This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, it was previously agreed by consensus that Category:Prostitution by region was to be used in preference to Category:Prostitution by continent as Oceania and the Americas are not continents. It was also agreed that Category:Prostitution in the Americas was not going to be sub-divided as the main article for the category is Prostitution in the Americas. Please revert the changes you have made against consensus. -- John B123 ( talk) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ John B123: that was apparently a matter of local consensus. It goes against the common classification by continent, see Category:Categories by continent. Oceania counts as a continent, as well as North America and South America. If you prefer to pursue on this, you should turn to WP:CFD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, where is this policy? -- John B123 ( talk) 16:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ John B123: consistency is one of the five main criteria for page titles, WP:CONSISTENT. For categories that is not any different than for articles, e.g. speedy renaming criteria for categories WP:C2C and WP:C2D are rooted in the consistency criterion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Although Oceania is not a continent, it is being treated as one in other similar situations, so yes I can understand changes there as per WP:CONSISTENT. Looking at the graphics at the head of Category:Categories by continent, "America" is also considered a continent in this context, so the moves to North & South America are unnecessary, and as Prostitution in the Americas is the main article, this is inconsistent with WP:C2D. -- John B123 ( talk) 16:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ John B123: it is not inconsistent with WP:C2D because Category:Prostitution in the Americas still exists. And the split between North and South America is consistent with the vast majority of categories in Category:Categories by continent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Protestant churches in the Republic of Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I hear the atheist Premanand is a writer. I noticed you made some changes to his page, could you recommend any of his books? Streetlight401 ( talk) 05:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Gondor, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hog Farm ( talk) 01:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How can you close an RfC with a conclusion that wasn't proposed in the RfC? The RfC was not about whether "to keep consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article". It asked "Should the first mention of a position in the first sentence of the article about the position be de-capitalized?", referring to a long list of specific articles. A clear majority of respondents said that those articles should not be changed. There was no consensus of any form to answer an entirely different question from that proposed in the RfC. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 10:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ The Drover's Wife: the large amount of comments was about capitalization of positions in general rather than specifically discussing whether the first sentence should be treated differently. By the way, effectively this closure leads to nothing being changed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Re this: You stopped by and made an AGF comment based on content, but it's been pretty clear since Day 1 that the problem was user conduct and had very little to do with article content. It's very difficult, unfortunately, to convince an admin to block for disruptive behaviour that looks like a content dispute. I opened an ANI report on the issue back in December and still no one's done anything about it, but I think you can probably see the problem with comments like this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me another reason to recognize that Wikipedia is utterly onanistic fribble. I'm sorry you'll never realize that. Good luck with your endeavors. ♦  Lingzhi2  (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, since you are very active in categorization of pages, I need your input. I have drafted RfC that I am thinking of posting on Village Pump (proposals) [can't think of any other space]. Do you think its a good idea? Were there other CfD discussions? Would appreciate any thoughts. Renata ( talk) 06:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ Renata3: it is certainly a good idea. It is advisable to advertise the RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and you might also ping all discussants in the four discussions that you found. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Can you think of any other related/relevant CfD discussions? Renata ( talk) 07:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @ Renata3: unfortunately I can't remember any. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Gonnym, BrownHairedGirl, and Fayenatic london: I am willing to close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_29#Television_task_forces as rename per option A but could one of you (not Gonnym) actually implement the closure? I expect that the use of admin tools will make the implementation much easier. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, certainly I will. I believe this will be sufficient authority to rename all the siblings currently listed at CFDS. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Marcocapelle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " List of Dancing with the Stars participants".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:CATV, categories must be accompanied by supporting text in the article body as well as verifiable to a reliable secondary source. Lacking one or both of these things, I'm reverting your category additions regarding burial sites at places of worship. Elizium23 ( talk) 21:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with any of the criminal categorisations - I simply followed from a new user creating a Tasmania criminal - a practising lawyer (i think) who is writing up about people in a very small community which makes me feel uncomfortable - when I lived in Tasmania a long time ago - to even have genuinely imprisoned persons, one had the feeling that it wasnt very kosher to even state the truth about people... anecdotes aside, I would support any re-arrangement that fixed or aligned better with established items from other states or countries... hope it is not too difficult to fix. JarrahTree 09:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Traditionalist Catholic newspapers, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gnu 57 07:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Traditionalist Catholic magazines, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gnu 57 07:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I decided to change my vote as you are absolutely right and I agree with you. I do apologize for voting Keep and for the biased reasons I made. Looks like it's time we say goodbye to these categories after years of their usage. SpinnerLaserz ( talk) 00:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

This discussion was recently closed, resulting in the renaming of Category:Areas of traditional spread of Ukrainians and Ukrainian language to Category:Ukrainian-speaking countries and territories (despite a previous discussion having resulted in the deletion of this now re-created category).

I think that the result involves a narrowing in scope and a purge, but I do not really know in which direction to go as I had advocated at first a different target, and then mere deletion. I am turning to you for advice.

I would think that being Ukrainian-speaking is probably not a defining category for regions within Ukraine, such as Donbass. Some of the regions outside Ukraine are not at first glance associated with the Ukrainian language, such as Kuban, as mentioned during the CfD discussion. There seems to be a large overlap with Category:Ukrainian diaspora, see Klyn, Ukrainians in Kuban or Ukrainians in Russia. Also, some of this content was recently added, see [1].

Current category content:

What do you think? Place Clichy ( talk) 21:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• @ Place Clichy: Sorry for not replying earlier, and I agree that this category is problematic, but for the time being I do not know how to solve it. Perhaps we can do a renomination after a few months. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem! In the meantime I tried to look more closely at category content and removed or moved elsewhere articles for which Ukrainian-speaking territory is not defining. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to know if these categories were missed in the latest media by period noms:

• Category:Media by day of the week
• Category:Saturday media
• Category:Sunday media
• Category:Media disestablished in 1973
• Category:Media disestablished in 2016
• Category:Media disestablished in 2017
• Category:Media disestablished in 2018
• Category:Media disestablished in 2019
• Category:Media disestablished in 2020
• Category:Media established in 1994

-- Gonnym ( talk) 16:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose you confused some parameters in Category:College baseball media in the United States and some other categories you nominated for speedy renaming. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 11:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• @ 1234qwer1234qwer4: confused in what sense? Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Well, certainly, you don't want the categories to be renamed to Category:Change "media" to "mass media". 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 07:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Should the Category:Spanish-language media in the United States by state tree also be changed to "mass media"? -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh nevermind. I see that the whole Category:Mass media by language hasn't been done yet, not just this. -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Gonnym: feel free to nominate them, it does not need to depend on me alone. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Hell, that's a giant list. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic mass media has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 11:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I kind of missed the discussion there, and it's over now, and the result is OK with me. I just wanted to point out that the Triple Crown of Cycling is actually very much a thing which has its own article. Cheers! :) Zwerg Nase ( talk) 08:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You gave weak oppose at the move discussion without any rationale, but can you please revisit it? I left two messages for you there, but you did not respond. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting that Category:Newspapers published in Denmark should become a subcategory of Category:Danish-language newspapers. Do you think I should just implement that or would a CfD be helpful? Obviously I don't want to do a lot of edits and then revert them. The same logic would apply to a large number of mass media categories.

