User talk:Smasongarrison

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

Archives

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:British_Christian_universalists&diff=next&oldid=828660220 Univeralism is not a denomination. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The highest order parent category classifies Universalism as a denomination. If it's not a denomination, then what is it? 2600:1700:944:9810:508:ABE8:D33:5842 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a broad movement. There has been the Universalist Church of America, which was explicitly a denomination, but needless to say, no 13th century Britons belong to it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point.... I was basing it off of the fact that the higher level categories place it with other denominations, and that's been a stable edit since 2016[1]. Perhaps a better solution would be to bring the parent category to a CFD to get some wisdom on how the Universalism should be handled more broadly. Mason (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% sensible. Are you going to post to CfD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you? I'm a little fried from a long day of prepping for a conference next week, and you seem to have a much clearer grasp of some of the nuances of Universalism. Mason (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Get some rest, comrade. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mason (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revert - your right, not sure what I was thinking. Ceoil (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol, no worries! Mason (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		Congrats on the big 600 thousand edits! A categorisation barnstar for what I always see you doing.. categorizing! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 08:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks! Mason (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 08:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th century in Mozambique has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a CfD on innkeeprs from Wallachia. CfDs have so little participation that it is hard to see 1 as very useful. When that was started there was no Innkeepers category at all. There now is. So the idea of upmerging the overly small category to its parents was not adequately discussed. Beyond that, there was no American innkeepers category. There had also been no one exhaustively go through articles to see how many articles could go in the innkeeper category, and no one discussed the fact that "innkeeper" is a term that one can find reliable sources applying to owners of modern international hotel chains, maybe in a slightly poetic form, but it is pretty clear that people do not think "inns are something different from modern hotels", there are dozens of modern hotel chains and thousands of modern hotels, or maybe in some cases motels, that use "inn" in their name. Many modern hotels have restaurants as integral parts of their operation. I do not think we can adequately define the difference between hotel and inn, especially since it appears that in the case of Hotellier we include people who operated motels as well as hotels (although I am not sure we have any articles on anyone anywhere who only operated motels, most hotelliers from the 20th-century are owners of large systems, some of which also include motels, but I think almost all had at least some hotels even if they had motels). I think this is a case of unshared name between hotelliers and innkeepers, and I think to the extent there is something distinct about inns, innkeeper is a shared name category, where we have people there because the text calls them an innkeeper or says they operated an inn, but in many cases if the thing is called an inn or a hotel it is not about any actual trait of the establishment, just what the person called it, or which word some writer or editor, either in Wikipedia or in another source felt to use. I do not think there is a strong and universally agreed upon difference between a "hotellier" and an "innkeeper", at least not on a level where we can gaurantee that a reliable source calling a person an "innkeeper" will clearly mean something different than if the source called that person a "hotellier".John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, virtually every single person in the Category:Ministers of the Church of Scotland (also also Category:Ministers of the Free Church of Scotland) subcats now need to be added to Category:Scottish Presbyterian ministers. Are you prepared to do that? StAnselm (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do that. Let me make a template first for Presbyterian ministers so we can diffuse by century while we're at it. Mason (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Natar Ungalaaq. There are three groups of Indigenous peoples in Canada. They are Inuit, First Nations in Canada and Métis. Under law and by culture they are different groups. So Natar Ungalaaq is not First Nations and an IP corrected it later. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Mason (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian taxonomists (and related issues) like Mueller is something well worth having clarified re the appropriate cats. Thanks. JarrahTree 11:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sure thing! Mason (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year in both Category:Olympic competitors by year and its parent category Category:Olympic competitors? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought people might want to directly navigate to the specific century especially if they weren't aware that the categories were first grouped by century. Mason (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd recommend making a category by century and putting that under Category:Olympic competitors. It's generally not a good idea to break the navigation like that by having somehting in both Category:foo and Category:foo by bar simultaneously. The entire point of making "foo by bar" is to not have categories be directly in Category:foo. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fine to have some categories that aren't fully diffused. Creating 3 more categories just seems like an unnecessary layer that would just make more mess for the fooianth century sportspeople categories. Mason (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take these categories out of both their parent and child categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to create the categories, but I don't think it's a good idea to just create redundant layers.Category:21st-century Olympic competitors would only have the one child category. It seems unnecessary. Mason (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? What are you talking about? I'm asking you to not put a category in both Category:Olympic competitors by year and its parent Category:Olympic competitors. Please undo that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Then I'd recommend making a category by century" is what I'm responding to. I'm nicely saying I won't remove the category from the parent. Mason (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you're contradicting WP:DIFFUSE without any prior consensus and refusing to undo this because of your personal preference, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that I think that having the category in both is helpful for navigation, and that creating additional categories by century is not a good idea, per the many CFDs about 20th/21st century sportspeople. You are welcome to disagree, as you clearly do. I have nothing more to say in this conversation. Mason (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:DIFFUSE "It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused—some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category." Mason (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside any by century categories, there is no consensus for this change you've made, correct? And you are keeping this change to the navigation scheme based on your personal preference, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already laid out my reasons for the edits I made, and noted the CFDs for why I'm not adding the redundant category layer you have suggested. Mason (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are refusing to answer my simple yes or no questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say in this conversation. Mason (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well it would be very simple in principle to say if there were prior consensus, but I've seen how willing you are to seek out consensus and work with others. I'll continue discussion at an appropriate forum since you seem unmotivated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said that I disagree with you. You have painted it as "personal preference" when I clearly said otherwise. Mason (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I am confused here: are you saying that there was some prior consensus to make this change in particular? I'm confused by your framing. It's either the case that there was a prior consensus or there was not. If there was not, then it's a matter of personal preference. What am I missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal preference implies that there's no reason behind the changes. I have given you reasons for the choices, noting why your suggestion isn't workable. I don't want to create redudant categories. I have restated my reasons clearly indicating that its not merely a preference. I have pointed you toward consensuses about why I don't want to make a redundant layer that would fully diffuse the category by century.

