User talk:Rathfelder

Medical dictionary definition articles

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

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

WP:NOE

Combining CfD nominations

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

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

Removal from categories

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

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

Holocaust survivor and other categories

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

The Category:Holocaust survivors had a note (which I have removed) which referred to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum definition:

The Museum honors as survivors any persons, Jewish or non-Jewish, who were displaced, persecuted, or discriminated against due to the racial, religious, ethnic, social, and political policies of the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945. In addition to former inmates of concentration camps, ghettos, and prisons, this definition includes, among others, people who were refugees or were in hiding.

That embraces pretty much the entire population of Eastern Europe. Far too wide for categorisation. But categorisation is imprecise. I dont see how your reversion helps.  Henri Kichka was a Buchenwald concentration camp survivor. That is fairly precise, and a subcategory of Holocaust survivors. Categorisation is heirarchical, but it doesnt follow that everything in the lowest subcategory must always meet the full definition of the highest. Rathfelder (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I do not know anything about the definition you quote, but I can quite believe that the USHMM has a remit which extends beyond the Holocaust into other forms of political and racial discrimination during World War II - this would not be particularly unusual, not least since many such centres have subsequently extended their scope to deal with the Rwandan Genocide and other unrelated post-war events (USHMM among them). However, this does not distract from the fact that boundaries of the term Holocaust is not that you have cited. It is hardly a fringe theory to distinguish between different forms of persecution carried out by the same regime (even in the same camps) and attempts to blur the two are often negationist in origin (cf the "Polocaust" saga). My issue is how to address this problem, not whether it exists. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I can only talk about the articles we actually have, and they are at least 95% about Jewish people (as defined by the Nazis). There are not enough about non-Jewish people to justify breaking down the sub-categories into Jewish and not, whatever words you use. I'm really working on the concentration camp survivors and ghetto inmates. I dont think I have seen any articles which describe non-Jewish people as Holocaust survivors, and I dont think including a very small number of non-Jews into the concentration camp survivors categories undermines the point you are making. If anything I am concerned that there dont seem to be articles about the other groups who were persecuted. Rathfelder (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I cannot comment on this but I do not believe it to be correct. Category:Belgian people who died in Nazi concentration camps for example includes 7 names of whom only two are Jewish. However, it is a sub-category of Category:People who died in the Holocaust by nationality and Category:People who died in the Holocaust. Personally, I think the solution would be to create a series of Category:Holocaust survivors from Foo while keeping Category:Foo concentration camp survivors entirely separate and outside the Holocaust category trees. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I havent looked at the categories of people who died. They may be different. But equally Belgium is rather different from Eastern Europe. One of the main points of the subcategories as I see them is that the deal with how people survived, or not. A very different question from nationality. And nationality in Europe between 1933 and 1945 is quite problematic in itself. Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think nationality would have to refer to pre-war nation states ("Holocaust survivors from Poland [in the United States]" rather than "American Holocaust survivors", for example). @Buidhe: do you have a perspective on this? Perhaps we could open this for an RFC.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I certainly think what we have now is a bit of a mess. But I'm not sure what we could put to an RFC. Partly its a mess because in reality its very messy. Full of contested definitions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• The USHMM may use a different definition but I believe the common academic usage of "holocaust survivor" is for Jews only, restricting the word "Holocaust" to the genocide of Jews as opposed to other forms of Nazi persecution and crimes. Also, requiring RS to state someone is a holocaust survivor is also necessary per WP:V. Pre-war nationality is likely more defining than post-war. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• The article, Holocaust survivors, to which we have to adhere, uses the wider definition. "the term includes anyone who was discriminated against, displaced or persecuted as a result of the policies and actions of the Nazis and their allies and, in addition to Jews who were uniquely targeted for complete annihilation, it includes those who were persecuted as a result of the Nazis' racial theories, such as the Romani people and Slavs, along with others who were seen as "undesirables" such as homosexuals, or for political reasons, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Communists."Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, the definition at Holocaust survivor has now been changed by consensus. It's clearly the categorisation now which is the issue. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• It still includes " non-Jews who also experienced collective persecution under the Nazi regime " - much of the population of Eastern Europe. And most of the articles are categorised in Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. Only those without such details are in the residual Category:Holocaust survivors. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

