New Spain was a recognized political unit. Categories that intersect occupation and the recognized political unit where people are from are allowed. All the articles in this category are people who did defining artistic work while residents and subjects of mainland New Spain. This categorydpes not include anyone from either the West Indian or East Indian areas under New Spain. The size of People from New Spain is much larger than many other categories that have been subdivided more by occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
> The size of People from New Spain is much larger than many other categories that have been subdivided more by occupation
I don't think you need to be placing people directly in the People from new spain category, when there are viable child categories. I think we should containerize it. Mason (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we should handle it the same way people from colonial cuba are handled. Effectively they can be diffused into the specific century. Mason (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not think we should containerize any Category of people by place. There are too many people who are in rare occupations. Many of the people from New Spain were explorers, settlers and the like. I am not thinking breaking by century is a good idea. New Spain ends in 1821. It is a poor time to break by century. I do see some merit for by occupation. On the other hand there are sub-units like the Captancy General of the Yucatan. While we can subdivide by geographical unit and by occupation, I think we need to think this through. I do not think century is a good way to divide things though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let me rephrase because I think my point wasn't clear. I think that it would be useful to having categories like this as parents. For example People from Colonial Cuba (or whatever it is called) is the parent category of 19th-century Cubans, 18th-century Cubans etc, allowing most people to be placed into the more specific category. Mason (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Everything about that scheme is not wise. The thing is when a place is a Colony people can come and go between it and other parts of the domains. They establish residency without establishing full status there. It is much better to say they are from there than to attach them to a place with a demonym. This is why we use from categories and not demonyms for sub-national categories to start with. There are lots of people who had defining parts of their careers in Cuba, who would never have thought of themselves as being "Cuban" but would have said they were from Cuba. The same applies even more with new Spain. Placing people in categories that use a demonym is not wise really with any colonial entities. We should format all the categories, especially the ones we place articles in as people from x. The worst are things like "Colonial x people" which too often function as the deprecated by race categories. We should limit categories for People from colonial Virginia, People from Portuguese Mozambique etc. to people who functionally acknowledged they were part of the entity, not include people who lived in areas claimed by it in theory but outside its de facto limits. However these categories should not be formulated on racial or ethnic lines, they should include everyone who dmfunctioned in the place. We really should rename all Cuban by century categories pre-1900 to X from Spanish Cuba. The same should be done for other places. It is clear that an artist, writer, etc was from Cuba, but the demonym "Cuban" implies connections that just plain do not exist when there is no independent state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
> demonym "Cuban" implies connections that just plain do not exist when there is no independent state
It doesn't imply independence. I genuenly don't understand how you conclude it imples that it's a nationality. We have numerous non-independent BARth-century FOOian people, like Scottish, Northern Irish, English, Hong Kong that are diffused by century. Mason (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, with Northern Ireland the parent is "People from Northern Ireland" the children are "20th-century People from Northern Ireland" and "21st-century People from Northern Ireland". I would say with Northern Ireland not existing until about 1923, we do not need any by century categories. This should be how we form Category names for all entities that are not national entities, period. We have gotten rid of the "Alsacian" categories and have merged them to People from Alsace. England and Scotland are something else, and so maybe a slightly different case. However I think the way we are treating that is messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
However New Spain is not any of these. The people of New Spain, on the rare occasions People try to figure out some sort of demonym for there come up with Novo Hospanic or the like. The government of New Spain very much thinks of its subjects in a complex set of racial classifications, called castas, mainly made by creating new races based on the races of the parents, which then are painted, the painting of which is a key action of those who are Artists from New Spain. We need a term that encompasses the fact that these people come from New Spain. We could in theory divide People from New Spain by century, into 17th-centuey and 18th-century people from New Spain. I do not think these divisions by cenrury have served us well in other cases. I do not think it is needed at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are some truly poorly named demonym categories at present. Category:Venetian engineers is meant to be Engineers from the Republic of Venice. Not engineers from the city of Venice regardless of when and under what country thry lived. We really need to rename it. We would best end all categories called Venetian, and use from Venice and from the Republic if Venice, so we can easily link to those articles. The same applies to Genoa and the Republic of Genoa, and Naples and the Kingdom of Naples. 19th-century Neopolitan people in a category, even though the Kingdom of Naples ceases to exist in 1816. I have at times removed people from it who were born in the Kingdom of Italy in the city of Naples. It is rarely confusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
