User talk:Nlu/archive74

People from city categories

Why are you removing the categories for "People from ____", usually a city? I noticed your changes on Ray Dolby and Dan Dugan (audio engineer). The categories should be returned. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither Dolby nor Dugan was actually from San Francisco; if you read the article, Dolby was from Portland, and Dugan was from Los Angeles. A common problem with American categories is that they're often populated by people who aren't actually from the locales in question. I'm trying to do a bit of cleanup with regard to California categories. (And as for people who are actually from those locales, they should be diffused to subcategories as appropriate where possible.) (The "overstuffing" of categories tend to make them unwieldy and not particularly useful; that's why subcategories exist, and again, with "from" categories, while it is true that a person doesn't really have to be born there to be considered "from" there in all circumstances, they should be used sparingly when the person was not born there.) --Nlu (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

For the two guys in question, "sparingly" should include a major portion of their lives spent living and working in San Francisco. Dolby was a "longtime resident of Pacific Heights", a neighborhood in SF. Dugan has lived in SF for the past 45 years, including the time of his most famous invention. My take on "people from place" categories is that the category can be used if the person was born there, if the person lived there a long time, or if the person's notability is tied to the place. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand the view, and I certainly won't fight you on it. But I do think that the tendency to proliferate categories with people who aren't really from there should be reexamined periodically. In these cases, it's certainly arguable, but I still think "from" is not the same as "ended up in." --Nlu (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What is God's name were you thinking with this edit? Take a look at the text on this parent category, Category:People from California: "This category includes people notably connected with the state of California." Note it says nothing about birthplace, it says notably connected. And that applies, in spades, Emperor_Norton.

So where did you get your criteria? If it's your opinion (as appears to be the case) as opposed to an actual, specific consensus, then you need to stop NOW. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And where is this text for Category:People from San Francisco? None. And I disagree that Norton should be considered "from San Francisco." You're free to disagree with me, but the category was getting filled up with people who really can't arguably be "from" San Francisco. Are we really in the territory of "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is"? (And, as usual here, it's the people who "litter" categories who scream the loudest. People who clean up get no respect.) If you can point to an actual consensus that "from" doesn't actually mean "from," I'd like to see it. There is no such consensus. --Nlu (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"From" means two things, but you are focusing only on one of the meanings. "From" certainly indicates a person's origin; we all agree on that. However, it also indicates to an outsider that a person is currently part of another place. If you are not in San Francisco, then someone who lives in San Francisco is "from" San Francisco. This concept is commonly stretched to apply to observers within the same place, such that two people standing in San Francisco, who are currently living in San Francisco but born elsewhere, can say to each other that they are "from" San Francisco.

Regarding categorization, if a person is notably connected to a place then that place ought to appear in their categories, regardless of where they were born and raised. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that's where another critical look is necessary for these overpopulated categories, I think. I do think each of these articles needs - and deserves - a second look for someone to think about, "Is it really appropriate for this person to be described as "from" this place?" Many of the articles that I've been looking at, quite ridiculously, lists six or seven places where a person is "from." That absolutely cannot be logical. This was also often coupled with listing those places even though the person was also already placed in a subcategory thereof, logically or not. (I don't really think that "California politicians" should be a subcategory of "People from California," for example, but I'm not going to mess with that hierarchy right now.) --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with multiple places represented by categories if they are all places that the person is associated with by residence. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Typically, the proper fix for an overpopulated category is to split it into subcategories. In this case "People from San Francisco" can be split into people by occupation from San Francisco, for instance Category:Engineers from San Francisco, California. Emperor Norton ought to remain in "people from" since he is so quirky and unique. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I am planning on creating new subcategories for Californians once I finish up cleaning up the overly large Californian categories. That might take months, though. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify — if the category remains above 200 in size after I've had a once-through on it, I am probably going to start creating some categories. If not, though, I'm going to wait until later. I am currently inclined on creating a military personnels category since that appears to be the largest group of people who don't yet have a occupation-based category for Californians. Unfortunately, right now, there is no easy way to search for people using multiple criteria in the article text in Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly caution against you removing categories as a method of "cleaning up" what you see as an overpopulated category. I don't think your interpretation of "from" fits with typical Wikipedia interpretations—I think it is too narrow. If you use your narrow interpretation you will bring yourself into further conflict with other editors. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