x–y relations and expatriates/emigrants

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

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

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

• I think its a pragmatic question. In some situation emigration affects relationships between states. In others it doesnt. But emigrants do not belong in "x people of y descent" categories. That is misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's misleading. One meaning of a "FOOian person" is a "person from FOO". It doesn't necessarily mean nationality or citizenship. If a person is a "BARian emigrant to FOO", they have become a person from FOO, or a FOOian person. And being from BAR originally, they are of BARian descent. The emigrants categories were really placed in the descent categories for ease of navigation among the bewildering number of related categories. It's not supposed to be an exact one-to-one equivalence in every situation. Categories are meant to be easy to use and help you navigate through articles with related characteristics. Removing these connections is making it more difficult. Now that two users have suggested as much, we should probably pause the removal of these. We should probably have an RFC on the issue of whether the emigrants category should (1) be placed in the person of descent categories; (2) be placed in the bilateral relations category; or (3) be placed in neither. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • A person from Foo is ambiguous. A Fooian person isnt. People dont necessarily become Fooian because they live there. Fooian is a nationality. Some migrants change their nationality but many dont. Very few articles say anything about nationality. Not everyone from BAR is of BARian descent. I dont see how it helps navigation to mix up immigrants from BAR with FOOish people of BARian descent. Rathfelder (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The expatriate categories are dominated by sportspeople. I dont see how they affect bilateral international relations. Rathfelder (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, I think you should stop removing these categories until the issue is discussed more broadly. Clearly there is disagreement. I disagree that FOOian means, necessarily, nationality. (And even if it does, many people assume that "nationality" = "citizenship", but it does not. There is a difference between being a national of a country and being a citizen of a country.) I'm going to start constructing an RfC, so I would appreciate your forbearance until then. I suspect the other users who have talked to you about this would also appreciate it. Actually, I probably won't get to an RfC for a little while. I guess a good place to leave it is for both sides to recognize that there is disagreement as to how the categorization should work with these categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Not an RfC, but an attempt to get some discussion going. See here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Categorisation of clergy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Observation 1 unfortunately some denominations prefer to have their name included in the name of the diocese. See Category:Anglican bishops of Gippsland which is also per the main article - Anglican Diocese of Gippsland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Why would that be a problem? In places where there are two bishops of different denominations it would be necessary anyway. Rathfelder (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is not going to be consensus about pursuing this in any of the discussions that are currently open. Once they are closed the best is to ask User:Good Olfactory to revert the merge closure in the very first discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I notice the first discussion is up for deletion review. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we should start again. Shall I withdraw those nominations? Rathfelder (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I really think we need to recognize that bishops are a sub-set of priests. Thus the following makes more sense. A-Bishops should be categorized by nationality. They should not be assigned nationality for a place they were only after they became a priest unless we have very compelling evidence otherwise. B-since bishops are a subset of priests, no bishop should be in a by nationality priest category, unless we make the deliberate decision that the category is too small to split out bishops. C-I think we should look at this as a denominational issue, and I see no reason to have transdenominational categories for priests or bishops by nationality. If we do, we should treat pre-reformation categories as seperate. D-If we do not put bishops in by nationality priest categories, this means that placing every bishop in a category by his nationality and a category linked to the diocese(s) where he was bishop is not going to lead to excessive category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

People from Foo

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

• Throughout the encyclopedia "People from a city by occupation" includes employees of organisations based in the city. "From" is completely ambiguous. But being born in a place is not, in itself, defining. Categories are supposed to be defining. If members of the faculty are notable that is sufficient to make them people from Brussels. Categories are heirarchical. People should not be in Category:People from Brussels if they are also in a subcategory. Please see WP:SUBCAT. Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I've been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade and have never seen a "People from Foo City" category working as you claim - from may be ambiguous in some senses I accept, but it is obvious that a person does not become from a city simply by virtue of holding a post there. Again, please revert and gain consensus per WP:BRD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Most "People from City" categories have plenty of people who were not born there. It's where they did whatever made them notable that matters. See Category:Academics from London, Category:People from Los Angeles by occupation or Category:People from Berlin by occupation. I'm following a very well established policy. If you think "a person does not become from a city simply by virtue of holding a post there" perhaps you could explain how they do become from a city? Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

• Birth is not defining. By occupation from a city clearly does not imply being born there. I am not removing categories. Quite the opposite. But categories are heirarchical. WP:COPPLACE says, very clearly "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual."Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • In fact, the place of birth is so clearly defining that a large number of nations use it as the primary determinant of citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    • And some dont. But nationality and location are not the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Additionally, the location of childhood plays a large role in determining most people's later lives, not to mention such fundamentals as the dialect that they speak. This may or may not be the same as the location of birth but most biographies don't distinguishing carefully. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• I find it difficult to see how these considerations bear on the categorisation of the Royal Military Academy (Belgium) faculty. They were clearly people whose occupation was in Brussels. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I see you are going ahead with edits to this effect in spite of the discussion here. Regardless of the merits of your argument, this behaviour is verging on disruptive. As for your claim above, it is perfectly possible to teach in institution in City A while never living there. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