A good example of how we could do these is found in Categpry:People from the Republic of Geneva. With subcategories like 16th-cenrury People from the Republic of Geneva, 17th-cenrury People from the Republic of Geneva, etc. It clearly should be how we format the Republic of Venice, Republic of Genoa, Kingdom of Naples and any other category referring to an entity named after its dominant city. I think with the Republic of Geneva we have gone too far in subdividing by century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree that the century diffusion can be messy, but the current consensus is that they're a necessary evil to make the categories manageable. I don't understand how any of this explains why you think that 19th-century Cuban FOOs "implies connections that just plain do not exist when there is no independent state". Mason (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The category is named People from Spanish Cuba. The sub-cats should follow the parent cat form and be People from 19th-century Spainsh Cuba, People from 18th-century Spanish Cuba etc. The article on the entity is Spanish Cuba. We preserve article form in category name. It would be best to do it here. In similar fashion if we have an article David Scott (writer) and another David Scott (musician), if we have a category Books by David Scott it would be Books by David Scott (writer), even though the other David Scott wrote no books. The by century categories should follow the name of the article on the country during that century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, so your concern is that the name isn't exactly what you'd like. But you understand that the intent is for those categories to contain People from 18th-century Spanish Cuba etc? Mason (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
But, in the meantime, are you going to keep adding people to the parent until the category name matches what you want it to be? Mason (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because that seems like a bad use of your time, and not consistent with the current consensus of those century categories. Mason (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just came across an article that said someone was born in Austria-Hungary in 1750. He was actually born in the Holy Roman Empire, since Austria-Hungary was not formed until 1867. Considering that Austria-Hungary has also not existed for over a century, this listing of place of birth makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sort keys for FOOian occupations by former country
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Can you try to remember to add sort keys when you make categories? I fixed Category:Civil servants by former country, which didn't have one for people by former country. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Civil_servants_by_former_country&diff=1234949004&oldid=1232039423 However, I think that this is a general pattern. Can you also add the parent categories for the current counturies when you create these categories, such as adding German FOO for FOO from the Kingdom of Prussia? (I know that you don't love that's how categories are parented, but given that that's the current consensus, it would be very much appreciated, saving other people work) Mason (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will keep this is mind. However why does Civil Servants by former country need a sort key that says Civil servants when it starts with Civil servants. Is that not just sorting it exactly as it would sort without a sort key?John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
(talk page watcher) Yes, the space is significant. Without that (and without any sort key at all) it would sort under C; with the space, it sorts at the top of the category page, before all symbols, numbers and letters. See WP:SORTKEY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wouldn't it be easier if we just created a Category:People by former country by occupation, and put all the various Musicians by former country, Artists by former country, Scientists by former country, writers by former country, etc. there instead of placing them directly in the People by former country category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. The former country categories would still need to be in the relevant parent for the specific occupation. John, please add the sort keys and the parents to the modern countries. (Otherwise, someone else has to do it... )Mason (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the record I support upmerging these. I think we should upmerge any establishment by year by place Category that does not have at least 5 articles. Categories that become isolated from close year categories by this we may want to consider upmerging as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
We have created a parent category People from the Kingdom of Prussia. Oddly enough some of its child categories use Prussia x as the form. This is downright confusing. In a few cases the argument is I guess no one would think of another Prussia for that position. In a few others it is just accepted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you look up Prussia you find 15 different things. The default article on Prussia tries to state it existed from about 1525 until 1947. However it was only a fully functional independent state from 1701 until 1871. The Kingdom of Prussia name best captures this. Before 1701 it is just the Dunchy of Prussia, roughly equivalent to later East Prissia. This area is now split between Lithuania, Russia and Poland, but it's population was in the main German. It was not part of the Holy Roman Empire though. To the extent we have articles on people from here, they can be placed in People from the Duchy of Prussia. There is also Brandenburg-Prussia. This is the historigraphical designation for the state that included Brandenburg, the Duchy of Prussia and Cleves and maybe one other place from 1618-1701. It did not include Cleves the whole time. We have not actually placed anyone directly in this category. We did place People from the Duchy of Prussia as a sub-cat, so 16th-century people from Prussia is a child cat eventually of Brandenburg-Prussia but Brandenburg-Prussia starts 18 years into the 17th-century. Some of this is unavoidable. However People from the Kingdom of Prussia has Prussian musicians and Prussian physicians as sub-cats. This makes no sense. They would work better if they followed the rest of the tree as Physicians from the Kingdom of Prussia and Musicians from the Kingsom of Prussia. The Prussian politicians makes a little more sense but Politicians from the Kingdom of Prussia would still be better. The diplomats cat is the least likely to confuse people with other uses of Prussian, and the right wording for diplomat cats is tricky. I think though we want it as Diplomats of the Kingsom of Prussia. We would include any diplomat who acted as an agent of the Kingdom of Prussia no matter where they were born or lived, and exclude people from the Kingdom of Prussia in some way who were only diplomats for other countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Who goes in 18th-century Greek people? This category says it is a subcategory of Greek people. Which is organized as a category for people who were nationals of Greek. There is no Greece in the 18th-century for people to be nationals of. Some of modern Greece was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Some of it was under the control of the Republic of Venice. There were areas where a lot of ethnic Greeks lived, but the way Greek was used by the Ottoman authorities