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

Edits to Northern Ireland Federation of Sub-Aqua Clubs and British Underwater Sports Association

Hi Rathfelder, I noticed that you removed the Category:Supraorganizations from both the above articles. Can you please advise why you have done particularly both organisations meet the description of a supraorganisation as per the category page, i.e. membership is made of organisations rather than individuals? Please reply here. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I dispute the definition, and I have altered the article. I can't see any sign of anyone outside wikipedia using it in this sense. I don't think that is how the word is used in the real world. In the real world the term Supraorganization seems to imply some sort of overarching function, such as regulation. There are immense numbers of organisations whose members are other organisations. All the football leagues in the world for a start, and many religious and academic organisations. I am trying to make some sense of the category. Specifically I don't see that being composed of other organisations is a defining characteristic of organisations of the kind you mention, or indeed of most sporting organisations. So I can't see that anyone looking for a sub-aqua organisation would be looking for it under this category. Do you think anyone would refer to either as a supraorganisation? But I think Sports governing bodies probably do fit here. I know nothing about underwater sports, and you are entirely free to disagree with me and revert. But perhaps you could tell me if there is any organisation in that area which fits my view of the definition? Is there a rule making or standard setting organisation body?Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights in the word "Supraorganisation". A search online suggests that this could be an unintended WP by-product. A focused google search found the use of the word in texts concerned with international governance (i.e. treaties) and agencies within government. Generally, the word was spelt as supra-organization or supra organization. Also, none of the texts that I viewed were specifically concerned with supraorganizations. There may be some managerial texts that briefly discuss the concept. In response to your questions, I advise the following. Firstly, I think the term would only be used within academia; in other fields, terms such as peak bodies and umbrella organisations would probably prevail. Also, I think the prefix “supra” is not widely. Secondly, sports governing bodies do have a regulatory function in respect to sports rules. In respect to underwater sports, I think the best example of a supraorganisation would the Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques. Thirdly, a example of a standard setting organisation body would be the International Organization for Standardization. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is most helpful. I will continue my efforts to reduce inappropriate use of the category.Rathfelder (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

why

Ratanpurwb (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Are you trying to communicate? Rathfelder (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello Rathfelder, you seems to be a destubator. Thank you for... just removing the stub tag in the articles and not assessing the respective talk. Wikiproject volleyball still have a quality scale and there is a policy for stubs that states that stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub. Also it says for removing the stub template, that Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template and this article for example have not been expanded since the tag were put in place and by the way, it is just two sentences. You are not either completing the destub correctly because you have not done this in any article recently: When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary and you have to.--Osplace 01:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• The policy actually says " stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone – lists, templates, images, and other such peripheral parts of an article are usually not considered when judging whether an article is a stub." I don't think it is appropriate in articles about sports teams to ignore the tabular information about their performance or the members of the squad. The same information could have been presented as prose. There is, in each of the volleyball articles, a lot of information. Far more than could be included in a dictionary article.

I don't see much correlation between the stub classification of articles and that on the talk pages. Many pages marked as stub are marked as start class on the talk page, if they are assessed at all, and many of the stub assessments are clearly outdated. I am working through the 1000 largest stubs. Most of them are clearly no longer stubs. These are all articles with more than 10,000 characters. There are screensful of useful information. I don't edit the assessments on the talk pages because I think they are performing a different function from the stub template on the article. Some articles are marked by several projects and are differently assessed by them. For example: Talk:Swansea District (UK Parliament constituency) is assessed differently by three different projects. Talk:Shamim Ara is Rated Start-class by 3 different projects, but had a stub template on the article itself. I don't feel competent to assess in terms of the projects.

If you disagree with my assessment that is fine, I'm not going to argue with you. It's a subjective decision. But the policy is quite clear:"Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable." And I find it difficult to see what is achieved be leaving these substantial articles in the stub list.Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have not read my comment. It does not matter if you do not see any relation between the stub classification of articles and that on the talk pages. The policy clearly says that When removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary.

An article should have prose. The prose section is the main reason to promote them in the quality scale. Forget about the size. Is not whatever you want, if every single editor should do whatever it wants taking no consideration to policies what would happen? Stick to the policy. If is a large size it should be a huge stub, nothing else. When removing the tag, update the talk page, you have to. No matter if there is something different, both should read the same, if not you should help correct it, but by the policy, not your own idea. According to your talk page, you have been warned for this before, take that into consideration.--Osplace 18:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have read your comments. But I don't agree with you. I am not part of your project. A project can have its own criteria for the classification of articles which I am not party to. One article may be part of several projects, (Russia women's national under-18 volleyball team is part of 4) and they may all have different criteria. In the case of the articles you reverted most had not been rated at all by the projects they were part of, so there was nothing for me to update. Florida Launch, which I just destubbed was rated start class by the Lacrosse project, but left as a stub. The policies you complain I am not following are not consistent, nor practical, and there is a lot of evidence that they are not often followed. In fact, the reality is that only a small minority of projects are operating at all. If your project is working I will not interfere with it.

