User talk:Smasongarrison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE!
Questions, information, good-faith warnings? Say it here!



Swiss categories[edit]

Hello. I created the category « 18-th century mathematician from the Republic of Geneva », containing 8 entries. This allowed the suppression of the categories containing the adjective « Swiss » in at least some of the most absurd instances of people having no tie whatever with Switzerland (until a well-intentioned contributor creates subcategories such as fist-decade-of-18-th-century-Swiss-mathematician, I guess…). I’ll see what else I can do. For instance to classify as « Swiss » Jeanne de Jussie is so totally absurd and outrageous I will find some solution. Sapphorain (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be helpful to bring these categories to a discussion at CFD to get some outside opinions. I woudn't go as far to say that it is outrageous or absurd. Mason (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem does not lie with the categories, it is the consequence of classifying articles without reading them in totally inadequate categories just because the instructions in Wikipedia:Categorization can be interpreted to allow it. Anyway, for the time being I created the category « 18-th century physicist from the Republic of Geneva » (5 entries). --Sapphorain (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I strongly recommend you bring this to CFD Mason (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What for? CFD discusses «  specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories ». I don’t have any such proposition. I just aim to avoid putting articles into misfitted categories providing false information. --Sapphorain (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you can get some consensus on how the categories should work, as well as be able to change the parenting structure. Mason (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. But I have nothing per se against anachronic or otherwise approximate parent categories, since these can be useful for classification of categories, as long as they are not used directly on pages on which they convey false information. So this is a general problem which could possibly be brought to discussion somewhere, but not as you suggest on CFD, as this page explicitly excludes general discussions. General discussions are supposed to be initiated in some WikiProjects’ talk page, but which one would be the more appropriate is still unclear to me. In the mean time I will continue to spot possible creations of categories — i.e., containing enough entries — that can replace false Swiss categories (such as « 18-th century physicians from the Republic of Geneva »).--Sapphorain (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sapphorain, I'm going to bring this to CFD. Mason (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category query[edit]

Hello, Smasongarrison,

I just came across Category:Crime and Punishment in Richmond, Virginia when I was looking at an editor's contributions. I don't think this is how categories concerning locations and crime are titled but you are more familiar with the category hierarchy than I am. Is this okay to leave this as is or should it go to WP:CFD? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for passing it along. I suspect that it'll need to be renamed, because the only Crime and Punishment categories are: Category:Crime and Punishment and Category:Crime and punishment in ancient Rome. I'll take a look and see where it should fit, and nominate it. Mason (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong userpage[edit]

You posted this message on wrong userpage I think. That user has not edited cats at Karen Roeds. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opps! Thanks!! you're right!!! Mason (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024[edit]

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

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excessively same categories[edit]

I have noticed that we havd some categories where people ofen end up in 6 or more related ones. At that point it become questionalble they are defining. I almost think there should be a way to create a rule against thos. One is coaches by college. Some people are literally in over 10 categories. This often involves 1 season placements as a liw coverage coach. I outlined a proposal for restructuring that on my talk page. Basically we would change the by college categories to bd by head coach, and then gave offensive, defensive and a few other coach type xategories. With sports expatriates we have a situation where people in say Expatriarlte Czech sportspeople in Mexico will also be in say Expatriate footballees in Mexico, so one article for a person who played for teams in 6 countries will be in 12 categories for this. I think in this xase just being in Expatriate Czech sportspeople would be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmmm... I'll think about it. You make some good points, but it might be helpful to think through this counterargument. Is the purpose of categories to help navigation between pages or to help organize pages? If the only purpose is to add labels to pages, then your proposal makes sense. However, does it really matter whether a page is in a lot of categories, if the goal is to help users navigate from a page to a category to another page? Mason (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:American military sports coaches Category Talk[edit]

This category has 62 suc-cats and 6 articles. 31 of those sub-cats have 1 article. None have over 12 articles. I am also not sure this is defining. A lot of these categories are also American college football coaches. I am not sure this is right. I am not sure this is defining. In the Barksdale case that part of the career of the man who is the one article in the Category is only mentioned in a table, not even in the article text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you're writing seems reasonable... I just wish I knew enough about football coaches to give you some guidance. I bet @Omnis Scientia knows more about this? (I know that they're more into baseball, but at minimum they have sports knowledge). Mason (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smasongarrison, firstly I believe category title is misleading. These are all football coaches (even the two NOT named "football coaches") so it should be "military football coaches". But it should be noted these are also part of Category:College football coaches in the United States. So I would say, until there are more categories, we should merge the categories with 1-to-3 articles with the parent category and have the category renamed to "American military football coaches". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say deletely because it is part of Category:Military sport in the United States as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categ.: Early photographers in Palestine[edit]