To say a person is from a city does not mean that they were born there, not that they lived there. It is where they did what made them notable. I am following well established policy. If you want to change that policy this is not the place to do it. Rathfelder (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

• You may have done that, but plenty dont. Look at Category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty, a subcategory of Category:People from Los Angeles by occupation. How many of those 846 people were born in Los Angeles? There have been plenty of discussions of this issue and it it is clear, and agreed, that "from" is ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that, as is often the case, there may often be a divide here between practice by North American editors and by European/Commonwealth editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    • And how many of Category:Academics of the University of Oxford were born or grew up in Oxford? Plenty of editors do not understand the categorisation system, but that does not entitle you to disregard them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Insofar it is desirable at all to categorize people by populated place at all, it is completely reasonable to have Category:Academics of the University of Oxford as a subcategory of Category:People from Oxford. Biographies are interesting from an encyclopedic point of view because of special things that people did or achieved in their life. If teaching at Oxford is the primary reason why people are notable they should be in an Oxford category if any at all. While we also categorize people by place of growing up, that is less relevant - it is (usually) not what makes people special. In any case "from" is ambiguous enough to allow both place of notability and place of growing up. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Rathfelder and Marcocapelle. While users are free to apply such categories in a way that recognizes birthplace and/or place of growing up, I don't see any reason why the concept is not flexible enough to include people who lived in the city because of their occupation. A person can be "from" multiple places. I've seen it used in all these ways quite a bit in WP categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn proposal

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

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

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

Marc Guéhi

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

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

I suppose the various subcats will need to be put up for discussion, could be best to bundle if possible. And... then there's 'expatriate (occupation) in England'. Then we come to things like '19xx establishments in England' should that be UK as well? I've seen several instances of articles being moved to the subcat. It's definitely an extended area for discussion and will probably need to be enshrined somewhere as policy; subject to consensus. Eagleash (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed its a big job, which I have been avoiding. I'm pleased to find we agree. I think it will be controversial, but I think the migration case is strong. Migration is about changing nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

That's one use of it... someone needs to tell all those birds flying south for the winter, that they are now South African... Google search results FWIW. Eagleash (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Nondiffusing categories

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

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

Nationality

Hello Rathfelder,

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

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

Known mononymously as...

Hi Rathfelder, I'm not sure how many biographical articles you may have removed this lead line from, but the use of "known mononymously as" is a part of MOS:NICK formatting when the professional name is a mononym derived from her personal name.

For any kind of alternative name, use formulations like the following (as applicable):

• Timothy Alan Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen
• Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi (c. 1445 – May 17, 1510), better known as Sandro Botticelli
• Ariadna Thalía Sodi Miranda (born 26 August 1971), known mononymously as Thalía

—DA1 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Its not compulsory - there are three alternatives. Mononym is a very obscure term, not known, for example in the 1967 Oxford English dictionary. Why make the article harder to understand? What additional meaning does it convey? Rathfelder (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That's why the term is wikilinked so readers can find out about it. The word "mono" is self-explanatory and clicking the wikilink teaches readers the concept. But what do you mean by 3 alternatives? It says "as applicable". Each of the 3 are different guidelines. —DA1 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"as applicable" allows editors to use their judgement. Mononymous person is largely about legal names, not stage names. Why do we want to send readers there when its not necessary. "Fred Bloggs, known as Blogger" conveys the meaning quite adequately. In many of the exemplar articles Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva , and Madonna, for example, it is not used. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you look closely, each of the examples are different. I can't mix and match and say "Timothy Alan Dick is known mononymously as Allen" because Allen is not the name he goes by (in terms of notability). However, Thalía is a stage name and that is what she goes by. This is just what the standard MOS is. Your arguments for its change should be made separately to the MOS page itself. We shouldn't have to start a dispute over each individual case, that's what the MOS is meant to reduce in the first place. —DA1 (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What does that add to the meaning which is not conveyed by "known as Thalía", apart from sending most people to find out what mononymously means?Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not my problem. I'm just here conveying the status quo. You can make the arguments against it on the MOS page. DA1 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It clearly isnt the status quo. There are thousands of articles about people known by a single name which dont use it, including the exemplar articles. Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Irish emigrants to Australia (before 1923)