I have a related question: where would you draw the line between a website in several language categories and a website in the multilingual category. I think that a Swiss website in French, German, Italian and Romansch is reasonable but anything more is probably multilingual. TSventon ( talk) 09:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of these. Are there instances of 'media' which you think should not be changed to 'mass media'? See user:Oculi/sandbox. Oculi ( talk) 12:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• @ Oculi: I am not fully sure about all 'media + occupation' categories, for example 'media executives'. It's not that I am convinced that they are inappropriate, it's just that I don't rule out the possibility that e.g. 'media executives' is a common term in its own right. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Or 'media personalities'. It's very difficult to set up searches which catch everything. Oculi ( talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please come up with better arguments instead of "oppose inconsistent with X" when the category is already "x". It is smart alecky and rude. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue with you opposing but your comment was extremely out of line. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@ CookieMonster755: on the contrary, my reaction was entirely in line with WP:CONSISTENT. Moreover, making category names consistent with each other is a speedy renaming criterion (provided it's not controversial), see WP:C2C. Meanwhile you must have noticed that other editors supported my argument. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

They don't support your argument. They might oppose the move but not your argument. It is baseless and barley an argument and was rude. cookie monster (2020) 755 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@ CookieMonster755: then please read the reactions of User:DexDor and User:BrownHairedGirl once more. And breaking a naming convention is also disruptive leaves very little room for alternative interpretations. Besides, I understand that you are disappointed about my argument, but it is neither baseless (as I explained before) nor rude. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for showing me. I guess I misinterpreted your argument. I am sorry for being rude to you. I am out of line. Should I be blocked? :( cookie monster (2020) 755 19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, CookieMonster755, I entirely support Marcocapelle's argument, and wholly disagree with your characterisation of it as smart alecky and rude.

And for that, you should not be blocked. Even you hadn't apologised unreservedly, this was nowhere near a blocking issue. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• @ CookieMonster755: apologies accepted. If you're interested in getting some sort of penalty then I would recommend you read WP:AGF aloud :-) Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

As I'm intending to push for a second discussion on renaming the communities categories (this time all(?) of them), I'm wondering what's the fastest way to nominate all? The nomination would presumably include both ethnic communities but also religious ones, but I'm not sure if I must add the cfr template on the pages (since the number is easily going to pass over a hundred pages). I'm intending to propose a harmonization so from Category:Assyrian communities in Iraq to Category:Assyrian populated places in Iraq and from Category:Kurdish villages in Azerbaijan to Category:Kurdish populated places in Azerbaijan and so on. First discussion. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 15:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• @ Semsûrî: if you tag one category, without specifying the rename target, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to copy the same tag to all other listed categories. When the rename target is not specified, the tag will display something like "proposed to be renamed to some other name" and that is good enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of the barnstar template categories you've edited are up for a rename discussion. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 19:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with these mass changes, which seem to be undiscussed. Most entries in the latter tree are just ruined piles of masonry, or indeed articles on buildings now completely destroyed, while those in the former for the most part collect those of actual architectural interest and significance. Johnbod ( talk) 13:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I see there was a cfd discussion on a completely different point, hijacked by User:Peterkingiron & dubiously closed by User:bibliomaniac15. What a disaster! Johnbod ( talk) 13:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @ Johnbod: if I understand you correctly, you want to make a split between ruined/destroyed Roman buildings versus well-preserved Roman buildings, is that right? Why are ruins less interesting for architectural history? I can fully imagine that ruins are less interesting for tourism, but that is not what you are after, are you? Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• What I'm saying is that that was more-or-less what existed before this unfortunate close. Most ruins that remain are of large "infrastructure" projects, that, once reduced by 60-80% to a rubble or masonry core are indeed much less interesting for architectural history, especially in an online encyclopaedia. But I thought this was your own initiative. I'm not at all happy with the way User:bibliomaniac15's close allowed the discussion to be diverted at a late stage, but I won't bother doing anything about it. Johnbod ( talk) 12:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Johnbod: If you feel that more discussion needs to take place, you're more than welcome to open a new discussion in a more public venue. I closed a 13-day old discussion that had remained untouched for 5 days according to the consensus that I read; if there was ongoing discussion that was diverted as a result of my close, I ask that you show me some proof that it was. If I misread the consensus or otherwise closed the discussion improperly, which is always possible, you could open up a move review. Otherwise, I'm not really thrilled that you've kept pinging me into this as a matter of personal complaint. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm not going to do anything, but imo it was a bad close & complaining about people saying so doesn't cut much ice at all with me. You should have closed it as no consensus, with a suggestion the new idea be proposed in a different nom, rather than moving per a very late suggestion that by no means got majority support. Johnbod ( talk) 13:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Rathfelder has been on the go again, creating 16 regional sub-cats here (most on June 2nd). Do you think these can be speedied, on the precedent of "Architects from Dorset"? Perhaps not. Johnbod ( talk) 21:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why should German archaeologists not be categorised by state, just as other people are characterised by occupation and state? Rathfelder ( talk) 21:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Same reason as the architects - there aren't so many of them the cat becomes too large and nobody thinks or talks about archaeologists from Hesse etc. Many of these states didn't even exist when they lived, & the role is typically not a local one - a high proportion worked mainly abroad. It's very unhelpful to the reader & should be stopped. Johnbod ( talk) 16:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Johnbod: feel free to nominate these categories for merge back. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• • For many of them Germany did not exist when they were alive. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Germany has been around for 2000 years, even if it moves around a bit. North Rhine-Westphalia was created after WW2. Johnbod ( talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? It seems dubious to me - on most definitions this is too early to be Byzantine, and clearly in a Latin-speaking are. Johnbod ( talk) 14:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @ Johnbod: I am assuming that the introduction of the article Early Christian art and architecture and the section Byzantine art#Period are correct. As for Latin versus Byzantine, in 553 the current area of Croatia was part of the Byzantine Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Really? This bit "Early Christian art and architecture or Paleochristian art is the art produced by Christians or under Christian patronage from the earliest period of Christianity to, depending on the definition used, sometime between 260 and 525"? The UNESCO ref says: "Justification for Inscription

