User talk:Smasongarrison

Archives

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

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

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

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
13		Platon Oyunsky (talk)	Add sources
206		Vel Phillips (talk)	Add sources
54		Hastings Russell, 12th Duke of Bedford (talk)	Add sources
68		Dolgan language (talk)	Add sources
21		The Link (UK organization) (talk)	Add sources
184		Californios (talk)	Add sources
122		Hockey Night in Canada (talk)	Cleanup
63		Culbert Olson (talk)	Cleanup
28		Alexander Raven Thomson (talk)	Cleanup
8		2014 Wisconsin elections (talk)	Expand
227		2016 United States Senate election in Wisconsin (talk)	Expand
7		Mayoral elections in Madison, Wisconsin (talk)	Expand
48		Kingston Frontenacs (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,324		2020 United States presidential election in Wisconsin (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
51		Khadija Ismayilova (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38		David Cobb (activist) (talk)	Merge
6		Alan Gertner (talk)	Merge
162		Canoga Park, Los Angeles (talk)	Merge
156		Ranchos of California (talk)	Wikify
17		Madison Metropolitan School District (talk)	Wikify
2		Jon Litscher (talk)	Wikify
6		Kush Bottles (talk)	Orphan
2,050		Pablo González Yagüe (talk)	Orphan
3		Where's Weed (talk)	Orphan
5		Henry Huber (talk)	Stub
5		Sheldon Wasserman (talk)	Stub
3		Dan Meyer (Wisconsin politician) (talk)	Stub
2		Earl Gilson (talk)	Stub
19		State Assembly of the Republic of Bashkortostan (talk)	Stub
5		Philip Sansom (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mason! Hope you are doing well. Would you be able to take a look at {{writers by nationality and century category header}}? It is currently preventing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#Category:19th-century Uzbekistani people by occupation from being implemented, because Category:19th-century Uzbekistani writers‎ cannot be removed from Category:19th-century Uzbekistani people by occupation. I think there is some fix requiring {{Occupation by nationality and century category header}}, but that template is above my pay grade. Perhaps some ifexist checking somewhere? The ability to automatically determine if we have a "by occupation" category seems like it would be useful beyond this specific CfD. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! It's probably some quirk of how the category handles demonyms, when they're not automatically detected. "Uzbekistani" is one of them. The templates definitely check for ifexists, but you're right that the ifexist probably isn't behaving smartly. I'll implement a short-term fix that should help while I think through how to make the template be smarter, Mason (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! Mason (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century governors indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, 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!} 03:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily D. Baker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, Smasongarrison. You have new messages at Lost in Quebec's talk page.
Message added 22:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Come on over. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have summoned an administrator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I am literally only asking for you to discuss an interpretation of policy. Mason (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Players of a Sportsteam don't get classified Sportspeople from that city either. Why don't you fix the hundred plus edits you have made?Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec Why won't you engage me is an actual discussion about the difference between pages and categories? If you want me to make a large number of changes, you're going to have to actually engage me in a conversation instead of whatever this is. Mason (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three different editors have said you're wrong. You can't accept it. Explain to me how 'People from' categories suitable for burial in a cemetery page? The editing of yours and refusing to fix it is disruptive. Why would a alumni category page be suitable for a people from category when we don't list those persons in the location's Notable People section? Give me a logical explanation for saying somebody is a resident of Foo because they are buried six feet under there. You actually added[1] it to a military cemetery page. Person from Illinois, killed in South Korea, and buried in San Diego. That makes them from San Diego? I'm waiting for that explanation. What I also saw what you saw is you overturning dozens of another editor's work and without even looking and in my opinion not thinking either. First time accident[2], second time coincidence[3], third time enemy action[4] Goldfinger said in the Ian Fleming novel. 4 times in a row adding a redlink category is saying something. Here's a category editor who was considered disruptive.[5]Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you are unwilling to engage me in a respectful conversation. I'm always willing to change my opinion. I'd encourage you to assume good faith, but its clear that you aren't willing to do that. Mason (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't answer the question, so you take a shot at me. A conversation isn't going to do anything because you can't engage in one.Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to engage you repeatedly, you refused. Now you give me a wall of text claiming to be interested. And yet, 90% of your message is combative. You described once of my edits as an "enemy action". I don't see the point in taking the time to write out how keeping some of these categories in the people from tree makes sense. I agree that burials doesn't really make sense if you assume that "from" is to denote residence, but I think that's a shakey premise. Mason (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors before me said your edits were wrong, but you continued. I came into the picture and after you were told again you were wrong, you repeated the behavior once more. How is it a conversation if one of the parties is repeatedly not listening?

