sense to actually call art collectors either patrons of art or patrons of the arts or philanthropists. What do you think?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Chinese art collectors was a sub-cat of "Collectors of Asian art". I removed it. This is a cateogry for people who are Chinese who collect art, the art they collect does not matter, what matters is that they are nationals of China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• My attempt to fix the mis-categorization as Chinese art collectors as a sub-cat of Collectors of Asian art was reverted. I put a note arguing my view on the talk page, I do not know if it will actually actract any attention. This category may need to be renamed so that it is not misused or misparented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think we should likewise remove American art collectors from American art as a parent category, etc. We do not care what art they collect. If we have an American who funds the collection of Art to an Italian museum, that is Italian art, they are still an American art collector, and if they move to Italy and become Italian, but collect Spanish art that they move to a Spanish museum, they might now be both an American art collector (if they did it before they were no longer functionally an American national) and an Italian art collector, but they would not be a Spanish art collector. Unless of course they in some way become a national of Spain, but they are not Spanish just because they interact with Spanish art.~~~~

John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

William Jones (optician)

William Jones (optician) since it explicitly says he was one I placed in the category optician. That category has about 50 articles total, but for unclear reasons is broken out by nationality. However on further review I do not believe that Jones is the type of optician the article is about. He was a designer of lenses used in scientific instruments. The optician article is about people who design eye glass lenses. It looks to me like this is a shared name, where all the people are involved in lense design and, but not in the same ways. The fact my farther is a physicist who has become an optical engineer gives me a little insight onto these terms. My father did work with lazers and lenses but most recently with head-up displays and LEDs. At heard opticians, optical engineers and optical physicists all work with light, However light, sight, and lenses all intermerge. Jones looks to be more an optical technician, than an optician, if we are using the latter term just for those who make the lenses of eye glasses. The big question is, how to reliable sources actually use there terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)