NB not every article has prose. Lists don't have prose, and the policy says that lists are not stubs. But I think an article should be judged as a whole. How much information does it contain? That is why the policy says "usually". Of course I could deconstruct the tables and turn them into prose, and I suppose you would then concede that the articles are not stubs. Rathfelder (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing stub templates

Hi, I came across your edits today with removing stub templates, thanks for trying to help out with stub management of pages, however, when you do remove a stub template, can you please also change the rating on the talk page too? Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any relationship between assessment of stubs from projects and the general criteria for stubs. Every project can set its own definition, and different projects can and do assess the same article differently. See discussion above on my page under the heading Stubs. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood what I was asking, anyway, if you remove an AFL related stub, then can you please update the AFL rating on the talk page because they're directly related. I read the discussion above and I'm just reitirating what Osplace asked "when removing stub templates, users should also visit the talk page and update the WikiProject classifications as necessary." Flickerd (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But they aren't related at all. Projects set their own definition of a stub which may be quite different from the definition used in the encyclopedia, which is exactly what has happened in the case of the Collingwood Football Club articles. They are clearly not stubs within the criteria of the encyclopedia. If WikiProject Australian rules football wants to have their own criteria that is a matter for them. I am afraid I am not going to investigate the criteria used by each project. Especially as the explanation you appear to be using is not what is described on the project page. The status given by the project to an article on its talk page and the status of the article in the encyclopedia are two different things.Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't really be bothered with this, but continue to make your own rules which is evident in other conversations you've had on your talk page. Flickerd (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered why did you start a conversation? Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that you've removed stub templates from a few New Zealand election articles. Those articles where that has happened that are on my watchlist have hardly any prose, but long lists of candidates. Therefore, the article cannot possibly be start class, but it's reasonable to assign list class status to them. Going forward, can you please re-rate those NZ election articles as list class when you remove stub tags? Schwede66 08:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

List status is particular to individual projects. Stub status is across the encyclopedia, and the policy, as I understand it, is that lists, however imperfect, are not stubs WP:STUB. I'm afraid I cannot investigate the policies of every project, so I do not interfere with the status assigned by the project (s) on the talk page. Different projects can, and do, assign different status to the same article and adopt different criteria for the same status. That is a matter for them. Rathfelder (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to investigate anything. What I'm asking you is to change class to "list" when you remove stub tags from New Zealand politics articles. Schwede66 09:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You are asking me to remember a special procedure for those articles - of which I may see no more for months. I am working through the 1000 longest stubs. There may be no more New Zealand politics articles. I will try, but I may forget.Rathfelder (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Good. Thanks! Schwede66 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

De-stubbing

Thank you for removing stub templates from articles that are no longer considered stubs. As an experienced editor, you ought to know that articles are marked as stubs both using stub templates in the article itself and with article assessments on the talk pages. When de-stubbing, you should also update the assessments on the talk page. WP:DESTUB – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Each project has its own criteria for article status, and I am not in a position to investigate them all. I have a week to work through the 1000 longest stubs. There is not much correlation between the status on the articles and those on the talk pages, and indeed it appears not many projects are actually active. It is quite possible for the same article to have a different status on different projects - like this one New Ross (UK Parliament constituency) - the last one I did. If someone on a project thinks I've got it wrong then please correct me. Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand you position and, having read the discussion above (@Flickerd and Schwede66: courtesy ping), agree to a degree. In principle, each WP has its own assessment scale. In practice however, they seem to agree, especially in the low-end of the scale. I understand that you hesitate to update the ratings because doing so on a lot of pages means it's either prohibitively time consuming or leads to getting some assessments wrong. But what you're doing now is bound to end up with the wrong result every time. Stub templates and WP ratings are not supposed to disagree. While as a WP:VOLUNTEER you don't have to assess on the talk page, the guideline says you should. It's a bit like volunteering to add opening brackets of wls and transclusions but neverminding to close them, to be honest... a job half done that leaves behind a mess.

I'm not in a position to tell you what to do, other than follow our guidelines, but since this issue has been brought up a couple of times now, something should change. If I were you, I'd WP:BOLDly change each project's Stub rating to Start. If individual projects' members disagree with that assessment, then great, they can revise it to a more accurate one. But right now everyone including you agree that these are not stubs and should not be called Stubs in the assessment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This should be a two way process. The last article I did Nebraska gubernatorial election, 1924 was rated start class by the project, but left as a stub on the article. 1973 Philadelphia Eagles season was rated start class by three separate projects - all of which left the stub on the article. I think this is a bigger problem than me. I'd like to see the two linked together. But I also find the common criteria for start class "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources." completely subjective. I don't want to get into arguments with people from projects who will not a lot more about these subjects than I do. I'm using very simple criteria - any article in the top 1000 longest stubs is not a stub unless there is something unusual about it - like a big infobox or a blank table.Rathfelder (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree: as long as we have two separate places for tagging article as stubs, there will be discrepancies and I've certainly seen them before. My gut instinct here is simply that if we don't think something is a stub, it's at minimum a start. It's expected that some project members will disagree, but my instinct is that in the vast majority of cases they won't. When they do, you too already agree that the project rating scale should take precedence, so it doesn't really sound like a particularly bitter fight. Personally I wish that ratings below GA will be handled by mw:ORES in the future. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you say that It's Like, You Know... is a stub? User:IJBall does - but he's using the project definition of a stub - which is not quite the same as WP:STUB Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