But I think it is clear that the actual practice tendency of "dump the article into as many categories as conceivable" is also not consensus, as such; it is that people get lazy and don't actually clean up the category listings of the articles until someone takes the time to do it. I think that periodically, categories do need this kind of cleanup; if someone justifiably wants to add the articles in question back into some categories that I take them out of, they can do that. --Nlu (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please dont remove names from "category:people from san francisco" who were not born there but were long term residents. there may not be formal consensus on exactly what "from" means, but at this point, it DOES definitely include people who are highly notable for their presence in adopted cities. People tend to get multiple categories, more than most subjects, due to our human fascination with our fellow humans. I dont see anything wrong with it. i have avoided listing people who merely retired and died in cities, and will routinely remove them if i notice it. Yes, i will review names you may have removed from these categories, if i have time, but I will consider that to be undoing inappropriate edits if they are people like Norton. I came here to praise you for your new categories about musicians and sportspeople, and now i will have to see what has been happening first.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed a good number of your edits to categories. most seem uncontroversial and quite intelligent and helpful, but a few i strongly disagree with, and reverted. i would suggest you bring up removals of categories for more notable figures on the talk pages first. adding a category, to me, is much less worrisome than removing one. an excess category can be easily spotted and removed, but a removed one is not noticeable, unless you know to review the history.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And the point is, I don't mind people disagreeing with me on these type of issues (although they also shouldn't be direct reverts; at least subcategorize properly). The thing is that too many people get dumped into too many "from" categories mindlessly just because they had lived somewhere or had worked somewhere. If a person had actually become rooted in another locale than the one that he/she was born in, fine, that is a legitimate "From" categorization. But it really shouldn't become overused. What I am hoping to do is to prune and cleanup some of these overly large California categories and, again, if consensus after careful thinking about whether the person is actually to be in that category, I can accept disagreements.

But the listing on talk page idea is counterproductive, I think. A major part of what I am trying to do is cleanup; if each one of these cleanup items requires 30 minutes of discussion on my part, then such cleanups will grind to a halt. When we're talking about categories with 600 people (and, if/when I eventually get to tackle the Los Angeles categories, thousands), that would be a major waste of time. Again, it should be a collaborative effort; someone else who knows the subject better can take that critical look into whether the person actually was sufficiently rooted in the community to be "From" there. --Nlu (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not appear to me that you understand how much resistance there is to your pruning and "cleanup" work. Not everybody agrees with you that the categories should be depopulated. Regarding who is doing "mindless" removals, note the Emperor Norton intimate connection to San Francisco, which you removed. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I still disagree that Norton is "from" San Francisco. You can disagree, and we can see what the consensus is, but it certainly wasn't mindless. But even if it is not consensus, each of these articles deserves a second, critical look at whether a person is "from" a place. Well-reasoned and well-thought placement of someone in a "from" category isn't going to draw a further objection from me. Cleanup work often draws resistance from people who don't like cleanups. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be carried out. --Nlu (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meng Chang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Plains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sima Yan take the throne on 十二月丙寅日 (資治通鑑，晉書) (February 8, 266), Jin (晉) Dynasty was established in 266. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.27.165.9 (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood, although it is the case that the "year" is generally still considered 265 in the sense that it started in 265. If you want to open a general discussion on moving Jin Dynasty (265–420) and associated categories to read "266," I would support you doing so. (See WP:RM.) If you want me to open the discussion, let me know, and I can do that, although it might be better for you to do it. --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Basketball players from San Francisco" category