I see you added some articles to Category:Irish emigrants to Australia (before 1923). Just a heads up, if the person emigrated before 1901, they should go in the subcategory Category:Irish emigrants to colonial Australia. StAnselm (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal from Category:French Jews for Joseph Szydlowski 

Thank you for adding Joseph Szydlowski to Category:Jews of the Russian Empire Could you tell me the reason that led you to remove him from the "Category:French Jews"? To my knowledge, which is shared and nowhere disputed on the eponymous wiki page Joseph Szydlowski was indeed a Jew born in the Russian Empire, in a region of present-day Poland, who acquired French nationality at the dawn of the second world war. I let you check and correct this removal which seems to me unjustified RamGunt (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• He became a Jew at birth in Russia. He doesnt need to be in 2 Jewish categories. Its an inherited characteristic.Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

'People from'

Hi, can you help me understand this? Or put it another way, is there an 'official' definition of what 'people from X' means? This person was born in St Pete and raised in Lappeenranta; why does that make her a person from the latter, rather than the former? (Sorry, I did try to find a guideline, but couldn't immediately, so lazy as I am, I thought I'd just ask you instead!) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• "People from" is ambiguous, and we use that ambiguity in cases like this. Categorisation should relate to the notability of the person. In her case there is no suggestion that she did anything noteworthy in St Petersburg, so it seems better to locate her in Finland, though the article is a bit thin about where exactly she was based. Have a look at WP:COPPLACE. We have to use our judgement. There seem to be quite a lot of similar articles about Finnish people born in St Petersburg. Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, very helpful. I don't think I've previously come across COPPLACE, and I wasn't aware that there was room for interpretation on this. And FWIW, this makes perfect sense, and I will be going through my other creations to see if there are similar issues in any of them. Thanks again for your help on this. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

AWB

Are you familiair with Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser? It surely helps with tagging a large number of pages simultaneously. Or else I can do it for you after you created a list of categories to be tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a try. Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tofu. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. It is a minor, trivial issue - WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Zefr (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• I dont accept that WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Nor do I think that one reversion is disruptive. Your advice applies just as much to the editor who removed my contribution - no discussion there. I dont think you have considered the immense political coverage. Not normal for a foodstuff. Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Listification

Please can listify the Category:People from Foo categories on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 13 and 12, so that then discussions can be closed, as per Fayentic London's comments. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• No thank you. There are about 800 of these almost empty categories and several hundred have already been deleted. We dont do that for other categories which are deleted for being almost empty. Most of the articles are about sportspeople. Many of the articles dont even mention the district into which they have been categorised. I dont think they are significant enough to be treated like that. If someone else wants to do so I have no objection, but my view is that they should be categorised into the federal subjects, not into these small towns. Rathfelder (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Fayenatic london? (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)— Qwerfjkltalk 21:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree on categorisation, but disagree about not providing any link from the place to the people (via lists instead). Many cases are a somewhat more significant than stated above, but there are some with the problems mentioned. E.g. although I listed Anna Cholovyaga in the page Kovdorsky District, I acknowledge that this is uncited, perhaps taken in good faith from Russian Wikipedia which states her birthplace as Kovdor. In future I'll probably skip any which are as weak as that. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Floreat Etona

I don't think you should be diffusing the Etonians by profession without discussion. To me the main category should be non-diffusing, even if that keeps it large. The most obvious way of breaking it up is by century, which imo could be diffused. I'm minded to take the matter to Cfd. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

We had this debate about judges [5] and it survived. But why do you think it shouldnt be diffused? Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Survived is the word! No consensus. That discussion didn't as far as I can see, discuss diffusing vs non-diffusing. I don't actually object to the existence of the sub-cats, which was the issue there, but some of these sub-cats, perhaps unlike the judges, represent only a small part of the person's life, and they should not be defined in this way. I see someone has beated me to it. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of National Care Group

The article National Care Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The references do not show notability, and the article is also rather promotional.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 09:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Rathfelder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This was a very stupid thing to do and I am very sorry. I can only say in my defence that though I was deceitful I dont think my bad behaviour had much effect. It was confined to the backstage area of categorisation discussions.

I think I set up the Bigwig account initially because I was worried about being blocked. I have been briefly blocked, I felt unfairly, a couple of times. I also used it a few times to edit controversial pages about living people who would recognise my name. I was in those cases very careful to use reputable sources and avoid bias. I understand this to be considered legitimate.