From doesn't denote residence, tell me how? I'm wondering if there are hundreds more wrong edits that are waiting to be discovered. Something tells me your editing needs lots of scrutiny.Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't write a single comment without a ton of snark, I have zero interest in this. Mason (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the truth is snark.....Just like being buried in a cemetery makes that person from a place. JFK is from Arlington Virginia by your logic.Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're done here. Mason (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thanks for the heads up on Lost on Quebec. I didn't realize they were hostile/uncompromising. Will be careful if I ever come across them afterwards. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. They might be more open-minded to you because you didn't mistake them for a different editor at the beginning of the exchange. But as you can see from the exchange, there was no point for me to explain how removing people from the full people from tree could be problematic. They have a point related to burials, but I don't think faculty, alumni, and sportspeople would follow the same logic. Having members of a sports team in the category "sportspeople from FOO" would make it extremely easy to remove sportspeople who weren't local. Mason (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what they are on about. I'm guess they think working in a place doesn't mean you're from that place, correct? Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's my understanding of what they interpret "from" to be. But that's not how defining works for cities/populated places. We'd have to remove pretty much every occupation from FOO subcategory if that held. Mason (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that is too strict an interpretation of that rule.

BTW, can I ask why JohnPackLambert was banned from Cfds? They told me they were a while back. I notice they were very active before. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can definitely ask! You can probably also ask him. JPL's ban was before I become active in CFD, but from what I have gathered they were banned for repeated [6] behavioral/communication issues at the arbitration committee Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. It's hard to really summarize, but I think he's made a lot of progress on both those fronts. I think he's gotten better at respecting consensus that he thinks is wrong. There are a few sticking points related to nationalities and centuries that I butt up against him on, but he's receptive to consider alternative viewpoints. Often he does add an alternative perspective that makes him a net positive. It can just require a lot of time/patience to really walk him thru the problem and to really understand the heart of the difference between viewpoints. Heck, he's gotten me to come around to the HRE and some other large empire categories. Mason (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah alright! I asked because he has a lot to say about a lot. Like "no breaks in paragraphs" a lot! So I was surprised to learn they were banned. Well if he's getting better from their previous argumentative attitude, that's good! A lot of people don't. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting. It gets annoying quickly when someone tries to force their own interpretation onto others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. LOQ is just not willing to have a civil conversation or wait until a discussion actually occurs. It's annoying indeed. There's no way to have a reasonable conversation if you approach an edit from "wrong" versus right. Mason (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, fyi, the reporting wasn't sufficient. It needs to effectively be 4 reverts. Mason (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they act up again, report them immediately. Their lack of control over reverts and unwillingness to compromise is a bit much. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement/sanity check. I think that the path of least resistance might be for you to initiate a CFD for the parenting of sportsplayers and other occupations. I don't think I would be an effective medium given my brief history with them, but I'm happy to take a strong supporting role. Mason (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! If you just guide a bit on how and where to start a parenting convo on occupation categories, I'll do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! So I'm thinking thru what I would do.... and I think I'd probably start with a post at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion asking for interpretation/sanity check on the policy as well as guidance on if we need a CFD on the topic. I'd probably also to point to the recent conversations (including this one). Like to me that seems to be an easy/low stakes approach to get more eyes on the issue, and more wisdom on the path forward. Mason (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I've started a discussion on the talk page here. Since you were in the main discussion, you should further elaborate the exact dispute. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate you starting the discussion, truly. Mason (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Duchy of Carniola was one of the territories in the Holy Roman Empire under direct Habsburg rule (thry had ruled there longer than as emperors) should not this category also be urnerged to Category:18th-century painters from the Holy Roman Empire ?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Mason (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century clergy from the Holy Roman Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, 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!} 08:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 26 § Category:Agriculture ministers of Bangladesh on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HueMan1 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent discussion of Category:Engravers from the Holy Roman Empire on my talk page. The other editor has A-removed this as a sub-cat of German engravers. B-decided to add everyone from that category back into German engravers, at least a sub-cat that that editor feels is in some way "German" (I am not sure what definition of German this editor is using, since in the 18th-century it was often called the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" there is no historically realistic definition of Germany in the 18th-century that does not include the whole HRE. You may want to consider the implications here. I have no idea if this editor is going to try to remove all HRE cats from being sub-cats of the German cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that most HRE cats are not under the German cats. However I think overlap cat applies here. I