First, I would like to second Finnusertop, above – if you're going to remove stub tags then you also need to change the Talk page assessments at the same time. Second, in general, I find that you have been too aggressive in removing stub tags – you are removing them from articles that are just 1 or 2 sentences long (e.g. Jagger Eaton's Mega Life), or from articles that have just 1 real secondary source (e.g. It's Like, You Know...). Again, as per "all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this [stub] category" (which while not mentioned directly in WP:STUB, is mentioned in pretty much every WP assessment criteria I've ever seen...), we should only be removing 'stub' tags from articles that have 10 or more sentences and at least 2 or 3 good quality secondary sources. For an article like It's Like, You Know..., finding 1 or 2 additional sources shouldn't be that hard – in fact, that has been on my mental "To Do" list (I just haven't gotten around to it...). Just add 1 or 2 more sources to that one, and I agree that it will graduate to 'Start' class. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think your approach is consistent with the policy outlined in WP:STUB, which says nothing about quality or references. It is true that that approach is taken by most projects - which is why I think it is right to treat the stub assessment at the bottom of the article as having different criteria from that applied by the projects. And it is quite common to be assessed differently by different projects. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No – the article assessment and the Talk page assessment should be in harmony. Further, the WP assessments on the Talk page should also be in harmony with each other – the only exception to that might be B-class vs. C-class assessments which might be different for different projects. But if an article is a 'Stub', it should be marked 'Stub' for all the listed WP's on the Talk page; ditto if 'Start' class. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You can say that they should be, but they often aren't. And I take the WP:STUB policy as taking precedence over the policies of individual projects, each of which is at liberty to determine its own policies. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an WP:Other stuff exists argument – just because some people are removing stub-tags but not updating the Talk page assessment doesn't mean you should. Frankly, you are probably going to start getting reverted just on the basis of removing stub tags without updating the Talk page assessments. Bottom line: WP:STUB and the WP assessments are supposed to work together – you're not supposed to pay attention to one, while ignoring the other. If an editor changes the WP assessments from 'Stub' to 'Start' on the Talk page, then they're supposed to remove the 'Stub'-tag from the article itself, and visa versa. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you want to shoot the messenger. I would say that in a very substantial minority of the stub articles I deal with - and I only deal systematically with the 1000 longest stubs - there are discrepancies between the stub categories on the article and those applied by the various projects. I haven't caused those discrepancies. And I don't actually see any policy which says they should work together, nor any harm if they don't. Each project is free to set its own policies. They are not forced to adopt the WP:STUB policy. Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sadly, I think most of these projects are inactive. I have destubbed at least 10,000 articles and only half a dozen people from projects have ever raised this as an issue. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Articles may be stubs for any of several reasons. Those include both a stub tag on the mainspace page, or a project rating on the talk: page. The overall assessment "Is this a stub?" is subjective, contextual, and depends on whether it's pessimistic or optimistic (can any one of these indicate stubs, or must all indicate stubs?) and also on which projects are seen as both in scope and reasonably up to date. As project ratings are almost never updated, I would place a very low weight on them. There's also the aspect that some projects might have different criteria or rating levels - "unsourced" varies a lot between BLP and others, or the quality of a source is regarded differently between contemporary politics and early medieval politics.

This issue is utterly trivial and a serious waste of time. If Rathfelder is removing stub tags from articles where they meet some basic level of sourcing, then thankyou for that. If you want to still see these as "only stubs" because you apply your own subjective rating to them based on more particular tests, or just because they have a project rating on the talk: page too, then feel free to judge them how you wish. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The point of marking articles as stubs is presumeably to help editors prioritise their work. In active projects that seems to work well. But I can't see what is achieved by marking articles with pages of information - however poor - as stubs. But if anyone wants to revert what I do that is up to them. I am not going to fight about it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus

I think we have reached a consensus along the following line: when a stub tag is removed from an article, any stub assessment on the talk page should at least be upgraded to start class. That would mirror the expectation of those editors who have commented above. If an article is of a higher class than start, that should be attended to by members of the respective Wikiproject. If anyone gives Rathfelder grief about updating an assessment to start class in line with this consensus, this discussion can be referred to. I suggest that captures the essence of what has been discussed.

• Support as nominator. Schwede66 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Well that's fine. But does this policy only apply to me? I'd say at least 100 of the 1000 stubs I just worked through had been upgraded to Start status on the talk page, but the article was still marked as a stub. Unless we find a way of tying the two together there is not much point worrying about it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Of course there's no such consensus.

An editor removing the stub tag(s) might remove such a rating as outdated, they might choose to re-evaluate the article entirely, but stubbiness for either reason is independent. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I dont think my talk page is the place to establish a community concensus. Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely support that. (Note: This is independent of whether I agree with Rathfelder's opinion on upgrading from 'Stub' to 'Start' – but if you're going to remove the stub tag, the Talk page also needs to be updated.) The other option, of course, is for Rathfelder to drop this particular line of editing on their part, and perhaps actually try to tackle some genuine article improvement (e.g. adding sourcing) instead. There are plenty of us that are also keeping an eye on article assessment for various reasons, and we are certainly able to tackle this particular task ourselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Some tips for contributing to CfD

I noticed that User:BrownHairedGirl is becoming a bit desperate about your nominations, and presumably this is not a fun situation for you either. Here are some tips which might help preventing clashes between the two of you:

• If you see something that you think is wrong, avoid proposing deletion as much as possible. Renaming or merging is often more appropriate and helpful than deletion.
• If you think something needs to be merged, propose upmerging rather than downmerging. With downmerge, nearly always there will be content for which the downmerge would be inappropriate. With upmerge you will not have that problem.
• If you think something needs to be upmerged, make sure that all parent categories are included in the nomination as merge targets (or make sure you have a good reason not to include all of the parents).
• Check siblings in all parent categories to see if they need to be co-nominated.
• Indent your contributions to discussions properly. If you react on someone's contribution in particular, start with the same amount of colons as their contribution + 1.