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the Episcopal complex of the Euphrasian Basilica in the historic centre of Porec is an outstanding example of an early Christian episcopal ensemble that is exceptional by virtue of its completeness and its unique Basilican cathedral." There is a case for both categories, but if there is only one, it should probably be P-C. Johnbod ( talk) 14:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @ Johnbod: I'll add PC too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please reverse your deletions of this category from about 50 articles. The category is long standing and well cultivated, yet you seem to have edited without discussion, and in most cases the replacement Anglo-Irish category is entirely inaccurate. Shtove ( talk) 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The Category:Professional wrestling jobbers is up for deletion again. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, not all sculptures are statues. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• @ Another Believer: fair point that it does not always coincide, but then I suppose there is an inconsistency in category naming, as the parent category is called "statues" and the subcategory "sculptures". Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Marcocapelle, I removed Category:Statues in New Zealand as a parent of Category:Sculptures of men in New Zealand, which is not accurate. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 20:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

I enjoyed having the TFA yesterday, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk)

Would you have a look at the move history of this page please? The move seems to be more POV motivated than historical accuracy motivated. For the period in question, the old name was probably better do you think? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Gender identity in the military has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker ( talk) 22:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1st-millennium lists of lunar eclipses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd-millennium BC lists of lunar eclipses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me [2] to bring Burmese sport by year to a full CFD. I had thought of doing so a few times, but needed a poke. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, following your own comment on Talk:Department of Social Protection#Requested move 9 October 2020, which I ultimately agreed with, I have proposed a this as best practice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Best practice on moving government department names and would welcome your support, in the hope that it might be added as a line in the MOS:IRELAND, or elsewhere that it could be referred back to next time they're moved around. – Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 13:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in the Gilbert Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd-millennium lists of lunar eclipses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Hamburg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Fictional bullying victims has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Controversies in Christian theology has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Daask ( talk) 22:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SportingFlyer T· C 22:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that this merge was completed a little lazily, and didn't take up your suggestion of adding pages to Category:African-American academics as needed. I'm not sure how to go about that now, but it might be a good thing to make happen if it could be figured out. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 06:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• @ Bibliomaniac15: can you help us here? Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Sdkb: Thanks for the tip, Sdkb. I went back and combed the old category, manually merging a bunch of them into Category:African-American academics and Category:African-American women academics as needed. The majority were already in those two categories already. I didn't add Kwame Anthony Appiah or Benjamin Akande, because it wasn't clear to me whether they would identify as African-American (one's British-Ghanaian but teaches in the states, the other is of Nigerian descent). bibliomaniac 1 5 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Jewish concentration camp survivors has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 00:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you think I should go ahead and add the others to the nomination, or would you just wait to see if it gets support? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Johnpacklambert: I think you'd better add the others right away. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of Category:People of Armenian descent vs. Category:Ethnic Armenian people by country of citizenship? Somehow I don't think this is a noteworthy difference and the wording of the first category seems preferable to the latter one (eg Category:British people of Armenian descent‎ vs. Category:British Armenians). Oddly many of the articles in the latter category use phrases such as "Armenian descent" and "Armenian origin". ( t · c) buidhe 13:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Buidhe: in theory a distinction could be made between descendants of ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and descendants of Armenians in Russian / Soviet / independent Armenia, but I do not have the impression that there is any practical difference between the categories, i.e. I think both trees contain descendants of Armenians in Russian / Soviet / independent Armenia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that for much of history there has been no politically distinct Armenia. We have Armenians in Lebanon who were displaced by the genocide 100 years ago. Many of them then migrated elsewhere during Lebanon's civil war. However other Armenians had been in Lebanon for centuries. In many ways historically Armenians are an ethno-religious group by the Jews. We would have the same nightmare if in 1947 the founders of the new state in the Middle East had named it Judea, and had chosen to designate nationals of that state as Jews. That is the type of nightmare we run into with the multiple uses of Armenian. With Armenian being integral in the Soviet Union, huge numbers of Armenians lived outside the limits of Armenia, but they did not see themselves as outside their homeland all the time, at least not till the pograms in Baku. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) I believe that the difference between the two parallel category trees is not Ottoman Armenia vs. Russian/Soviet Armenia, or Armenian ethnicity vs. Armenian nationality, but "full" vs. "partial" Armenian ethnicity or ancestry. The header of pretty much each of these categories says something like that (emphasis added by me, example taken at Category:French Armenians): "This page lists French citizens of full Armenian ancestry or national origin. For those of partial descent see Category:French people of Armenian descent. These hatnotes are present pretty much since the creation of most of these categories ca. 2008 ( [3] [4] [5] [6] etc.). I'm not really sure how Wikipedia can be the judge of someone's ethnic purity, and I am therefore pretty sure that this criteria is applied very inconsistently by our numerous uncoordinated editors. The rationale between this departing from our usual and repeated convention that Booian Fooian categories should be renamed to Fooian people of Booian descent seems to be relying on this this 2008 CfD attended by 4 editors. Note that, out of the set, Category:Armenian Americans was itself merged to Category:American people of Armenian descent in this 2018 CfD, also also poorly attended. Place Clichy ( talk) 04:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• @ Buidhe: above are some further comments after your question. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Marcocapelle, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, ★Trekker ( talk) 16:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

You did an exemplary job on Suicides, I'm thinking this would be a good day to do Murders as well. How did you tag so many categories? Is there a script available?
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 16:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• @ William Allen Simpson: Thanks! There is no script, it's just HotCat that makes it relatively easy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Guess I'll have to learn about HotCat. But in the meantime, I've started looking at diffusing the decades as you recommended, in reverse chronology. We seem to actually have years, no idea why somebody did decades instead.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've just added HotCat (and XfDcloser), I'm used to doing everything the old-fashioned way, and don't see any option to add CfR tags. How do you do it?
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• @ William Allen Simpson: wait, I thought you meant how to populate the categories so easily, that's due to Hotcat. With tagging the categories, that's different. I did not specify the proposed rename in the tag, which allowed me to copy {{subst:cfr||Suicide by period}} all over, without editing individual tags. So the tag now displays: "This category is being considered for renaming to some other name" instead of mentioning a specific name. That saves quite a lot of time. But the copying itself still is manual work. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. There's also something called cat-a-lot, so I'll look at it. And I'll look at the scripting itself, so see whether it is possible to add at the top of the category instead of the bottom. I'd also like to be able to sort the categories on an article, so the yyyy birth/death/murder/suicide tags rise to the top.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