is not the sane as the modern usage, and many ethnic Greeks lived as minorities, moved throughout the Ottoman Empire, etc. There were also many people in somewhat Greek areas who were clearly not Greek, or whose ethnicity is the cause of confusion. We already have categories named things like Greeks from the Ottoman Empire. These would seem to be the best ways to actually categorize people who did not live in an area that was a Greek state, or could not claim to be expatriated nationals of a state that had not existed for centuries and would not exist until after their deaths. If the category is by nationality, we need to limit it to people who lived when the nation existed to be nationals of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Maria Wilhelmina von Neipperg is in 3 mistresses categories, for Bohemian, Austrian, and Humgarian royalty, all because she was the mistress of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I. This seems excessive. There should be a way to cover this all in 1 category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The 1 article in this category is about a company established in 1838 in the Duchy of Holstein. Schleswig-Holstein does not exist until 1864 or so. The category is anachronistic. It might work going up to the Hostory of Schleswig-Holstein catehory, but is incorrect as currently placed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
19th-century Austrians versus austrian empire versus austrin
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please stop removing people from Austrian FOO, when you think they are only from the Austrian Empire? Removing them from the austrian parent category, makes it extremely difficult to gauge whether there are enough people to support the creature of a more specific FOO from the Austrian Empire category. It's extremely disruptive. For example, there are more than enough botanists to support the creation of a Botanists from the austrian empire, but you would never know it from the state of the categories because you removed all of them from the austrian botanists tree. PLEASE keep them in a category that reflects that they are in the austrian botanists tree. Mason (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's just not a good use of anyone's time for you to keep removing people from the austrian parent category. I don't understand why this request is so difficult. Removing them wastes other people's time and makes it harder to justify the creation of austrian empire categories. Mason (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have not removed anyone from the any Austrian category that they were not being placed in an Austrian Empire category for for several weeks at least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great! As you're going through biographies, do add them back or create more specific austrian empire occupation categories. Mason (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
One person though you added back to German categries. German is meant for nationals of Germany, not ethnic Germans who lived outside Germany. He lived in the Austrian Empire. I do not think he needs to be in German categories at all. I have for now placed him in an Austrian Empire category. It might be worth creating a category German people from the Austrian Empire, but I think not, for the same reason we have African-American writers and not European-American writers, the ethnic Germans were the ruling class and dominant culture of the Austrian Empire. People from the Austrian Empire are default thought of as German speakers, just the same way the European-American writers, if we are using European to do the same work as African in African-American writers, writers who have known or perceived ancestry to Europe at some distance, not just children or grandchildren of immigrants, would be not a workable category. Plus realistically it would be Anglo-American writers, so we would exclude people who were in obvious ways French, Spanish or Itialian, or even German, but include people who were part of the dominant Anglo culture even if they had no English ancestry, we do not do this because we do not categorize by being in the dominant culture, and that is what we would be doing with Germans from the Austrian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
What consensus? The headers themselves clearly state the category is for people from a unified Korea. There are huge issues with creating bad signals as to what category should be used that this creates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC).Reply
As the category headers suggest, Korean is the designation for nationals of Korea. Korea is a nation that de jure ended no later than 1948. Placing someone born in 1949 (or actually slightly earlier but that is another story) in a Korean Category makes no more sense than placing someone born in Minsk in 1993 in a Soviet Category, someone botmrn in Sarajevo in 1997 in a Yugoslav category, or someone born in Ismir in 1930 in an Ottoman Empire category. We also do not make Brlarusian people a subcat of Soviet people, Turkish people a subcat of People from the Ottoman Empire or Croatian people a sub-cat of Yugoslav people. The new countries are distinct and different from the old. If we have an article on a theatre director born and lived in Skopeje all his life born in 1995 and one on a theatre director born and kuved in Zagred all her life born in 2000, and those are our only theatre detractors from what was when I was young Yugoslavia, we do not place them in Yugoslav theatre directors as an alternate to 1 article categories. That is an option presented by the parenting. Nor if we have 5 theatre directors from Croatia and 7 from North Macadonia, all post-1992, do we place the two categories under Yugoslav theatre directors. We should not do the same thing for Korea that we refuse to do for Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union or any other dead country. Just because over the last 65 yrkears North Korea and South Korea use Korea in their name, does not mean there is still a Korea. We categorize by what is, not by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
JPL, as I stated elsewhere, the norm is to use Korea as the parent category for both north and south korea. Please do not be intentionally disruptive. Mason (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:South Korean physicians, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Why did you remove this after we discussed this?Mason (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please seek consensus before making massive changes to parenting. Seeking consensus in advance is a good habit for you to cultivate because it is a way to demonstrate that you understand and can respect decisions you disagree with. Mason (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:South Korean physicians, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Why did you remove this after we discussed this? Mason (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