Hopefully this helps. If you have any further questions, just contact me on my talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

All good advice, @Marcocapelle

I would also add to Rathfelder:

• Do the prep work. Read relevant articles, ask at talk pages, do google searches, ask at WikiProjects. Your own assessments are repeatedly deficient, so you need to do a lot more prep and a lot more pre-CFD discussion.
• study the WP:CFDS criteria and how to make valid CFDS nominations, so that you don't clutter the full CFD discussions with stuff which does not need to be there
• When you do a full CfD, notify relevant WikiProjects. (e.g. I notified WP:MILHIST about CfD 2018 April 10#Category:Irregular_units_and_formations, which brought several knowledgeable replies

Please remember that a full CFD imposes a burden on the community. If the idea is ill-considered (or just plain daft), then other editors need to take time to explain why, to avoid the CFD proceeding by default. And someone then has to close the discussion, untag the categories, etc etc. All of this is a drain on the time and energies of a dwindling community of editors.

I do have to say that there is a long-term pattern noted by several others that you repeatedly convey little or no comprehension of the issues involved in the topics you nominate, or convey a serious miscomprehension. I'm sorry to have to be blunt, but this looks to me like a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I have no doubt that you mean well, and you are commendably civil even when under pressure, but your ability to make well-founded CFDs nominations does not seem to be improving. Sure you do some good simpler noms, but far too many are v poor. I hope that I am wrong about WP:COMPETENCE, and that you are simply working too fast.

This has happened before at both CfD and AfD. In several cases the community has said to such editors "enough": the signal-to-noise ratio here is too low. My latest round of CFD backlog clearance has brought me close to the point of investing the time to make that case here. I really wouldn't like doing that, so I hope you do take on board Marcocapelle's suggestions and his kind offer of help.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, just a note to say that Rathfelder's talk page is on my watchlist as I also have competence concerns. Schwede66 21:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Schwede66. You were not one of the editors who I had in mind when I noted above that others shared my concerns about competence, so it's interesting to see that the disquiet is more widespread.

Similar concerns eventually led to Stephanomione being indefinitely topic banned from participation at WP:CFD and from creating or changing categories and to Johnpacklambert being indefinitely banned from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day. (The latter was a compromise proposal by me when a complete AFD ban for JPL seemed possible, but to my eyes a bit too harsh). I hope that what has been posted here, esp Marcocapelle's offer of assistance, will help avert similar escalation here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• I just spotted Rathfelder's latest reply[1] to me at CfD 2018 April 10#Category:Irregular_units_and_formations. I have responded there [2], but in this more private venue I'll note that it raises 5 related competence issues:
  1. not knowing how to post a WP:DIFF. After 13 years and 145K edits, the lack of that skill that is v surprising
  2. asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 145#Categorisation_of_informal_military_organisations questions which are far too broad and open to allow easy reply.
  3. When there was no reply after a few days, not formulating a more focused followup before the section was archived
  4. Citing that as prep work for the nomination to place all irregular units and formations under militias, an idea which is not even hinted at in your unanswered post
  5. Not mentioning the unanswered MILHIST post until your 3rd response to the discussion on your nom. If it was genuinely intended as prep work for the nom, it should have been linked from the nominator's rationale.

I can see once again how you meant well ... and once again how the way this was done was so multiply flawed that it was not going to work.

I'm sorry, Rathfelder, that this probably feels like a pile-on. I really do not want to be mean; I just hope it is better to raise these points here than to wait until someone brings it to ANI, and that you will be able to take this on board. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• I thought Categories for discussion was for discussing categories. Clearly I was wrong and I will stop trying to discuss them. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Notes on copyright and autopatrolled

@Diannaa:, you posted a note about copyright on this user's talk page the other day (linked to below to keep things in chronological order). There's a few things that you should know:

• Rathfelder has been around for 11 years.
• One of the first notices on his talk page was about a copyviolation (turns out that he held the copyright for the content copied from an external website so it was rather a COI situation)
• Rathfelder deletes talk page items rather than archives them, which makes it more difficult to trace past behaviour or warnings
• Here's a list of prior copyright notices (no guarantees that it's complete):

• November 2014
• December 2014
• August 2015
• April 2017 (you posted that warning)
• August 2018 (you posted that warning)
• 15 November 2018
• 20 November 2018 (your recent warning)

With such a string of warnings about copyright, it is inappropriate for Rathfelder to be autopatrolled and I shall remove that flag. You might want to have a closer look at the underlying pattern of copyright infringements. Schwede66 18:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• This item::*15 November 2018 was nothing to do with me. I just moved this text from the article about Rwanda into its own article. The first warning first notices was text I had written on my own personal website which I transferred into the article. There was no conflict of interest nor any copyright problem.Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  There's two recent violations of the copyright policy for which I issued warnings: 10 August 2018 and 20 November 2018. Rathfelder, you are aware that unattributed copying or moving content within Wikipedia is not okay, and you have been working on that. If you need more info on that topic please have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I remind you that we have an automated system in place that helps us detect copyright issues, so if you continue violating the copyright policy it will likely get detected, and unfortunately a block will be the result. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• I understand that. But I would point out that the warning you issued in August was in respect of something I posted in 2014. So I have made one mistake this year and one last year.