There's fair amount of new insanity: HMains just added Murder by continent and year (also year and continent). It's so much harder to remove things than easily adding these mass categories.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a well-developed history of adding "by continent", in addition to "by country"?
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• @ William Allen Simpson: I can only tell that on CfD there are hardly ever proposals to delete/merge the continent layer. The only succesful instance I remember has been in year categories: up to the year 1000 the continents have been upmerged as anachronistic constructs. A similar attempt to upmerge them for the years 1000-1500 failed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that Category:YEAR deaths should be diffused? Giant Snowman 16:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• @ GiantSnowman: diffusion is default, per WP:SUBCAT, isn't it? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No, there are a large number of non-diffusing categories, see {{ Non-diffusing parent category}} which is added to parent categories for that purpose. Giant Snowman 16:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• @ GiantSnowman: so it's default unless there is consensus for non-diffusion. I haven't seen the latter in this case. What is the advantage of non-diffusion in this case? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ask yourself why nobody has attempted to diffuse the death categories before? Because they serve a navigation/organisation process as non-diffusing. If you're looking to change the status quo then you need to seek consensus. Giant Snowman 16:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• @ GiantSnowman: what is this navigation/organisation process exactly? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

For people using WP:PETSCAN etc. Giant Snowman 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• @ GiantSnowman: Petscan can be used for all sorts of categories. What I mean to ask is, what special process is in place for deaths categories that does not apply to categories where WP:SUBCAT is applied as usual? Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

PetScan will search subcategories, so does not require non-diffusing categories. Mitch Ames ( talk) 01:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if I've really seen where we discuss whether categories should be non-diffusing in general. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ BrownHairedGirl: may I ask you for advice on how to proceed after the above discussion? Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ GiantSnowman: Following recent edits of Dermot Drummy [7] [8] [9] [10], I also suggest that sub-categories are diffusing by default, per WP:SUBCAT. If the intent is that (for example) Category:2017 suicides be non-diffusing, then it should be explicitly tagged as such with {{ Non-diffusing subcategory}} - as should all 100 such subcats. The status quo is, in fact, that "year suicides" is a diffusing sub-category. Mitch Ames ( talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen a 'YEAR deaths' category diffused before, and I edit almost exclusively in biographies and have done for nearly 15 years. Diffusing those categories by manner of death etc. is OVERCAT. Giant Snowman 09:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The latter is not clear to me. OVERCAT means that articles are in too many categories. By diffusing we reduce the number of categories that articles are in. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ GiantSnowman: Category:2017 deaths (for example) is diffused by Category:2017 suicides - that's what sub-categories are for, according to WP:DIFFUSE. Unless "... suicides" is explicitly marked as non-diffusing, with {{ non-diffusing subcategory}}, then WP:SUBCAT clearly says "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy [eg suicides] as possible, without duplication in parent categories [eg deaths] above". Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is a subcategory but the parent category is non-diffusing. Like I said, I have never seen any attempt to diffuse this type of category before. Giant Snowman 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the parent is non-diffusing, because it is the child that diffuses, not the parent (the parent is, or is not, diffused). Did you mean that the parent is all inclusive? In any case, there is no {{ non-diffusing}} and/or {{ all included}} tag? Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ Marcocapelle, sorry for the slow reply to your ping on 30 Dec. (I haven't been able to give much time to Wikipedia lately).

Per WP:SUBCAT, the default situation is that any category is diffusing, unless specifically tagged otherwise.

In this case, I can see good arguments both ways.

In general, I think we should be wary of creating non-diffusing categories, because as exceptions to the norm, they create a maintenance task which is often neglected due to lack of awareness and/or lack of time.

However, I think that in this case there is a good argument for making these categories non-diffusing, because year of death is an item of fundamental biographical data, and similarly fundamental biographical categories are not diffused: e.g. Category:Living people and Category:1970 births.

So I would support making these suicide-by-year cats non-diffusing subcats of the relevant death-by-year cats ... or better still, we coud avoid the non-diffusion issue merging the by-year suicide categories up to their parents in suicide-by-decade and death-by-year. The numbers are small enough to make this viable.

A CFD nomination with both options set out would be the best way to proceed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:1970 births is currently tagged with {{ Overpopulated category}} - "It is suggested that the contents of the category be subcategorized." I'm say that it should or should not be subcategorized, only that it's not a good example in this context. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Mitch Ames, I have reverted [11] that tagging. It was done on the basis of a very poorly-attended, and apparently un-notified discussion at WT:People by year#Proposed_subcategorisation. If someone wants to make a huge change like that, they should open an RFC and list it at WP:CENT. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

See fuller explanation at WT:People by year#Removing_tags. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman Catholic churches completed in 1457 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Based upon your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Category:Murdered explorers, I've carefully moved over only those that appear to have been assassinated. Please prune any that you don't think belong.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• @ William Allen Simpson: I do not agree with purging Collet Barker, he is a perfect example of an explorer who was killed during and because of his explorations. Whether or not it can be considered an act of self defense does not matter. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Self-defense is never murder. In this case, against whalers and sealers who had killed and enslaved them. Also, he was military at the time. Deaths of military during recognizance are not murder. In fact, nothing he did meets the usual meaning of explorer. He was a long-time fort commander, using a ship to map inlets. The explorers would have been the whalers and sealers who came before him. His crew was merely mapping, a standard military exercize. Sometimes our article sources are puff pieces, and that POV gets sucked into the articles.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• At most he may be purged for not being an explorer in the strictest meaning of the word, but that is pretty far-fetched. Self-defense is definitely not a good reason to purge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Good Olfactory, LaundryPizza03, RevelationDirect, Namiba, Dimadick, Carlossuarez46, and Peterkingiron: feel free to contribute, I've pinged you because you were involved in previous discussions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Discussion continues at Talk:Collet_Barker#Categorisation_-_Category:Murdered_explorers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Category:Murdered lawyers