Hello - I have noticed you have recently created several sport specific categories for the city of San Francisco. Please be advised that consensus has been NOT to go to this level of detail for sportsperson categories, instead leaving it at (for example) "Sportspeople from San Francisco" and "Basketball players from California." The state categories serve as the nationality and consensus has been that further bifurcating the category is not the way to go. We have had this discussion with Portland and Chicago previously with the result the deletion of these sport-specific categories. Please stop creating these - they will be AfD'd. Thanks for what I am sure is a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Rikster2 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood; I had thought that there might have been that kind of consensus, but I looked and couldn't find them. Do you have a link to the previous discussion, for my reference? Also, do you have some other thoughts on categorization, though? These categories are becoming so giant in number that they are also becoming unwieldy. If you can cite the prior discussion, I'd probably ask that they be reopened in light of the size of such categories at this point. Back at that time, Wikipedia was presumably younger and smaller; these categories are now becoming very large (the Sportspeople from San Francisco category was well over 300, and I think New York is well over 1,000) and, if this kind of subcategorization is inappropriate, some other kind of subcategorization should be considered. --Nlu (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll dig them both up and link them for you. I don't agree that categories like this are getting too large, though. The other side of that view is that argument is "Basketball players from California" is the citizenship category (diffused from "American basketball players") and going any deeper makes it very difficult for a non-American editors to get that connection (and we have many such editors in basketball because it is a world sport). It isn't unusual for categories to get big - "Category:Point guards" is over 1,600 strong, but you wouldn't break that one up. Rikster2 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That category has its own issues — basketball positions are fairly fluid, and it's been argued that there are now more than five positions even though there would only be five players on the court at the same time. Perhaps if that view prevails, in about a decade or so, we would in fact be seeing those positional categories divided, even though it would then be even more problematic given, again, the fluidity of the positions. The sport that a player is in appears to be fairly not subject to dispute, however. --Nlu (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Chicago discussion Rikster2 (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And here is Portland Rikster2 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look. As I mentioned, I may ask for reopening of the discussion. --Nlu (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, when I or someone else AfD's them the discussion will get reopened anyway. Please don't create any others until the discussion occurs though. If no one else does it, I will initiate it this weekend and be sure you are informed. Rikster2 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you want me to hold off on subcategorizing the remaining San Francisco sportspeople into the categories I created today? --Nlu (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer it that way, but it's not my place to tell you what to do. It feels like if we know there needs to be a discussion we should just hold off til it's settled. Rikster2 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added the San Francisco categories to Categories for Discussion. Please see discussion here to weigh in. Rikster2 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Execution categories

Hello, now among all these categories for people being executed, I have noticed that we are missing container categories "____ people executed by method" with the appropriate methods of execution as the subcategories. Wouldn't it make sense to have these categories?Hoops gza (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess it would, although only several execution methods really warranted diffusion so far, such that it is arguably not, either. I wouldn't be for or against. --Nlu (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD

When you include several articles in the same AfD nomination you need to add the AfD template to each of the articles that you are nominating - editors may otherwise be completely unaware that the articles are being discussed at AfD. In several of your recent nominations you have failed to do this. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I knew that, but forgot it. Thanks for the reminder. I'll fix it in a few hours (if no one else fixed it before that). --Nlu (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yelü Bei was killed on 7 January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.168.96.69 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you change the day on zh.wikipedia?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.168.96.69 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I can not find out "Gao Conghui was born in 891" in Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms, vol. 101. Can you help me!.--113.189.250.12 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This page (at the very end of his biography) gave his death age as 58 by Chinese dating (57, in reality, in all likelihood, based on our modern dating), so that counts back to 891. --Nlu (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In History of the Five Dynasties, vol. 133, Gao Conghui promised to support Liu Zhiyuan if Liu would later give him Ying Prefecture (郢州), not E Prefecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.189.250.12 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right! Just brain cramp when reading it, I guess. Will correct. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gao Conghui may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Later Liang had been conquered by [[Later Tang Dynasty]], which Gao Jichang then was a vassal of (and had, therefore, changed his name to Gao Jixing, to observe [[naming taboo]] for the Later Tang

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ma Xisheng may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• son, Ma Xizhen (馬希振), was said to be born of his wife, who was not named in historical sources. (Ma Yin would eventually have at least 35 sons, and Consort Yuan bore at least one of those of Ma

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lady Yang (Ma Xisheng) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{s-bef|before=?<ref>Ma Xisheng's father [[Ma Yin]] had a wife (the mother of Ma Xisheng's older brother Ma Xizhen (馬希振), but her identity was not stated in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ma Xifan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• that the Ma state would be seized by Gao Yu. With a son like you, how could Gao steal the state?" (Ma Yin, however, was not swayed by this comment, and continued to trust Gao, although Gao would

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fu Yanqing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liu Yun

Gao Conghui (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jiangling

Yao Yanzhang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gangdong

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:People executed by France by hanging, drawing and quartering

Category:People executed by France by hanging, drawing and quartering, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Li Renhan, Nlu.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

As an autopatrolled user, you should be creating articles that do not signal any red alerts at the New Pages Feed. To avoid this, you may wish to consider creating in your user space and moving to mainspace when the articles are referenced.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

A page you started (Li Renhan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Li Renhan, Nlu!

Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Write a helpful note for Nlu. It will be posted on their talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)