When I move material, as I have been doing recently, from one Wikipedia page to another I always leave a note on both pages, as I just did with List of hospitals in the Federated States of Micronesia. Is that OK? Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You are correct – the August warning was for an edit performed back in 2014 that was discovered while investigating another matter. So my note was recent, but the edit itself was not. Regarding attribution: posting on the talk pages is okay, but optional. An edit summary that provides attribution is the part that's mandatory. Here is an example edit summary. If you can't do it (or forget to do it) at the time you add the content, make a small but useful edit and do it in the edit summary for that edit. That's what I do when I discover these when patrolling. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• It now appears that there was no copyright issue with the Rwanda article. So may I have my autopatrol status restored?Rathfelder (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that would be appropriate. I'll restore it. Schwede66 17:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I can't guarantee that I will never breach the rule, but I do try quite hard not to. Rathfelder (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice

On 3 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Ospedale degli Incurabili in Venice, where Johann Adolph Hasse was maestro di cappella, was founded as a hospice for sufferers from syphilis and other incurable diseases of the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ospedale degli Incurabili, Venice), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good work on spotting and nominating the articles which fail our guidelines. It improves WP. Störm (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Community health NHS trusts

Hi, Rathfelder, I notice that you've been changing the tagging of some community health NHS trusts. As you know this isn't a separate legal form - there are only NHS trusts. My main concern is that of how we're defining community trusts. Is it those that provide exclusively community services or those that hold community services contracts (which number a great deal more)? I'm just not sure it's a helpful category! With very best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• There aren't, legally, mental health trusts either. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but I dont think its very helpful either to just call them all NHS trusts. I suppose we could have overlapping categories. We could set up categories like "organisations with NHS mental health contracts" which would include private providers. And integration makes it all more complicated. What do you think? It's a pity the NHS project seems to have died. Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• On reflection, I think "organisations with XX contract" would be too much of a job to keep up to date. "Organisations, the majority of whose activity is XX" is probably what we're aiming for, and I think that's what you've done, isn't it? (I'll get my coat.) Millstream3 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm expecting some NHS reforms this year. I thought of revisiting this when we know what will happen next. Rathfelder (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Query about deleted categories

Dear Rathfelder, I noticed that in the article about Richard Peacock, you added two new categories -- "People from Richmondshire (district)"‎ and "Engineers from Yorkshire" -- which seems fine to me -- but you also deleted their predecessor categories, "People from North Yorkshire" and "English engineers", which I would have thought worthy of retention. Could you please let me know your thinking on this, for my learning? Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• What I added are subcategories of what I deleted. Generally you put articles only in the most exact category you can. Otherwise top level categories, like Category:People, would be immense. But you also need to know about Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories. Rathfelder (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• That topic is no longer there. Do you have another link?SCHolar44 (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Try this WP:DUPCAT But be warned. Categorisation is not an exact science. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Dublin categories

Hi Rathfelder

Thank you for eventually withdrawing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Category:People_by_city_or_town_in_County_Dublin.

I then took a look at your latest edits[3], and spot-checked them. I see lots of problems:

1. [4] to -William Edward Hartpole Lecky -- wrong. He is not from Dublin city.
2. [5] to Alicia Sheridan Le Fanu -- wrong. Nothing to say she was from the city rather than the county.
3. [6] to Richard Leech -- wrong. Article does not say specifically that he was from the city.
4. [7] to William Leet -- wrong. Article is explicit that he is from Dalkey, not from the city.
5. [8] to Dionysius Lardner-- wrong. Article does not say specifically that he was from the city.
6. [9] to Suzy Lawlor -- wrong. Article does not say specifically that she was from the city.

And so on. Those 5 examples are only from spot checks of the the first 20 edits. That is a 30% error rate, without even checking the full set.

It is abundantly clear that you simply do not understand what you are doing here. Please revert your edits, and assure me that you will stop any further categorisation of Irish topics ... or I will take this to ANI to seek a topic ban.

Pinging @Oculi and Marcocapelle, who were party to the CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Before 1994 there was no distinction between the city and the county, as I understand it, so the sources almost all say they came from the County of Dublin. but I saw nothing in those articles to suggest that the people came from the places which are now in distinct counties. It appeared much more likely that they came from what is now the city. But if I'm wrong I will change them. But to say they are from somewhere may not mean that they were born there.

Lecky appears to have published his works in Dublin. We dont have an article on "Newtown Park, near Dublin", but there is now a park of that name near Dún Laoghaire, so perhaps that is where he was born.

William Leet is categorised as from Dalkey already. Perhaps we should alter Category:Military personnel from Dublin (city)‎ to County Dublin?

There is nothing in the article about Alicia Sheridan Le Fanu to say where she is from at all, but her parents appear to have been living in the city when she was born.

The article on Dionysius Lardner says " Whilst in Dublin, Lardner began to write and lecture on scientific and mathematical matters, and to contribute articles for publication by the Irish Academy"

The article on Suzy Lawlor again says nothing about where she lived or was born, but she made her theatre debut for Semper Fi Theatre Company at the Dublin Theatre. Rathfelder (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Rathfelder, it would have been helpful if you had pinged me in your reply.

Before I go any further, let me just just take your statement Before 1994 there was no distinction between the city and the county. That is absolutely complete and utter nonsense, and a brief study of the relevant Wikipedia articles would have shown you that it is nonsense.

• Dublin city has a history going back to at least the 10th century, and the city boundaries were first defined in about 1171. See Dublin#Middle_Ages: " King Henry II of England affirmed his ultimate sovereignty by mounting a larger invasion in 1171 and pronounced himself Lord of Ireland.[31] Around this time, the county of the City of Dublin was established along with certain liberties adjacent to the city proper. "
• County Dublin was established in the 1190s. It's in the infobox.