I see I started to use it to add a voice to categorisation discussions when I felt the discussion in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Category:Architects_from_Dorset] was unfair, and since then I have used it several times similarly when I felt I was being personally attacked.

I have put a lot of time and effort into Wikipedia, especially since lockdown, and I think I have become too obsessive about categorisation. I do think that discussions about categorisation are confined to a rather small number of editors, some of whom seem even more obsessive than I am, but this is clearly not the way to deal with the problem, and I can only apologise for my dishonesty, though I dont actually think it had much effect.

I would like to apologise to {{u|Fayenatic london}} who says that I have been abrasive. I think he may be right in suggesting that I have been suffering from  Wikipediholism. I enjoy the work and I think it is useful and important, but I completely accept that I broke the rule and that the rule is important. I also think I was developing delusions of self-importance and that I need to deal with them.

If I am unblocked I would propose to give up categorisation for a while and concentrate on other areas of work where conflicts are less likely to arise. I dont envisage any circumstances arising now which would give me any cause for legitimate use of a second account, so I am not asking for the bigwig account to be unblocked. Rathfelder (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This was a very stupid thing to do and I am very sorry. I can only say in my defence that though I was deceitful I dont think my bad behaviour had much effect. It was confined to the backstage area of categorisation discussions. :I think I set up the Bigwig account initially because I was worried about being blocked. I have been briefly blocked, I felt unfairly, a couple of times. I also used it a few times to edit controversial pages about living people who would recognise my name. I was in those cases very careful to use reputable sources and avoid bias. I understand this to be considered legitimate. :I see I started to use it to add a voice to categorisation discussions when I felt the discussion in [[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 26#Category:Architects%20from%20Dorset|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Category:Architects_from_Dorset]]] was unfair, and since then I have used it several times similarly when I felt I was being personally attacked. :I have put a lot of time and effort into Wikipedia, especially since lockdown, and I think I have become too obsessive about categorisation. I do think that discussions about categorisation are confined to a rather small number of editors, some of whom seem even more obsessive than I am, but this is clearly not the way to deal with the problem, and I can only apologise for my dishonesty, though I dont actually think it had much effect. :I would like to apologise to {{u|Fayenatic london}} who says that I have been abrasive. I think he may be right in suggesting that I have been suffering from  Wikipediholism. I enjoy the work and I think it is useful and important, but I completely accept that I broke the rule and that the rule is important. I also think I was developing delusions of self-importance and that I need to deal with them. :If I am unblocked I would propose to give up categorisation for a while and concentrate on other areas of work where conflicts are less likely to arise. I dont envisage any circumstances arising now which would give me any cause for legitimate use of a second account, so I am not asking for the bigwig account to be unblocked. [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder#top|talk]]) 09:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This was a very stupid thing to do and I am very sorry. I can only say in my defence that though I was deceitful I dont think my bad behaviour had much effect. It was confined to the backstage area of categorisation discussions. :I think I set up the Bigwig account initially because I was worried about being blocked. I have been briefly blocked, I felt unfairly, a couple of times. I also used it a few times to edit controversial pages about living people who would recognise my name. I was in those cases very careful to use reputable sources and avoid bias. I understand this to be considered legitimate. :I see I started to use it to add a voice to categorisation discussions when I felt the discussion in [[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 26#Category:Architects%20from%20Dorset|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Category:Architects_from_Dorset]]] was unfair, and since then I have used it several times similarly when I felt I was being personally attacked. :I have put a lot of time and effort into Wikipedia, especially since lockdown, and I think I have become too obsessive about categorisation. I do think that discussions about categorisation are confined to a rather small number of editors, some of whom seem even more obsessive than I am, but this is clearly not the way to deal with the problem, and I can only apologise for my dishonesty, though I dont actually think it had much effect. :I would like to apologise to {{u|Fayenatic london}} who says that I have been abrasive. I think he may be right in suggesting that I have been suffering from  Wikipediholism. I enjoy the work and I think it is useful and important, but I completely accept that I broke the rule and that the rule is important. I also think I was developing delusions of self-importance and that I need to deal with them. :If I am unblocked I would propose to give up categorisation for a while and concentrate on other areas of work where conflicts are less likely to arise. I dont envisage any circumstances arising now which would give me any cause for legitimate use of a second account, so I am not asking for the bigwig account to be unblocked. [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder#top|talk]]) 09:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This was a very stupid thing to do and I am very sorry. I can only say in my defence that though I was deceitful I dont think my bad behaviour had much effect. It was confined to the backstage area of categorisation discussions. :I think I set up the Bigwig account initially because I was worried about being blocked. I have been briefly blocked, I felt unfairly, a couple of times. I also used it a few times to edit controversial pages about living people who would recognise my name. I was in those cases very careful to use reputable sources and avoid bias. I understand this to be considered legitimate. :I see I started to use it to add a voice to categorisation discussions when I felt the discussion in [[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 26#Category:Architects%20from%20Dorset|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Category:Architects_from_Dorset]]] was unfair, and since then I have used it several times similarly when I felt I was being personally attacked. :I have put a lot of time and effort into Wikipedia, especially since lockdown, and I think I have become too obsessive about categorisation. I do think that discussions about categorisation are confined to a rather small number of editors, some of whom seem even more obsessive than I am, but this is clearly not the way to deal with the problem, and I can only apologise for my dishonesty, though I dont actually think it had much effect. :I would like to apologise to {{u|Fayenatic london}} who says that I have been abrasive. I think he may be right in suggesting that I have been suffering from  Wikipediholism. I enjoy the work and I think it is useful and important, but I completely accept that I broke the rule and that the rule is important. I also think I was developing delusions of self-importance and that I need to deal with them. :If I am unblocked I would propose to give up categorisation for a while and concentrate on other areas of work where conflicts are less likely to arise. I dont envisage any circumstances arising now which would give me any cause for legitimate use of a second account, so I am not asking for the bigwig account to be unblocked. [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder#top|talk]]) 09:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Rathfelder (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't just categories though - you used both accounts at a fair number of AfDs, and in at least one regular article talk page discussion. It's good to see you acknowledge how inappropriate this was though, and I think the idea of staying away from categories for a while is a good one. How about this: accept a one-account restriction, and TBans from categories in general, and from deletion discussions, which you can appeal in six months at AN. That will give you a chance to find other areas to work in, Does that sound fair? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That seems very fair. But I dont know what TBans are. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:TBAN. It would mean that you can't edit about categories (no creating them, no adding articles to them etc), and you can't contribute to deletion discussions. This isn't a technical restriction, like a partial block, it's something that you agree to abide by, and if you're found breaching it then you'd end up blocked again. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Can the Tban be more precise? What got me in trouble was working through hundreds of articles in overpopulated categories and dispersing them into sub-categories which I created. That is what I think I need to stop doing, at least for a while. But if I go back to actually working on individual articles I would like to be able to put a new article into categories, and move an individual article into a more appropriate category. And I would like to be able to object to PRODs, as above. Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me have a think about that - I'll need to have a closer look at the editing. I'm going out for a walk, but I won't leave you hanging too long. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