You did not express a preference, and this is languishing. Originally, it was to be deleted. There was a proposal for renaming, so I've tried that in the interest of comity. Hardly anybody wants to rename. So I'm perfectly willing to delete.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, did you have time to look over the article ( Shanghainese people in Hong Kong) now that there's more information? It could be more abundantly what makes this cross section of people a defining trait for categorization. Also, while WP:CFD is not cleanup, I have been going through the articles formerly contained the category and adding sources to claim of Shanghainese descent. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 02:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• This referred to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_20#People_of_Shanghainese_descent, which has meanwhile been closed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Okay in what world does a category like this even exist? I've tried my hardest, reading articles and books and improving the article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong, not having a full time job at the moment means I literally spent working hours in this past week trying to please the powers that be, but somehow it didn't pay off.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• This referred to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed that you are preparing to mass nominate Chinese sub group categories. While I do agree that one or more of those categories which you have listed in your sandbox page may not be suitable for inclusion, I advise against the specific action of mass nomination, as this rarely leads to clean discussions (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_20#People_of_X_descent) Specifically to this example, the historiography of these various countries and the diaspora communities with them vary so widely that it would be impossible to discuss them all in the same place.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 09:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• @ Prisencolin: Thanks for the advice, I agree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I’d like to ask that you remove or strike the words “(some articles do even not mention Fujian descent) and trivial intersection” from the discussion: Category:Hong Kong people of Fujianese descent because I have fixed the issue relating to the non-citation and calling it “trivial” is a value judgement which is discouraged at WP:ATA. I’m also debating whether the Washington people of Carolina descent analogy is even an acceptable for a discussion due to how misleading and potentially incorrect it is .— Prisencolin ( talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• @ Prisencolin: that is something to add in the CfD discussion itself, insofar it does not overlap with your earlier comments. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't want to add it to the page because I don't think it's really necessarily to be seen as part of the discussion and I might be commenting too much as to be seen as WP:BLUDGEONing the situation.-- Prisencolin ( talk)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suicide of Ash Haffner, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Ash Haffner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed individual trees has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JsfasdF252 ( talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Irish Anglican priests has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've seen that you recently edited that page. I wondering if you could add something for me. On the top of the 17th century page, it mentions the largest wars of that century. And I noticed that it was missing the bloodiest war from that century. Transition From Ming to Qing (1618-1683). TaipingRebellion1850 ( talk) 01:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• @ TaipingRebellion1850: so why do you not add it yourself? Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm new here. I do TaipingRebellion1850 ( talk) 03:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm new here. And I do not know hot to link it the article. TaipingRebellion1850 ( talk) 03:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ TaipingRebellion1850: I notice you have been editing here for almost a year. That is not "new". And no, I am not going to edit an article upon someone else's request. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

But it was the deadliest war of that century :( TaipingRebellion1850 ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Just noted that you left the Early Modern changes at speedy as capitalised. However, your late modern nominations are not capitalised. Should be one or the other please. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We really need to figure out a way to recruit more people to join in stopping the miscategorization of birds as dinosaurs. Do we need to take this to administrator notice. No one except maybe that crazy editor goes down the road and sees some geese and says "I see a bunch of dinosaurs". This is not how the term dinosaur is used, this is not how people think about the meaning of the term. This is incredibly bizarre and we need to stop allowing people to impose such non-standard word usage. This is the type of one issue pushing mis use of Wikipedia that we need to nip in the bud. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Bishops in Aosta Valley has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please review:

• Wikipedia talk:Category names#Heritage and residence by city or region
• Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Parents, grandparents, relatives

I've used some wording that you wrote in CfD. Sometimes it helps to have a concrete proposal for discussion.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 10:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have accidentally included Category:People from Karditsa in your nomination, despite saying you wanted to keep it in your rationale. I didn't notice it at the time, and it seems no other discussant did, but now it was deleted. It is the capital of the prefecture and I believe it had more than 20 members. -- Antondimak ( talk) 08:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• @ Antondimak: It is fixed now. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by nationality has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marcocapelle,

on an unrelated question, because I have now spent 15 minutes reading up on categories without finding the information: Is it admissible in the en-WP to create categories that don't have a main article corresponding to them? In the German Wikipedia these would be candidates for a quick delete, based on the rule that no category should be created unless there exists an article that plausibly corresponds to it – especially when people and their works are concerned. So I put a quick delete on Category:Films directed by Aaron Blaise and Category:Films directed by Abdul Razak Mohaideen, which both had only one film in them, and no existing article on the director. Nor were they created recently, but three and four years ago. But now that I keep finding more examples like these, I should ask you if en-WP regulations correspond to that. -- Sprachraum ( talk) 09:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @ Sprachraum: it is not usual to create categories that don't have a main article corresponding to them, but there aren't any written guidelines about it. Also, so far, the Speedy C2 process has limited itself to renaming and merging. So a speedy deletion proposal is likely to become opposed, while in full discussion these categories are probably going to be deleted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Marcocapelle, I was braced for opposition to my speedy delete proposals, as that has been my en-WP experience so far – especially on relinks, which don't seem to be deleted for just about any reason... But, to my amazement (and yours?), both the above categories were deleted without any hiccups, which is a pleasant change. Maybe I was lucky with the admin I got, but if not: Perhaps this sensible and easy-to-comprehend criterium could be put into writing in the guidelines? It could go some way towards reducing the "garbage" categories you wrote about on Good Olfactory's talk page. I suggest it be added here at Criteria for speedy deletion#Categories as a C2, and the current C2 moved to C4, because C3 is preserved here. It could read like this:

C2. Categories without a corresponding main article
Categories that are at least three months old without a corresponding main namespace article having been created, or where such an article has since been deleted, qualify for a speedy delete. This does not apply to categories where no plausible corresponding article could be created.

If you are in agreement with this criterium, I would suggest you submit it for discussion at the appropriate place. With your experience and specialization on categories, your word will carry more weight than mine. Please rephrase my wording as you see fit. -- Sprachraum ( talk) 16:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marco,