So you launched into a long bout of major categorisation on the basis of an assumption which was basically 800 years out of date, and which a minute or two of reading would have shown you is false. That is appallingly poor editing. So I repeat: It is abundantly clear that you simply do not understand what you are doing here. Please revert your edits, and assure me that you will stop any further categorisation of Irish topics ... or I will take this to ANI to seek a topic ban. That is the last time I will make the request. If this continues, I will take this further.

Now, to the examples.

One point which you repeatedly miss is that the phrase "from Dublin" is a ambiguous: it can refer to either the city, or to the much wider area of the county. You are clearly unaware of this ... which is one of the many reasons why you should not be categorising articles in relation to a geography which you clearly know nothing about.

Many of the sources are imprecise about this, and the articles often reflect that ambiguity. So when an article says "She was from Dublin", you cannot assume that this means the city. So unless there is clarity in the sources, use the broader county.

• Lecky appears to have published his works in Dublin. Publishers cluster in cities. They don';t publish only people from that precise local govt area.
  We don't have an article on 'Newtown Park, near Dublin', but there is now a park of that name near Dún Laoghaire, so perhaps that is where he was born.. Exactly: Newtown park was within the boundaries of what is now Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. But you didn't check that before categorising.
• William Leet: you write William leet is categorised as from Dalkey already. Perhaps we should alter Category:Military personnel from Dublin (city)‎. Dalkeyt is nt in Dublin city. It is about 7 miles away. So why on earth did you categorise him as being from the city?
• There is nothing in the article about Alicia Sheridan Le Fanu to say where she is from at all, but her parents appear to have been living in the city when she was born. Per WP:CATVER, if it's not in the article and backed by sources, you should not be categorising by it. That is a is very very basic principle of Wikipedia categorisation, and it's shocking that you are doing so much categorisation without being aware of that.
• The article on Dionysius Lardner says " Whilst in Dublin, Lardner began to write and lecture on scientific and mathematical matters, and to contribute articles for publication by the Irish Academy". Again, the phrase "in Dublin" is ambiguous.
• The article on Suzy Lawlor again says nothing about where she lived or was born, but she made her theatre debut for Semper Fi Theatre Company at the Dublin Theatre. Lemme unpick that:
  1. The article on Suzy Lawlor again says nothing about where she lived or was born ... but you categorised her despite that lack of info. For goodness sake, that's no way to categorise.
  2. she made her theatre debut for Semper Fi Theatre Company at the Dublin Theatre. The article also says that she was born in 1984 and graduated in 2005, so she's not some medieval character; she reached adulthood in the 21st-century.. Ireland is not in the stone age: we have roads, cars, bicycles, buses, trains (including one of the world's first railway lines), and people commute daily to Dublin from over a dozen counties. So the fact that her stage debut was in Dublin tells us only that she was capable of travelling there. (I live over 100 miles from Dublin in a county which borders the west coast, and I have to cross 4 other counties to get to Dublin on east coast, but I can still get there in under 2 hours if I choose my timing).

Enough already. It is abundantly clear that you simply do not understand what you are doing here. Please revert your edits, and assure me that you will stop any further categorisation of Irish topics ... or I will take this to ANI to seek a topic ban. --BrownHairedGirl "from Dublin" is a ambiguous • (contribs) 17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• I entirely accept that "from Dublin" is ambiguous. I've done my best to put people into the most appropriate categories, but it is not unusual that many articles say little precise about geography. You dont seem to take into account that all these articles were already categorised, and for some of them there was nothing in the article to support the category they were already in. As far as I was concerned this was a large project, and not finished at all. However I will now regretfully abandon it. Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, its a pity that you didn't have the courtesy to ping me in your reply.
    I am well aware that some of those articles were categorised in ways which failed WP:CATVER. But that is no excuse for you inventing your own facts to pile new breaches of policy on top of the existing failures. And I am very sad to see that you don't even acknowledge that the entire basis of your efforts was patent nonsense. Everyone screws up sometimes, but failure to acknowledge that is a bad sign.
    I welcome your assurance that you will abandon this, but I am sad to see that you don't make any commitment to undo the damage which you have already done. Cleaning up after your errors is a very basic indication of good fath, and the lack of that cleanup is bad news. It means that other editors have to devote their time to cleaning up after you.
    since you have agreed to stop messing around with the Dublin categories, I will not take this to ANI at this time. But as noted above, this is far from the first time that your work on categories has been so grossly deficient as to be disruptive. If there is a recurrence, I may take that to ANI, and cite this sorry saga as part of the long trail of evidence of how the problems are long-standing. i urge you to reconsider your whole involvement with categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• I dont feel confident that I could do any more work cleaning up in this area without annoying you more. BrownHairedGirl Rathfelder (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • As already requested, a slew of self-reverts would be a massive help. And BTW, your mangled copy-paste[10] of my sig didn't work as a ping, because a ping has to be in a new post. See WP:PING for how to do a ping. Note that I removed[11] the unclosed <small> tag which you inserted into your post. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I am quite happy to alter the occupational categories I created so they are from the county rather than the city. I think that would resolve some of the issues. Is that OK? @BrownHairedGirl: Rathfelder (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I have thought for some years that Rathfelder's edits in category space would not survive detailed scrutiny at ANI, where I would be delighted to provide diffs. Rathfelder's random scattering of organisations and organizations throughout that tree took years to remedy (and an endless RFC). BHG has the correct attitude to category creation: think beforehand, look at related cfds, think about the name, populate the category fully, create a complete tree, take the views of others into account. Rathfelder is a gadfly: 500 new categories in 2 months, over an astonishing range of different trees. It is impossible to do things properly at such speed. (I would guess that only 30% of edits being poor would be a good day for Rathfelder.) I would not create Category:English MPs 1353 for instance: were there just 2 (both for Coventry), is there a related article, what happened in 1352? Eg Category:People from South Cave: 1 article, (Robert Sheffield), no link to South Cave, no attempt to find a 2nd parent (somewhere smaller that E Yorks), and looking at the article it is his father who was linked to South Cave; this is 100% (at least, as there are errors of omission) poor edits. Oculi (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Category:English MPs 1353 fits in a highly developed system of Category:14th-century English MPs, and most of the categories I have created do. Large numbers of biographical articles start by saying "Joe Soap was the son of Fred Soap of Someplace." It's often the only geographic information there is. It is certainly the only link to Category:People from the East Riding of Yorkshire, so its just as valid for South Cave. But clearly we dont actually have enough articles to populate a South Cave category. I do a lot of sweeping up of uncategorised categories and the like. Very few of the categories I create are in any way novel. Categorisation of biographies is not a scientific process. Its about successive approximation. Of course I make mistakes. It's impossible to know, for example, whether there are enough articles to populate some geographical categories until you try. If you think something I've done is wrong please tell me at the time. Rathfelder (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
          • I cannot promise to point out every mistake you make immediately, as you edit at a prodigious rate, but this is a blunder (today). Oculi (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