think this is similar to why we do not put people in both German-language singers (or writers) categories and German singers or writers categories. Even if we accept that German and the HRE are not exactly the same thing at any given time (I would argue there are no German nationals outside the HRE structure in 1790, ethnic German subjects of the Kingdom of Prussia and Denmark-Norway who live beyond the boundaries of the HRE in 1790 are ethnic Germans who are not nationals of a Germany, because the only Germany for them to be nationals is the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation), true it is hard to call people from Brussels in 1790 "German", but there are also lots of people who lived at times in the Netherlands who would not ever be called "Dutch", which may means we should rename "Dutch artists" to "Artists from the Netherlands", but does not mean we should create a "Dutch artists" cat, place all artists who call themselves Dutch in it, and then create a new "artists from the Netherlands" cat, and place all those Dutch artists in it, as well as Frisians, and also Flemish and Walloon artists active in the Netherlands in the 1815-1830 time frame. We should choose one or the other not both. Now if we went with "Artists from the Netherlands" we maybe should then create "Artists from the Dutch Republic" as a distinct category, but we should not place all artists seen as Dutch (as opposed to Frisian, etc.) in that category, and in the Dutch artists category. For the same reasons we do not have "white American writers" or "American writers of European descent" as a sister category to "African-American writers". We should not have a schema where the vast majority of people in a place get in two categories automatically, and we should not have 2 categories that have very close to the same contents and scope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In nearly all these articles, excluding the few where you changed it recently, they were called German (lead section), all categories were for German, all sources call them German... but you remove the lead info, remove the categories, and then add your new cat incorrectly as a subcat of German anyway, making the whole exercise completely pointless: if you consider all HRE engravers to be German engravers (which you explicitly do by making the HRE cat a subcat of the German cat), then what was the point of moving them all out of the German cat in the first place? All you have achieved is incorrectly adding those HRE people who were not German incorrectly into a German parent cat. Fram (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI my take is that HRE should be a parent category for certain german centuries. My hope was that by adding HRE as a parent category JPL would be comfortable leaving the people defined as german in the german category. Mason (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert I think a constructive comprise would be for you to diffuse by century WITHIN the German category (as in you add people to the FOOian century German engravers etc, and then add the relevant HRE parent category). @Fram has a point regarding the bigger issue. Most folks consider German to be a defining category for those centuries. Even if you don't agree with it, you're well aware that most folks consider them "German". It doesn't look good when you only make a tiny change, like moving to a different category but still moving German people into HRE categories.( There are some categories that I don't agree with, but I still add people to them.) Mason (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also for your edits re: these categories. Fram (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I'm just happy that diffusing by century seems to have struck the balance between Germany and the HRE that everyone can live with. Mason (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when you know that these edits are opposed, then simply doing the same for a parallel cat (violinists instead of engravers) is very poor form. Fram (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your contribution to the page of the Cottage School and I'm wondering what your reasoning is for removing it from the special education in the US category after you moved it into that category from special education. I am a current student and can vouch for TCS' status as a special education school, and the school's mission statement and other materials reflects that as well. Tylermack999 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I moved it into a more specific state category. Mason (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh ok, I see what you're confused by. So I was in the process of cleaning up several category trees. The page was and still is in "Special schools in the United States ,which is a more specific category than special education. Mason (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, see I was confused by the removal from special education but I now see that it was just making it more specific, thanks for the clarification. Out of curiosity, how did you stumble upon The Cottage School's page? Tylermack999 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came across in when I saw it in Category:Special education., Mason (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this are terrible! Your new "artisans" category is a big mistake, which should be deleted. What about George Stubbs, whose paintings fetch millions, makes him an "artisan"? It is an inappropriate term for about half the people in the category. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what you expect to happen in this conversation. Calling an edit terrible, saying that the artisan tree is somehow new and that it's mine, as well as assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable. Like what's your goal with this comment? Mason (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pursuading you to stop doing doing more along these lines, mainly. Cfds will I think have to follow. And more broadly, discouraging you from doing sweeping re-organizations of category schemes without much thought, or apparently looking at the articles concerned. The category concerned was just created by you. Why are you accusing me of "assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable". Obviously, in the case of a major painter like Stubbs, that will be the case financially. You are the one expanding the dubious "artisan" tree! Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your goal is to be persuasive, then you really really missed the mark. Your statement "What about George Stubbs, whose paintings fetch millions, makes him an "artisan"? " is what I'm responding to with the statement "assuming that adding the label artisan category means that their work is less valuable", as it implies that people whose work make money can't be artisans. To be the money/value aspect isn't remotely relevant to the category tree.