Did you mean to remove the CSD tag from this category? I'm not sure if everything regarding this CFD case is done and over with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. My closing skills got a bit rusted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Before the 16th century there are only Roman Catholic bishops in England - and the same in most of Europe. Do we need superior categories? The question of what we call these categories has not yet been settled, but for most countries there is only one. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• @ Rathfelder: can you give an example? Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• There is no real pattern. Category:French bishops is not divided by centuries properly. Category:Spanish bishops similar. I'm hoping now we have agreed to move to "by country" that we can set a pattern. But I still think its unhelpful to imply divisions that dont exist in a country, by calling 12th century Welsh bishops Roman Catholic. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I've proposed the deletion of Open general licence. Rationale is that it's no longer a common term within Export Control. Please remove the proposal if you object. Chumpih. ( talk) 18:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you nominate just a few of the categories in Category:People of Chaoshanese descent for deletion in this discussion? There seems to have been a few duplicates that were deleted that I wasn't aware of when I viewed the category a few years ago.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 04:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• @ Prisencolin: maybe the others were not in Category:People of Chaoshanese descent at the time. It is a discussion of five years ago, so I do not remember. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I linked the wrong discussion, meant this most recent one.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 06:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Prisencolin: I only nominated subcategories of Chaoshanese descent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Well the issue is that it's basically synonymous with Teochew. Otherwise if your intent was to get rid with the alleged duplicates then that was reasonable in my opinion. I'm just scratching my head as to what was in some of those categories.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 08:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
        • @ Prisencolin: Here you go. [12] Feel free to repopulate the Teochew categories. Hmm, further work is required, as the parent "Chaoshanese descent" does not match the subcats "Teochew descent". – Fayenatic London 10:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
          • @ Fayenatic london: A few years ago I proposed a rename of the entire tree, but it ended in no consensus because there was a counter proposal to just delete the whole thing. I may just go ahead and manually rename the category to avoid all of this. I believe WP:BOLD can apply here.—- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marcocapelle, you have probably noticed that RfA has become a much calmer experience in the last three years, since I last offered to nominate you. Would you be willing now? WP:ORCP is a safe place where you can have a prior test of opinion. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Spain has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Poland has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Germany has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:People involved in anti-Protestantism has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Zionist activists has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 14:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Barriers to critical thinking has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. jp× g 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Mononymous people. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Coagulans ( talk) 00:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your NAC "delete" closure of this CfD was inappropriate and in violation of WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages." I have reverted your close. Please don't NAC close deletion discussions as "delete" again unless the page/category/file being discussed has already been deleted. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 11:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, please disregard the above comment. In a follow-up thread User talk:Explicit#CfD Category:Aldrich family it was clarified that because of a large and persistent backlog at CfD, the above provision of WP:NACD is commonly disregarded there and that is accepted as a norm for non-controversial cases. (With the AfD discussions the situation is different.) Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:New Zealand Protestant religious leaders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, I have reverted Category:New Zealand Protestant ministers and clergy back into this one. AFAIAC they have the same scope, and "religious leaders" is better than "ministers and clergy". However, you may have been building Category:Protestant ministers and clergy by nationality rather than Category:Protestant religious leaders by nationality. Has there been any discussion between those? – Fayenatic London 21:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Fayenatic london: there has not been any discussion about it as far as I am aware of. Generally, "Protestant ministers and clergy" (i.e. religious leaders of established broad Protestant churches, e.g. Lutheran and Presbyterian) is appropriate and sufficient in most countries. However that does not apply to the United States where many Protestant religious leaders are "self-made" and here we really need a more general Protestant religious leaders as a parent of Protestant ministers and clergy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that religious leaders should only be categorised as "ministers and clergy" if they are accredited by a denomination? – Fayenatic London 21:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Fayenatic london: that is how the terms are usually applied. The term "clergy and ministers" suggests one becomes a pastor or minister by ordination and that is exactly what happens in established churches. I have not seen the term minister applied to people who start their own church. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Clergy" maybe, but not sure usage of "minister" is limited thus… Anyway, that distinction does not fit those who are currently in Category:American Protestant religious leaders directly, so having the two levels of categories is not proving useful or effective. IMHO, "religious leader" means leader of a congregation, not a missionary board chair like Mary Kavanaugh Eagle or parachurch organisation leader like Anne Eggebroten & Tom Lin, so those three should be removed; the others were all clergy/ministers.

• @ Fayenatic london: while you think those should be excluded, someone else might easily disagree. Religious leader is a subjective and maybe OR-ish term. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• • I'm inclined to nominate merge/rename of all "Protestant ministers and clergy" to "Protestant religious leaders". – Fayenatic London 09:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Fayenatic london: maybe I see it wrong, but at first glance it seems that a proposal like that would imply that Protestant clergy is no real clergy while Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy is real clergy. That implication would violate NPOV. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's not how I read it. The implication to me is that Catholic and Orthodox use the word "clergy" for religious leaders, while others use "ministers", "pastors", "priests" etc for people in basically the same occupation. It appears that you have created a "ministers and clergy" hierarchy with the same intention that I had for "Religious leaders". Do you remember Category_talk:Religious_leaders#Clergy_categories? I haven't pursued that for a few years, but would still like to do so.

• • @ Fayenatic london: honestly I had forgotten about that discussion. It still seems to me that you are trying to treat similar situations in dissimilar ways. If it would be useful to upmerge Protestant clergy then why not upmerge Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy categories as well? In all cases "clergy" is a catch-all term for priests and bishops (and possibly other clergy). The only exception is Calvinism where a catch-all clergy term is not needed and not customary, by lack of bishops. But in Calvinism there are still ordained ministers, similar to Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox priests, so having all of them in a cross-denominational clergy category makes perfect sense. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • "why not upmerge Catholic... as well" – to what? Is there a layer for Catholic religious leaders? – Fayenatic London 22:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @ Fayenatic london: that is interesting, I was convinced we had these categories too, at least containing Catholic abbots and priors. Anyway, I merely distracted the discussion with that comment, because what I really think is most appropriate was in my next comment: to keep cross-denominational clergy categories including Protestant clergy and ministers, for consistency and NPOV sake. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Fayenatic london: returning to a side track of our conversation, I had a look at the American tree. To my surprise, many people that potentially could be categorized as American Protestant religious leaders but not as American Protestant clergy and ministers can be found either in

1. Category:American evangelicals (i.e. they are not in a religious leaders category yet)
2. or in Category:American Christian religious leaders (i.e. not in a Protestant category yet).

I am most certainly not asserting that all people in Category:American evangelicals and Category:Christian religious leaders do belong in Category:Protestant religious leaders, i.e. a merge proposal at CfD would be entirely inappropriate, but on the other hand if anyone is looking for Protestant religious leaders beyond clergy and ministers, those are currently the two places to search for them. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you recently pulled a number of categories from Reason. I agree with some of them, but I think particularly that Epistemology, Secularism, Logic, Philosophy of Mind, and Philosophy are defining characteristics of Reason. They are consistently associated with Reason in a range of reputable tertiary sources:

Epistemology, Philosophy of Mind, & Logic

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) and the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, note that reason is a mental facility (i.e. what is studied by Philosophy of Mind) and is often considered an essential component of knowledge (Epistemology is the study of knowledge). The SEP claims specifically "Philosophically, logic is at least closely related to the study of correct reasoning. Reasoning is an epistemic, mental activity." Indicating that being logical, being epistemic, and being mental are all defining characteristics of reason. Also "Logic and reasoning go hand in hand. We say that someone has reasoned poorly about something if they have not reasoned logically, or that an argument is bad because it is not logically valid. "

Secularism

Consistently in encyclopedic entries reason is contrasted with faith, as an alternative method of finding truth, and this distinction is a central component of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy's and MacMillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on reason. According to MacMillan's "There is, for example, a large body of literature in which reason stands essentially in contrast with faith" The SEP makes this debate quite clear in their intro to the article on Religion and Political theory. The question of secularism is one of reason: "The problem, says Strauss, is primarily one about authority: Is political authority to be grounded in the claims of revelation or reason, Jerusalem or Athens?"