and Stuttgart

In a similar matter, I just added my opinion on the subcategorization of a faculty category to the city of that faculty at Category talk:State University of Music and Performing Arts Stuttgart faculty. (In short: IMO it's wrong.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2020 (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)

Re: Paul George Konody

I am just curious, why not "Category:People from Budapest"? Is there some standard for category inclusion that I am missing? BD2412 T 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Categories are supposed to relate to notability. He doesnt seem to have done anything notable in Budapest apart from leaving it. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought we always include "from" categories irrespective of their relation to notability. After all, he didn't do anything notable in 1872 other than being born that year, and yet we include his birth year category. We also have a Category:Place of birth missing to remind users to add the place of birth, even where it relates to nothing else of note. BD2412 T 21:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• But we dont always categorise people by place of birth. "From" is ambiguous. Consensus seems to be that people shouldnt normally be categorised by place of birth if they left as children and grew up elsewhere and did whatever made them notable elsewhere. Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose that is reasonable. BD2412 T 20:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of categories

This edit is an example of one where you have removed, but without any explanation. Why have the categories been removed and why no explanation in the edit summary? If the issue is sourcing, did you look in the article or look for any sources before removing the categories? Alansohn (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Category:Lithuanian emigrants to the United States are not properly categorised as American people of Lithuanian-Jewish descent. That would apply to their children. Rathfelder (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The lack of edit summaries, doesn't help, but your stance on how categories work is contrary to rather broad consensus. These categories are clearly defining and I think that Debresser is making the same point below. Can you point to any policy that supports the claims you're making here. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:HotCat creates summaries automatically.
• Categories are heirarchical unless they are are non-diffusing. None of these categories are non-diffusing.
• Immigrants from Foo are not people of Fooish descent. They are Fooish people. That is not policy. That is what the words mean. Similarly a place of birth is not always defining. People who left a place as a child are not generally defined by that. I dont see what broad concensus you are referring to.
• NB I am not in general removing categories. I am adding more precise ones. Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, in this edit, why did you replace the People from Kaunas category with the immigrant category, instead of just adding the immigrant category? Debresser (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• He left Kaunas when he was five. Categories should relate to what makes the person notable. He did nothing notable in Kaunas. IN addition Category:Kovno Ghetto inmates is a subcategory of people from Kaunas.Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong: categories must be defining, see WP:CATDEF. A place of birth is always defining.

You are wrong: non-diffusing subcategories should not be removed because an article is already in a parentcategory, see WP:DUPCAT. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• A place of birth is not always defining. None of these categories are non-diffusing. Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree regarding places of birth not being defining. In the case of Aharon Barak, I'd argue that even those who generally hold that it isn't, should agree that it is. There is a film about him, showing how he goes back to visit his place of birth.

• If that is so then I would agree. But as a categoriser I have to go on what is in the article. Rathfelder (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Kovno Ghetto inmates is not a diffusing subcategory of Category:People from Kaunas. How can you understand otherwise? Debresser (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-diffusing categories are marked as such. Non-diffusion is only used in special circumstances. As far as I understand it everyone in the Kovno Ghetto was from Kaunas, just as in other ghettos, so its a valid sub-category. Rathfelder (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Small correction: non-diffusing categories should be marked as such. I find that this is not done more often than it is done. In any case, if a category is non-diffusing or not is not determined by {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}, but by what the category's real function is. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of biographical articles from category Soviet Jews