My core point is that your approach here was extremely ineffective. I read your comment as making broad sweeping statements without substance in an attempt to get me to stop, without explaining what your concern actually was. I'm always open to feedback and reconsidering my view, but I need to actually understand what your concern is. (Also assuming that I'm not thinking... also not effective at getting me to lay out my reasoning.) To be clear, I'm telling you this because I respect your knowledge and expertise in this domain, and my hope is that this conversation will help us both efficiently and effectively improve the project. Mason (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, I don't know how to respond to this. Enamellers seems to be nested under both artists and artisans. Would you care to explain why it shouldn't be nested under both? Ideally, in a constructive way? I'm open to feedback, but I'd prefer it be constructive rather than your typical MO of just calling everything bad/terrible/ignorant etc. Mason (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, notable enamellers will be better just under artists. That probably goes for most of the people caught under "artisans" - carvers etc. If you really are just what can fairly be called an "artisan", you won't be notable, unless for success in building a large business, as with some potters (who for some reason don't seem to be in the artisan tree at all). At various periods, for people like Stubbs, enamel painting was just another painting medium. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's helpful for you to lay out your thinking. Thank you. I'm not sure that I agree that, by definition, someone who is notable as an artisan is probably not an artisan. My take is more that if someone is regularly described as a artisan, they're probably an artisan. However, if they're notable for the artistic works, then they'd probably be under both. I need to think about it a bit. Mason (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might try looking through the "artisan" categories to see how many people could neither really be called "artists" (decorative or otherwise) nor businesspeople, engineers etc. I expect there are some, but pehaps not too many. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion! I imagine that you're probably right. It'll probably end up being parent categories rather than have many people directly in them. (My goal with filling out the artisan category, is to connect the incomplete stretches that have been floating around.) Mason (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course also people who are notable for something else entirely, like being a politician or writer, but whose CV included a period in an "artisan" occupation - eg Raimundo Arruda Sobrinho, a writer who had been a gardener and book-seller. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in ahead of Johnbod here, but Category:Enamellers should probably be within a Category:Decorative artists which hasn't been created, and that in turn would probably be within Category:Artists. Possibly calligraphers, ceramists, enamellists, glass artists and jewellers all belong in a decorative artists category rather than in Category:Artisans. Category:Decorative arts and Category:Catholic decorative artists do exist. Ham II (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The parenting tree you've laid out here makes sense to me. Thanks for laying it out. My immediate inclination would be to have decorative artists parented by both artisans and artists. However that parenting would be more reflective of the medium they're working in rather than the person/artistic output themselves. Does that make sense? I'm happy to defer to the folks who know more about the content area, like yourselves. But I'd figure I'd lay out my thinking. Mason (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with that. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is another category, and probably tree, we shouldn't have. Art history sources never group German, Italian, Netherlandish, Bohemian etc etc painters this way, & nor should we. Most should already be in Category:Early Netherlandish painters, which could be added and split by century I suppose. But the category is pointless. You've included a (presumed) German - the Upper Rhenish Master - in the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That category tree is a compromise. If you can convince JPL to stop removing people from german/austrian categories, without this level, I'm happy to reconsider my position. But it's existence, seems to allow the child categories, which are defining, to exist without large disruptions. Mason (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough! Even I doubt my pursuasive charm is up to that. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep yep! I'd be extremely impressed, but regardless, I'm pleased enough that I've gotten to experience your more charming side 😁 Mason (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 27 1 article sub-categories of Ambassadors of France (there are others at 2, this is just 1 article sub-cats). There are 6 articles directly in the category, so we have not actually made Ambassadors of France a container category. Ambassadors are not default notable, they only get articles of they meet GNG or are defsult notable for other reasons. So there is no reason to assume all these categories will grow in the future. So I think upmergimg these 27 would be wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category has 2 1 article sub-cats. It also has about 9 direct biographical articles, so it is clearly not a place we insist on dispersing everything. I think these 2 categories (Piland and Portugal) should be upmerged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Klingenberg is in 9 different categories for Ambassadors from Denmark. Each has either 1 or 2 entries (I think he held multiple of these ambassadorships at once). I really think all 9 categories should be upmerged. I am not sure of all 9 appointments are mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14 of the sub-categories of this category have 1 article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category Ambassadors of Ivort Coast only has 5 articles in the permanent Representatives to the UN category. Every other category has 2 or less articles. I think they should all be upmerged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category has 20 1 article sub-cats. Since Yugoslavia has not existed for over 20 years these categories seem even less likely to grow than some others. I think this is a really good place to start upmerging. The number of categories with just 1 article we have here is staggering. It probably runs into the thousands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Making me a list like this is extremely helpful! I'm going to check them out once I get a better sense of how the community feels about the first 3 I proposed. Mason (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is like shooting fish in a barrel. Basically any country has multiple 1 article ambassadors from categories and multiple 1 article ambassadors to categories. Well except South Ossetia where there is only 1 article currently categorized as someone who was an ambassador there, but he simultaneously was ambassafor to Russia and Armenia and is not clear he ever even visited South Ossetia. The fact that this scheme ends up including not just past countries but countries with limited diplomatic recognition makes it even more potentially large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors to the United States has only 1 sun-cat with 1 article (the to South Yemen cat) and 2 with 2 articles. However it has 70 direct articles. I do not know how many of those direct articles are examples of not proper dispersion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

It looks to me like your objection is actually against the designers category. I would agree that it is not a good category, it is essentially grouping together stage designers, fashion designers and some other people just because they all happen to be called "designers" without there being any actual thing that makes them as a group distinct from artists who are not designers. However I think this would mean that we should not have any designer categories, and we should put the various designer categories directly in the artists categories, in all cases, not just for women designers. I would think this would also mean that all articles currently in a "designers" category should be moved up to an artist category until we can justify a specific type of designer category. So we might have a person in "fashion designers" and then in "Tongan artists", "Ghanaian artists" etc. in cases were there are not enough fashion designers from that country to justify its own subcat. This looks to me like an issue with the whole tree though, and not just the women cat, so I am thinking we should solve it at the whole tree level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]