Hi. I see you're on a big move on rearranging photographers-related categories. I've been personally very much involved in this world, as I am now in topics relating to Israel & Palestine. A go-to category for colonial-era (Ottoman and British) photography in Palestine has proven to be missing and very much needed for lots of activities, and very useful once there. Please do read my reply to your, practically, elimination request, so I don't need to repeat my arguments here. My message to you now is just an attempt of explaining how this category is far from being an abstract and failed attempt at adding yet another impractical, theoretical systematisation item with a very questionable definition and arbitrary limits. No, it grew out of a real-life need, but can also be supported with theoretical arguments, not less valid thany any museographer's who is organising the existing collections and dedicating the available museum halls after a mix of pragmatic and analytic criteria.

Thanks for taking the time. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the context. I wouldn't say that I'm on a "big move", I just happened to stumble into the category. Mason (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:10th-century priests[edit]

Category:10th-century priests seems to be an abandoned start. I have proposed speedy merging to Christian clergy at WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a great idea. Mason (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Also, I have now got round to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. – Fayenatic London 16:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John D. Naylor[edit]

John D. Naylor is the only article in 5 categories related to Beacon/Goldey-Beacon College. It merged and changed its name, I am not sure if that happened while he was employed there. This seems excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out! I think he was effectively the only coach, and the college merged at some point. I've made a nomination for a merge, which should at least help slim it down. Mason (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The mess that is College football coach categories[edit]

Some of these coaches have coached at over 10 colleges, only being at some for 1 season. I really do not think that all such assignments are defining. Especially since some stay as offensive coordinator, or running backs coach at several places in a row. In those cases I think the specific type of coach is defining but the place coached is not. There is a huge amount of overcategorization in this set of categories. My attempts to bring some order are bring attacked as going against how things have been done over a decade. A system that regularly places articles in 10 or more categories for being a college football coach and pairs this with dozens of such categories with 5 or fewer articles is systemically flaed and needs to change. Most of the extremely small cats are in NCAA Division III, defunct or NAIA categories, or the junior college Category. There may be several categories in there that we really do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stan Drayton is the extreme in this. He literally coached at 12 colleges, 10 of them as running backs coach. I really think that is what idms defining in most cases, not the particular schools he worked for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I've already starting seeing some arguments that a merge who ruin the current coaches system. I'll see how this nom goes, but I'm starting to agree with you at least for the extremely tiny categories. I personally don't see the harm in having individual coaches in a lot of categories, as long as there are enough people in the category. But, I'll keep looking around in coaches. Definitely let me know if there are any other category messes like the Beacon/Goldey-Beacon. I'll be sure to take a look and see if it should be nominated. (I want to make it very clear that I'm not being a meat puppet for you, or that this is circumventing your editing restriction.) Mason (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When someone was at a place as one of a large coaching staff for just 1 year I do not think that is defining. On the other hand I am thinking there are too many coaching positions. I think we need to simplify to only a few. I think in a different spirt we limited the coaches by team to the head coaches. I think that might be a better approach in college football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UC San Diego Tritons football[edit]

This is a defunct team. There is only one article on a coach. The Category is currently no.inated for upmerger or such. I wonder if merging the 1 article directly into College coaches of defunct teams in the United States might be OK with editors who object to directly placing articles in College football coaches in the United States. The Junior college football coaches in the United States Category directly has about 137 articles so there is a relevant precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Junior College football coaches in the United States[edit]

This category has 237 direct articles. I have yet to see anyone even try to explain why this category can have direct articles but the parent Category College football coaches in the United States cannot. We do not directly place people in an undifferentiated alumni category, but we do place people in the heads of universities in x country categories. Being a head of a university is a defining part of virtually every biography, at least if they are more than a figurehead. Going to college not really unless it allows for dome sort of grouping. Football coaches we seem to have divided by level they coached at, so it seems that there is no reason bot to place them there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matt Dyson[edit]