Philosophy

Many sources identify reason with philosophy, from Foucault's History of Madness to Rochester's bladders of philosophy. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy has no less than 18 different entries on various philosopher's views on reason. The Encyclopedia Britannica identifies reason as a philosophical concept, as well as identifying it with logic "Reason, in philosophy, the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences."

I can clean up the citations to support these claims if you like. I'll go ahead and replace those categories. Let me know if you disagree.

-- Carneadesofcyrene ( talk) 02:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Carneadesofcyrene: Secularism is about the separation of church and state, or a bit broader about the role of religion in society. Reason as a philosophical concept is not related to secularism. In this particular meaning (contrasting faith) the article might be added to Category:Antireligion but that is tricky too. I will have a look at the others later. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Undoing what seems to be a bad category merge from few years back. Category:Former voivodeships of Poland (14th century–1795) now redirects to Category:Voivodeships of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth but that's wrong - PLC era starts in 1569, so the Former... category had a larger scope and for example, entities like Elbląg Voivodeship (1454–1466) belong in the former cat, not the newer one. The mess seems to involve a blocked User:Glovacki who in 2016 "moved page Category:Former voivodeships of Poland (14th century–1795) to Category:Voivodeships of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" and with whom I have never interacted with and I don't think there was any CfD discussion? Is there anything we can do to undo this mess and restore the old category through some automation, or do we have to do it manually? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Piotrus: I noticed that you meanwhile moved Elbląg Voivodeship (1454–1466) to Category:Former voivodeships of Poland, that looks like a satisfactory solution. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Marcocapelle, Right, but the old category was more accurate (narrower, time-wise). I'll also ping User:Darwinek who edits Polish-related administrative topics. Maybe you are right and there's no major problem... I am not sure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marcocapelle, I see you've changed the categorisation of Aristotle's biology from "Aristotle" to "Aristotelianism".

Aristotelianism is "is a philosophical tradition inspired by the work of Aristotle."

However the article is about the biology of Aristotle the man, with some material at the end of how it was taken up by later authorities.

I do not think you can call Aristotle's own work "inspired by the work of Aristotle", so I believe the change in category to be incorrect. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Chiswick Chap: fair point, so this should become part of Category:Philosophy of Aristotle. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, that should be quite a large category then. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Fayenatic london: continuation of User_talk:Marcocapelle#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:New_Zealand_Protestant_religious_leaders. The most important discussion points between the two of us were:

1. Merging clergy and religious leaders, yes or no? I'd like to withdraw my objection against merging. The United States is the country in which I expected this to be the biggest issue, but I notice that lots of self-appointed religious leaders in the United States are called "pastor" or "minister" just as well, and are already in the clergy and ministers category. So it does not appear to be useful to make a distinction between ordained in an established church versus self-appointed. Using "clergy and ministers" for all of them should suffice. However, when merging, it could be the case that the religious leaders categories contain some people that we would put in a religious workers category rather than in a clergy and ministers category (e.g. Pamela Pauly Chinnis), that remains to be seen on a case by case basis.
2. If merged, which name? Earlier I said "religious leaders" is subjective and vague, and I still think this is the case. In a completely different tree, in Category:Buddhist_religious_leaders, editors have added mystics, patriarchs, revivalists and teachers subcategories to the "religious leaders" parent and I can't say that this is necessarily wrong. Clergy, or in the Protestant case "clergy and ministers", is far less ambiguous.

So in short I would recommend splitting all religious leaders categories between clergy (and ministers) on the one hand and religious workers on the other hand. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, I see you're removing the category "Indian yogis" from some articles and substituting "American yogis". However, if a guy is born and brought up in India, has Indian parents, and practices Indian arts and customs all his life, I think we may reasonably say he's Indian, no? The fact that at some age he may have taken an American passport, or lived there on a visa, or moonlighted there illegally, who knows, doesn't make him less Indian. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 21:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• @ Chiswick Chap: I would assume it is more relevant where they practise yoga. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Guess they can't call themselves American yogis either if they don't do that! Bikram for one is certainly Indian; the sense in which one might call him a "yogi" is something that might need to be, ah, carefully qualified. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marcocapelle,

You are a very experienced editor but for some unknown reason, you keep adding nonexistent, red link categories to articles. This means that someone else, often me, has to come along behind you and remove them. Please do not add nonexistent categories to any pages unless you plan on creating the categories yourself immediately afterward AND these categories fit into the existing Wikipedia category structure. Your editing should not cause work for other editors who must clean up after you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• @ Liz: I apologize and certainly do not want to cause you extra work. Also, I know the reason: I have mostly been on my mobile phone recently. In mobile phone view there is neither the availability of Hotcat nor are non-existing categories shown in red, so both automated self-check procedures do not work. When I accidentally create a redlink, it is presumably a matter of a typo most of the times. Apart from no longer using my phone, I can't think of an easy workaround to manage this problem in a more convenient way. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't edit on a mobile phone so I'm not aware of its limitations.