There's not a consensus of this very very specific change, but I have told you why your suggestion isn't a solution. I have nothing more to say because there is no point repeating myself. You can call that unmotivated or unwilling to seek consensus, but from where I am standing you're the one who isn't seeking consensus. Mason (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for what exactly? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About creating 21st-century Olympic competitors etc. Here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 12#20th/21st-century sportspeople Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:20th-century sportspeople by nationality Mason (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how am I opposing that consensus? What is the cryptic point you are trying to make? If you think that Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year should be deleted, then please write that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that we should create 21st-century Olympic competitors as a category. I didn't say that we should delete Category:21st-century Olympic competitors by year. I'm saying that your suggestion of making categories without "by year" at the end such as Category:21st-century Olympic competitors, would be unhelpful. Mason (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating these all for deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "these" are you talking about? Mason (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, clearly you're the one who's not seeking consensus here. Mason (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By explicitly seeking consensus, you think I'm not seeking consensus? I'm asking for a category that I created to be deleted. What in the world are you talking about now? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. My comment was snarky, and uncalled for. I was actually about to delete it but you got to it first. Mason (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, please go back through the categories you nominated and link the cfds. You really out to ping the participants in the recent cfds. Mason (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff takes time, so I don't know why you needed to comment in the middle of the nominations, but I have done the courtesy ping you asked. What CfD linking are you talking about? Also, please explain at the CfD 1.) what your vote means and 2.) why you recreated deleted material with no (apparent) consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made my comment when it looked like you had made your nominattions. There are numerous CFDs for the categories you nominated that are on their respective talk pages. While you're at it how about you stop misgendering me? Mason (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that you'll be making more snarky comments. I apologize for using an gender-neutral "he" when it is evidently the case that this is not the way you would prefer to be referred to, so please inform of your preference and I will humbly and happily fix my error. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for you to stop misgendering me is not snarky.