Matt Dyson is the only article in George Mason Patriots football. We do not have any other articles on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 other George Mason Patriots coaches categories also only gave 1 article, and another category had 2 articles. The College men's basketball coaches in the United States has 4 direct biographical articles, so there does not seem to be an actual precedent that the college coach categories cannot hold direct articles. What really worries me in some of these is when people act like moving for 1 article in a category to 2 or 3 makes things all right. We need more stringent ways to end small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the 1 article George Mason Patriots categories is George Mason Track and Field coaches. There are 259 direct articles in College track and field coaches in the United States. Yet of the 163 sub-categories, 63 have just 1 article. Several havd only 2 or 3, I didn't bother to count those. This might be a record number if 1 article categories in a tree. Although probably not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I'll check these out Mason (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

College sports coaches in the United States[edit]

The more I look at this, the more of a mess it is. There are some sports, such as rifle, where not even one of the sub-cats has even 4 articles. The whole thing is a huge mess to say the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, it is extremely messy! Mason (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Century categories are not really good for articles[edit]

I do not think we want to be putting articles directly in 20th-century Indian people or 21st-century Indian people. This just leads to too many categories. At any point the average life span is over 50, this will lead to most people being in multiple categories. Some editors will place based on birth and death years alone. I an less than convinced that we need any by century categories gor the 20th or 21st century, but I do not think we want to place biographical articles in ones that intersect nationality and the century. If an occupation is not being diffused by century just place people in thd occupation and nationality cat, but please do not send them up to the nationslity and century cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafting technicians[edit]

I think Drafter is an example of an article that has too ambiguous a name. It is clear enough from the article, but there are other uses of the word. We have a set of categories for conductors (music), since there are other uses of the word conductor, as a think in electronic and thermodynamics and as a person on a train, and potentially other uses related to the word conducting and those doing it. I think with drafter we may also need a disambiguation heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
166 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Duke of Atholl (talk) Add sources
16 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Bishop of Dunkeld (talk) Add sources
74 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Scottish Romani and Traveller groups (talk) Add sources
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ada, Countess of Atholl (talk) Add sources
27 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B History of local government in Scotland (talk) Add sources
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub David Strathbogie, Earl of Atholl (talk) Add sources
24 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Irish Uruguayans (talk) Cleanup
53 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Celtic studies (talk) Cleanup
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: Start Conall mac Taidg (talk) Cleanup
200 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Ancient Celtic warfare (talk) Expand
9 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Politics of Aberdeen (talk) Expand
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Oakley, Fife (talk) Expand
8 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Collessie (talk) Unencyclopaedic
155 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Early Irish law (talk) Unencyclopaedic
25 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Rhins of Galloway (talk) Unencyclopaedic
38 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Nishiōhira Domain (talk) Merge
7 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Unavailable name (talk) Merge
495 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Intermittent explosive disorder (talk) Merge
103 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Phonological history of English close front vowels (talk) Wikify
150 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Phonological history of English consonant clusters (talk) Wikify
86 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Rotwelsch (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Amlakhu (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Blue Book Top 20 Network Rankings (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Big Ben Phonogram (talk) Orphan
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Five Glens of Angus (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Gregoir of Dunkeld (talk) Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Fothriff (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub John of Caithness (talk) Stub
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Léot of Brechin (talk) Stub
35 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Lundin Links (talk) Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fooian fooers[edit]

Just a request to please be careful when you make changes to the {{fooian fooers}} templates in British categories, because you left a large trail of redlinked categories that don't exist behind you.

It's not that your code is wrong, it's that sometimes what was already there interacts with your code incorrectly if it was varying from standard — before the code you're adding to the template was enabled, the common workaround to avoid duplicate categorization in the UK was to change the profession= from "X" to "British X", which causes your new code to generate "British british X" instead of "British X" as the category and thus created obvious silliness like Category:British british numismatists and Category:British british comedy writers.

There were also a couple of cases of categories that weren't double-British nonsense at all but just don't actually exist to have subcategories filed in them, such as Category:British astrological writers and Category:British song collectors.