Also, I was going to ask you that I came across Category:Moksha and its components which you tagged with a link to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 21 but there is no discussion of this category on that page. Do you get the date wrong? Please correct or remove the tag whenever it is convenient. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @ Liz: thanks for your detective work, it looks like the latter is a failure of Twinkle, hopefully it is just a single incident. I will check the category again and will either nominate it today or remove the CfD tag. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've only just realised that you may have some personal knowledge here. I've read Dutch people but I'm still not very clear at what point in history it's sensible to say that people were Dutch. The Netherlands was an established country from 1581. But is Category:15th-century Netherlandish people a sensible category? and the rest of Category:Medieval Dutch people? Should we put people before 1581 in Category:People of the Habsburg Netherlands? Rathfelder ( talk) 19:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• @ Rathfelder: I do not have not the illusion that I know more about Dutch history than can be found here on Wikipedia. Anyway, Category:15th-century Netherlandish people is an anachronistic category just like Early Netherlandish art in the 15th century is an anachronistic term. Nevertheless the latter has become the standard term in art historiography. So that is confusing for a start. Next, quite a large number of Dutch people before 1581 should be, and probably already are, in Category:People of the Habsburg Netherlands. But that does not apply to all Dutch people of that century. The remainder should go to Category:16th-century people of the Holy Roman Empire. Note that most parts of the Netherlands only became part of the Habsburg Netherlands in the course of the 16th century, the Duchy of Gelre as late as in 1543. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Even more complicated than I thought! Rathfelder ( talk) 08:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Economic history of the Holy Roman Empire has been nominated for renaming to Category:Economy of the Holy Roman Empire. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Business executives of the Dutch East India Company has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to rename them as administrators? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @ Rathfelder: I doubt if there is any "right" name, so if you would nominate the category for renaming I would probably not even join the discussion. Most importantly we should not have two categories with the same purpose as we had with the Dutch East India Company. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Business executives of the Dutch West India Company has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my failure to tag the added categories in this CFD. I'm not sure how I missed that! Thanks for doing it and relisting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• @ Good Olfactory: I am glad I could assist here. Don't worry about it. Supposedly everybody makes mistakes once in a while and this was a really modest mistake. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marco, I see that you're changing several yogis to yoga teachers. This may sometimes be right, but in the case of famous yoga gurus it probably isn't. Have you developed some methodology for this change? I haven't seen it discussed anywhere on the yoga WikiProject. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• @ Chiswick Chap: I am checking whether they teach yoga based on the article text. Are you referring to any famous yoga gurus in particular? Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of them, and obviously they all need to be treated the same way. The List of Indian asana yoga gurus that you edited covers the principal pioneering yogasana gurus, which is clearly a good starting point. The question is what the scheme is. If I get you right, you're saying that 'all yoga gurus are yoga teachers" and "all yoga teachers are yogis", yes? In which case we are abandoning the use of "Yogi" to mean anything approaching a guru, and we require a new category "Yoga gurus" for what at least some editors meant by "Yogi", i.e. a widely-followed master of some branch of yoga. I think that would make sense of what you appear to be doing, which is to my mind attempting to disambiguate "Yogi". Yes? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• @ Chiswick Chap: it was pretty straightforward to distinguish people who just practise yoga (i.e. yogi) from people who practise and teach yoga (i.e. yoga teachers), which is what I have been implementing for the American and European subcategories, merely as a clean-up. It seems the new category you suggest would be for people who specialize in yoga but do not teach. Is that right? It is not something I encountered in American/European subcategories, but it may well occur in Asia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, yoga gurus teach something, but it is as often spiritual as physical. I think it's ok to say gurus are always teachers, but they are not necessarily teachers/instructors of yoga-as-exercise. The term is of course from India but many of the major yoga gurus are well-known in the west. I'll see if I can sort something out on these lines as it makes sense of your edits. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• @ Chiswick Chap: probably that is already covered by Category:Spiritual teachers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, a spiritual teacher could be a quiet village monk. A person isn't a modern yoga guru unless they have millions of followers. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, you've now shocked me by rushing to CfD without even discussing it with me. We had a discussion in progress here and there were good points being made on both sides. I find it unfriendly to say the least to attempt to strip out the work being done to reach an accommodation, using the brute force of a deletion process while offering nothing to replace it. If you didn't understand the reasons I gave above, then I could have explained further - there's much to say, see for instance Yoga in the United States. I'm sorry but this isn't the way. I hope we can return to dialogue. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• @ Chiswick Chap: there is no reason to be shocked, discussions at CfD can be just as friendly as they can be here. But merging a category that already exists can only be accomplished at CfD. By the way, note that it is a merge proposal, not a deletion proposal! Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, thanks, but a merger is tantamount to the category's destruction, the immediate loss of its independent existence and raison d'etre as the whole point is to label the guru-class figures. Frankly if we can't distinguish a guru from the yoga teacher in the village hall we might as well forget the encyclopedia as dead and useless. Getting hung up on "notability" is a mistake; people can be distinguished by more than that, as we acknowledge in thousands of list membership criteria on Wikipedia, we don't have to put everybody in every list. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to have the link to this CfD discussion. There is a difference between a Yogi vs Yoga teachers. Please place the link here. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 05:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• @ Red Rose 13: it is here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Category:American yoga celebrities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. I am more concerned about the term Yogi vs Yoga teachers. In the west people think that Yoga is just the physical exercise of yoga asanas. But that is very limited and missing what a Yogi is. I refer you to the article Yoga Sutras of Patanjali "Patanjali describes yoga as having eight components (अष्टाङ्ग aṣṭ āṅga, "eight limbs"): "The eight limbs of yoga are yama (abstinences), niyama (observances), asana (yoga postures), pranayama (breath control), pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses), dharana (concentration), dhyana (meditation) and samadhi (absorption)" please note the the asanas are listed as #3 out of eight components. A yogi is on a spiritual path. A yogi is a practitioner and may or may not teach. Both categories should be used. Red Rose 13 ( talk) 06:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• @ Red Rose 13: I think we agree. As I said earlier in this discussion, we can distinguish people who just practise yoga (i.e. yogi) from people who practise and teach yoga (i.e. yoga teachers). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this Category merge was hasty and incorrect: in Sangha, immediately after the definition cited as rationale in your nomination, appears clear evidence that, in many Buddhist communities, Sangha is a supercategory of monastics: "Mahayana practitioners may use the word "sangha" as a collective term for all Buddhists" and "The two meanings overlap but are not necessarily identical. Some members of the ideal Sangha are not ordained".

Thus, for example, Achar (Buddhism) now appears in Category:Buddhist monasticism even though "An achar… is a lay Buddhist upāsaka" and therefore explicitly not monastic, as further confirmed in Upāsaka and Upāsikā, which itself is now also miscategorized under the same category, along with Dharma name and others. Therefore, these changes should be reverted.

I have put a similar comment on the talk page of the closing admin. — KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marcocapelle,

I'm just double-checking that you closed this as merge & delete because the closure just says "result". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_6#Category:Hinduism_in_Lahore
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_7#Category:Hinduism_in_Mangalore

Hey Marcocapelle, I hope you're having a great day : )

So after closing the one on Lahore, I came across the second one on Mangalore. and started looking at the larger category tree, realized I was forming an opinion about what should be done with these and so even though I was neutral at the time of closing, I went ahead and reverted my close.

Looking over Category:Religion by city, and its subcats, it seems pretty clear that "X by city" cats are all duplicative of "Religion in Z by city".

What do you think? - jc37 15:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• @ Jc37: I am not too sure what you mean with the latter. Can you give an example? Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure.

Let's take Category:