Hi Rathfelder, I don't see any reason for you to have been removing figures such as Mikhail Epelbaum and Zinovy Shulman from the category Soviet Jews and replacing it with a geographic designation. They were highly identified with Soviet Jewish culture and their participation in that system and its highly specific cultural output goes beyond mere geography. I can see that the category Soviet Jews has over 200 pages in it so it's not a matter of it being an outdated or invalid category. --Dan Carkner (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• For people from Odessa Category:Odessa Jews seems much more defining, and not time limited as the categories Soviet Jews, Russian Jews and Ukrainian Jews are - many of these people will have been in each of these categories during the course of their lives. But if you think for particular people the category Soviet Jews is really significant by all means restore it. But as far as I can see Epelbaum spent quite a lot of his life outside the Soviet Union. Rathfelder (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In these cases, I think it is an important thing to mention. Both were essentially employees of the Soviet state as artists for their entire lives and were closely identified with it, and with pro-Soviet content. Epelbaum's time abroad was touring as a Soviet artist. --Dan Carkner (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not very clear from the article. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This is basically the same issue as above, that Odessa Jews is not a diffusing category for Soviet Jews. Rathfelder, please internalize the distinction between diffusing and non-diffusing categories, and that you should not remove parent categories of non-diffusing categories from articles. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid your understanding of non-diffusing categories is not shared by most editors. The basic principle is that categorisation is heirarchical. Rathfelder (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, if every Soviet topic can be downgraded to a specific timeless location, it reduces the ability of users to research Soviet topics on Wikipedia for no good reason. An abstract notion of a universal hierarchy from big to small just doesn't cut it in my opinion. Same would go with any other important historical dimension to a biographical article. Dan Carkner (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit to add: I think it's less of a problem with many other articles you removed the categories from, where there are many other categories relating to Soviet topics, compared to these articles of mine where you removed the only Soviet related categories. thanks Dan Carkner (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is very difficult to see how to categorise biographies in Eastern Europe where people may well have been nationals of three or four countries during their lifetime even if they never moved. Any advice welcome. We could make Odessa Jews a subcategory of Soviet Jews, Russian Jews and Ukrainian Jews. Would that be helpful? Rathfelder (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think making it a subcategory like that makes sense, because of people who lived in Odessa before and after the Soviet era. I don't think there's any clean solution which is why I think removing valid categories is not the best approach when they can symbolize different things in different cases (temporal/political/cultural etc).Dan Carkner (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Religious organisations

Some years ago you created a host of categories such as Category:Religious organisations based in Gibraltar, with church, mosque and synagogue subcats. These are being emptied out-of-process, on the grounds that these are buildings, not organisations. I consider they are both, and should be in both trees. Do you agree? Oculi (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly. Of course some of the articles may just be about the buildings, just as some articles about hospitals are. Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sharecare updates

Hi Rathfelder!

I work with Sharecare and am helping flag appropriate updates to the article. Do you have a moment to review a request at Talk:Sharecare? I saw you've also made changes to improve the article against Wikipedia standards, so I thought this could be of interest to you.

(Reaching out instead of making the edit myself in keeping with Wikipedia Terms of Use & conflict of interest rules).

Thanks! SCbhaynes (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything published which documents this? Rathfelder (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! Yes. I noted this in my Number of Employees post on Sharecare's Talk page, but the current citation used in the article verifies more recent details, "as of September 2020", than those reflected in the Sharecare article which shows "(2019)". This update seems straightforward enough, but I won't edit the article myself per the site's guidelines regarding my conflict of interest. Thanks in advance for considering, and for any assistance you might offer. SCbhaynes (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Rathfelder. You can disregard my above reply, as that request has been handled. I have an updated request though, seeking help to update the Sharecare article's listed subsidiaries. I have posted requests to a few WikiProjects that I thought might be relevant, but my open request on Sharecare's Talk page remains unanswered. Is there any chance you'd be willing to take another look and help out? Continuing to avoid editing the article myself due to my conflict of interest. Thanks again. SCbhaynes (talk) 22:20, 3 December 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)

Bad Sulza concentration camp and POW camp confusion

You seem to be confused between Prisoner of War camps and Concentration Camps. Both your edits [12] and [13] are wrong. The concentration camp at Bad Sulza was closed in 1937. The Prisoner of War camp Stalag IX-C might have been head-quartered in the same town, but was an entirely different entity.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I am going off the articles: Ferdinand Jung " was merely transferred to the Bad Sulza Concentration Camp.", as was Lydia Poser. I see they are not the same thing - though perhaps they were the same premises? There dont seem to be categories for where POWs were. Do you think there should be? Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories are not really my thing - though I acknowledge they have an important role in Wikipedia. I don't know for certain if there was any commonality of buildings between the POW camp and the Concentration Camp. The latter appears to have occupied a brick building. The POW camp was really a series of camps that were well distributed. Stalag IX-C had camps in Mühlhausen and Obermaßfeld-Grimmenthal, amongst other places. So that is a dispersal of 70 or 80 miles or so. POW camps were numbered after the military district. Most if them were well spread out to make the maximum use of the workforce they represented. (Apart from officers, the Geneva convention allowed POWs to work on non-war-related jobs.) It appears unlikely that the POW camp in Bad Sulza did use the concentration camp building, as this[14] has a plan of a hutted camp. I don't know how authoritative the website is, but it looks believable. It does confirm that the RAF NCOs were actually in Bad Sulza.
The German wikipedia tells you the date the concentration camp closed[15]
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Righteous Among the Nations from Vienna has been nominated for upmerging

Category:Righteous Among the Nations from Vienna has been nominated for upmerging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a much more narrow conversation than some of the other discussions above about categorizing people related to the Holocaust. Input welcome! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Caymanian expatriates in Canada

A tag has been placed on Category:Caymanian expatriates in Canada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)