So basically, after every edit, you need to double-check to ensure that you haven't accidentally caused the page to become filed in categories that don't exist — if you have, then you need to either create the category if it's justifiable, or fix the code if it's double-British nonsense, and don't just walk away leaving the page sitting in redlinked categories. Again, it's not that your code is wrong, it's that sometimes what was already there interacts with your code incorrectly if it was wrong, so just please be aware and watch out for that. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My bad. I'll trackback through my work and reevaluate my workflow, as well as think through how avoid things like this happening in the future. Mason (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already caught everything that was picked up by Special:WantedCategories as of this morning, so don't worry about having to go back and review everything you've already done — just keep an eye on it in the future as much as possible. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I'm still going to go through at least a handful of them so I can figure out how to prevent (ok... more like reduce the chances of ) this happing again. Mason (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, for the time being could you avoid making any major changes to Dominican Republic categories? You edited Category:19th-century Dominican Republic women writers yesterday to change it from manually-coded templates-plus-categories to the standard {{Women writers by nationality and century category header}} — but again through no fault of your own, this had the undesirable side effect of causing the proper Dominican Republic categories to become replaced with mostly-redlinked Dominica categories. But, of course, Dominica and the Dominican Republic are actually two separate countries with their own separate category trees that can't be mixed up like that.
    Again, you didn't do anything wrong, and just kind of stumbled into another situation where doing a perfectly rational thing imported an error that was caused by other people somewhere else — it's a mistake in the category generation module that needs to be repaired, rather than a mistake you made. I've already reported it to WP:VPT to get it looked at, but could you just avoid making changes like that to Dominican Republic categories until it does get fixed? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Will do! And thanks for emphasizing that the coding error is larger than my changes.  :) Mason (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, the Dominican Republic problem has been fixed, so you can resume making changes to those categories now. I have to imagine it's kind of frustrating to have so many things happen in such a short time where you did the right thing and it caused silly other problems that weren't actually your fault at all, but I guess it's improving the encyclopedia since we'd never find these things to fix them if nobody ever walked into them by accident (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That was so fast! Thank you for being proactive about getting this fixed :) (And no worries, my frustration was spend reviving my desktop today, after a windows update messed up something. And... finally, my PC lives! So from my perspective, this is a nice bonus fix that worked out really well in terms of timing.) Mason (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, yuck. I had the same happen to me last week, so I can definitely relate. But that also means that the latest Windows update is probably corrupted itself, in turn meaning that was just another version of the same problem! (Damn trickster gods!) Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates[edit]

The templates you have created on Bishops, writers and LGBT people are causing an error in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals if the country portal does not exist. Would it be possible to make them to only add a country portal if it exists? Lyndaship (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll definitely try to do that. Do you happen to know of any examples of templates that check before adding? Mason (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templates are a bit beyond me but another editor User:Aidan721 who I contacted did a change on this template Template:Sports clubs and teams in Fooland category header/inner core which fixed a similar issue. {{#ifexist: seems to be the necessary addition. If I could interest you on looking at the other templates in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals which are causing problems, they are mostly YYYY ones which are trying to list non existent portals that would be great Lyndaship (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
great! that's good enough to get me started :) Mason (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, see you've managed to resolve all of these. Can you have a look at Research institutes established in YYYY. I think they are trying to load non existent decade Portals Lyndaship (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll do those next! Thanks for reminding me they exist :) Mason (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suppress categories[edit]

Just wondering why you added {{suppress categories}} to Category:17th-century bishops in the Holy Roman Empire and some others. It looks like the categories you then added are the same as those the template is suppressing. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think at the time, I hadn't fixed the template to check if the country existed, so it would break a lot. The template I'm using to grab country names doesn't handle many non-modern countries, like the HRE etc. Mason (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loewen/Sallis[edit]