After looking at the CU data and the edits, I would not unblock with any more narrow of a restriction than Girth Summit has proposed. Vote stacking is a big deal. I would not feel comfortable letting you back into a topic area where you did that -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Categorisation is not really a topic area in itself. I would not get involved in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, but if I cant put new articles in a category that would be a problem. Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not expecting to create loads of new articles. Would it work if I asked permission if I felt I needed to add or change a category? Rathfelder (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  OK, thinking this through, I find myself in the same place as Guerillero: I think you need to step away from categorisation for the moment. That is not going to be compatible with your holding the autopatrolled perm, so I would pull that before unblocking - when you create new articles, an NPP reviewer will look at it, and they will add some categories. A topic ban from categories will mean that you can't add articles to categories, or change the categories an article is in, create new categories, or even discuss categories with other editors - essentially, you'd have to act like they're not a thing. It can be done - TBH, it's the way most editors seem to act most of the time. After six months of uncontroversial constructive editing, you could apply to have the TBan lifted, and the autoperm right reinstated.

  As for deletion - it's deletion discussions I'm worried about. I would not mind you removing PROD or CSD tags, but when it comes to any XfD discussion, you'd have to avoid it. If you wanted to save an article from deletion, you would be allowed to improve it by adding more sources. If you accept this proposal, let me know. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  That is perfectly fair. Thank you. I could use the talk page to make suggestions about categories? I think I need to be very clear about exactly what I can and cant do. Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  No - you cannot mention categories on talk pages, or anywhere else. Like I said, you have to act as though they don't exist. This needn't be permanent - build up some trust again, and you can request the ban be lifted, but for now you will need to act as though nobody nobody on Wikipedia has ever had the idea of assigning articles to categories, and you haven't thought of it either. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  OK. I will have to manage my frustrations. Rathfelder (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:E-commerce in Iraq

A tag has been placed on Category:E-commerce in Iraq 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)