My pronouns are she/they and have been on my user profile for quiet some time. My gender is no secret. For the record, 'they' is gender-neutral, as is 'he or she'. But 'he' alone is not. Mason (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at your userpage prior to posting here and I don't know you personally. I made no assumption about your gender or sex. See en:wikt:he#Pronoun, as "he" is used as a gender-neutral pronoun. I'm surprised you haven't encountered this before. I appreciate if you don't want that word applied to you, so I'll make it a point to not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I get misgendered often on wikipedia. (From a base rate standpoint it doesn't surprise me) However, I don't think I've ever had someone argue in good faith that 'he' is gender neutral. (I'm going to assume that your argument is good faith.) The note your linked to mentions that he as neutral has been out of fashion for quiet some time.

I suggest that you consider that the more neutral gender neutral is "they" or "he or she". That way you won't have to link to style guides to avoid offense. Mason (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your graciousness and feedback. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Mason (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century sportspeople by sport has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century sportspeople by sport has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century sportspeople by sport has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century cricketers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century English cricketers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century FIBA World Championship players has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century FIFA World Cup players has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century sportspeople by sport has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century cricketers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

We have distinct articles on Savoyard state and Savoy. These are not overlapping topics. One is a cultural/historical region in Italy. The other was an independent country that existed from 1003-1861. They are not the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else the people from the Savoyard state are from a sovereign state. The People from Savoy are in the main people from the area after it looses sovereignty. That is a clear distinction. People from Savoy would also be limited to modern Savoy. A map from 1700 or 1600 or 1500 will shoe a Savoy that is much bigger. For the same reason we have People from the Kingdom of Bavria separate from People from Bavaria, People from the Kingdom of Saxony separate from People from Saxony and many other cases. Savoy in 1700 had its capitol in Turin, which is not in present Savoy. It was vaguely part of Italy, as the term then was vague. It was most definitely not part of France. Someone who lived from 1620 to 1680 as a subject of Savoy could have spent his whole life in Turin. He would not have thought he was French, because he did not live in France, which had borders he was outside of. He did not even live in the modern borders of France. Savoyard state is a separate article, because it is a separate thing, and as it was a major independent state especially in the 17th-centry, there is no good reason we should not have a Category to group together its subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jurists from Denmark-Norway now has 6 articles. It was a unified country so especially for a career like jurists that is very toed to legal country such a category makes a lot of sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, I have added several more articles to the category, and there are more still. A key factor is Denmark-Norway was a real union. The article on such says "Real union is a union of two or more states, which share some state institutions." At this level in would seem that politicians and jurists would have a close connection to the real union. This state existed from 1524-1814, so it outlasted many peoples lives. It is essentially the same type of political system as Austria-Hungary and the Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth. We have a large number of categories for people from those states. There is no particular reason that we should not for Denmark-Norway. All the more so because people from Schleswig in the time from 1524-1814 would have been subjects of this state, but we have no easy to use demonym for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you do this in the first place when you made the category? Mason (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header has been nominated for merging with Template:Drummers by nationality and century category header. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guitarists by nationality and century category header has been nominated for merging with Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pianists by nationality and century category header has been nominated for merging with Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Violinists by nationality and century category header has been nominated for merging with Template:Accordionists by nationality and century category header. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair the word "professional" above means any level of paid baseball, even in this case A level minors. We have never even agreed that all these levels of playing baseball are notable, even when we were our most generous in granting notability to sportspeople. 18 different teams is just ludicrous. It comes very close to performer by performance level of teams. I am thinking at some point this violates the rule against categorizing performer by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Abbott article is 16 paragraphs plus tables and other things long. It still does not mention Winston-Salem Warthogs or several other teams that he is categorized by. I am not sure why all 18 teams cannot be expected to be mentioned in his article, but if we cannot expect them to be mentioned in the article, I am not sure at all why we should categorize by them.13:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. Discuss the matter at one place only, per WP:MULTI. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Overcategorization as that is fairly central, and has attracted three replies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21 of the 43 sub-categories here have less than 5 articles. Quite a few have 1. This seems excessive. The fact that some of the sub-categories are further divided also seems excessive. While it looks like there are enough accordionist to justify some division by nationality, I think we would be better off if we limited such to categories with at least 5 articles. I think based on the size we should not subdivide them further by either century or musical genera. Classical accordionist, jazz accordionist and as needed various x century accordionist categories can be applied to articles, but I do not think we have enough of a structure to justify further subdivision. These small categories are not helping navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't do more subdivsion. But I also don't know is this is merely an underpopulated category. Mason (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At some level that does not matter. If it massively expands we can reconsider. My general impression is it is not. Musicians tend to be in a large number of categories. So I expect we have most articles where this applies there at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a search for the word accordionist on all Wikipedia articles after having gone through every article under the accordionist tree and made sure thry were in appropriate by nationality categories. There are after this 19 sub-cats of accordionists by nationality that have less than 5 articles. Further down Accordionists from Northern Ireland and accordionists from Reunion each have 1 article. The by century categories have huge overlap because it is not well into the 20th-century we get many accordionists. We only have 2 people in the 19th-century accordionists Category, 1 of whom is Saif to have invented the accordion. I really do not think this instrument has the length of historic use to justify by vmcentury categories. At this point I would say the numbers are close to all potential Articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for doing homework on this! Mason (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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…
26		Isaac Jefferson (talk)	Add sources
8		Losantiville Country Club (talk)	Add sources
8		KIT (AM) (talk)	Add sources
17		Walter Beverly Pearson (talk)	Add sources
4		Highlandtown Lake (talk)	Add sources
90		Randolph family of Virginia (talk)	Add sources
289		Stephenson's Rocket (talk)	Cleanup
45		Cumberland School of Law (talk)	Cleanup
15		Bowes Railway (talk)	Cleanup
17		York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway (talk)	Expand
29		Slavery at American colleges and universities (talk)	Expand
30		Russia at the 2014 Winter Olympics (talk)	Expand
32		Dean Cemetery (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
8		St. Sukie de la Croix (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
47		Danton's Death (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
131		Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar (talk)	Merge
1,063		Rohingya genocide (talk)	Merge
319		Johnny Test (2021 TV series) (talk)	Merge
41		Joseph Martin Kraus (talk)	Wikify
394		Louise of Hesse-Kassel (talk)	Wikify
53		Luciana (singer) (talk)	Wikify
1		Jean Claveret (talk)	Orphan
3		Vernon François (talk)	Orphan
36		Ouidad Wise (talk)	Orphan
3		Rima Abdelli (talk)	Stub
3		Daria Pikalova (talk)	Stub
3		Alexander Nevolin-Svetov (talk)	Stub
74		David C. Weiss (talk)	Stub
2		Aleš Kisý (talk)	Stub
3		Hamed Amiri (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) 13:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Nobility is not the same thing as royalty. Please don't do this! Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Duchesseses nobility? Mason (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before, see User talk:Smasongarrison/Archives/2023#Royalty are not nobility from last year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know similar convos have happened. I thought duchesses were nobility because that's a title, which is why I asked. Mason (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are duchesses of nobility and royal duchesses. Two different things. She was mainly a princess of Sweden. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean take this disagreement to the talk page in your edit description. The first two subjects are only about his fraud and the fraud is mentioned 25 times throughout the whole talk page. So unless you or others can bring any new research to the matter the main reason he is well known in the UK is because of the fraud he perpetrated. Will await your reply but I plan to revert when able. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 21:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two people have reverted you. Please take your concerns to the page's talk page not my talk page. Don't revert the consensus without discussion. Mason (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, obviously will do but misunderstood your edit statement. And you are the first to revert me; I was not the person that referenced his actions as discredited originally. I will bring it up on the talk page for the 26th time. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 22:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thinking of the change you undid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyril_Burt&diff=prev&oldid=1231120157. From the talk page it looks like it is debatable whether everything was fraudulent. I think the adjective isn't neutral, and shouldn't be added because there is no way to give context in a short summary. Mason (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are categories patrollable? --MikutoH ^talk! 21:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I think that every page in any namespace are patrolable. But, there's not really a system for categories. (I just press the patrol button when a category page says that I can mark it as patrolled). Mason (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person in this category shoukd at a minimu also be upmerged to People from the Tsardom of Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added him to a more specific child category, 17th-century Russian people. Mason (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]