I switched to the ampersand (&) in the book title (as shown in the Sallis obit pic) from 'and' in James W. Loewen. I'm not sure how to change the redirect title Mississippi: Conflict and Change and thought maybe you had different info/opinion anyway. Or it can stay as is -- two ways -- or I can reverse those of my changes. I did add Sallis to the Sallis dab page, linking also to the Loewen 'First Amendment ...' section. And I emailed the NYT about the missing Eagles book details -- Charles W. Eagles, Civil Rights, Culture Wars (U Chicago) / Eagles provides biographies of the members of Loewen and Sallis's textbook writing team, the Mississippi History Project (MHP), as well as the process of ...; The Clarion-Ledger / Sep 4, 2017 — "Civil Rights Culture Wars," a new book by Mississippi historian Charles W. Eagles, tells the compelling backstory of a 1970s textbook that ... (Google; links wouldn't copying over here) -- in obit; and the fact that 'Your Mississippi' post-dated by a year 'Conflict' (wording nuance, if they care); and did other bits in Wikipedia. Sallis maybe deserves his own page but it's more than I can take on now. Good work; nice to find someone there ahead of me. Swliv (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have strong opinions about '&' versus 'and'. I'm happy to make that change. I'll just move the redirect. :) Mason (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page is now moved https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mississippi:_Conflict_%26_Change&oldid=1208506982. Also I love your enthusiasm :) Mason (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

African-American women chemists[edit]

I think this category also violates the last rung category. We may have dispersed American chemists by state, but that is not the issue. Since it is a triple I ntersection it only exists if both African-Americsn chemists and American women chemists have a lower level of categories. The women one does have biochemists, but that is not enough. This is exactly why triple intersections are so hard to justify. Likewise African-American women lawyers will really only work if we are willing to disperse American women lawyers and African-American lawyers by century, and that will only work if we are willing to divide 19th, 20th and 21st century lawyers by state. With lawyers such an approach works, and since we have dispersed both African-American scientists and American women scientists by field of specialty (geologist, chemists, astronomer, physicists, biologists, etc.), we can have African-American women scientists. I have to admit I have thought about the obstacles rung rule. Some days I wonder if we really should have American women novelists at all, which is the Category I was a major contributor to (although contrary to what some have claimed not the creator of) at all. Other days I wonder if it really makes sense to have the whole novelists and short story writers tree at all. Most short story writers wrote novels as well, some works are between the two, and the whole writers tree seems a bit messy. A big part of this is many people were writers and poets but what thry wrote is hard yo easily tag them as except that not all was poetry. I am thinking that poets should be non-diffusing subcats of writers. Some poets were fully oral as well. So maybe we should remove poets from the writers tree, and not class people only known for poetry as writers, but allow those known for both poetry and non-poetical works yo be in both. OK, I know this comment ranged broadly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since we have diffused American novelists by both century and state, subdividing along other non-diffusing lines probably works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol, no worries about wide ranging comments. I thought that making a category non-diffusing worked as an alternative to the final rung rule. Although to be honest, I don't have as good of a handle on that aspect of categorization. Hmmm, the poetry is an interesting angle; have you thought about how that could intersect with storytellers? Because effectively that's the non-written writers/poets in a way. Mason (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for raising the slash issue[edit]

Hi, thanks for raising the issue of the slash in the two categories I created about lawyers in the Canadas. I’m not very familiar with categories and appreciate the guidance. It seems to be a very technical area, but I’m learning! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome! I hope you stick around. :) Category work is a unique mix of technical writing as well as qualitative/holistic thinking. Mason (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories for discussion[edit]

What were you doing with this edit? Why did you remove the nomination? StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops! My apologies, I'm not sure how that happened. I'll fix it. Mason (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hyphen or en-dash?[edit]

Hi Mason, I just created a new category, got it nicely populated, and then realised I may have a syntax error. It's Category:Papineau-Viger-Cherrier families. Should that be an en-dash instead of a hyphen? It's the names of three families related by inter-marriage, not a hyphenated name: Papineau, Viger and Cherrier families. Would it be better as "Papineau–Viger–Cherrier families"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, honestly, I don't know. My strategy would be to see what other categories do, and model it off of that. Mason (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having seen how much it took to get a slash changed to "and" in those other two categories, I'm inclined to just let it sit. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a fascinating group of families. Grandpère Papineau was a cooper; Grandpère Viger was a shoemaker; their grandsons included a revolutionary leader, two premiers of the Province of Canada, a mayor of Montreal, and a bank president; and one of the Cherrier cousins was Bishop of Montreal, while another Cherrier cousin turned down three different offers of judicial appointments. Two of the Vigers got tossed in jail for sedition during the 1837 Rebellion, and one Papineau had to flee to the US, then Paris, where he was in exile for several years. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]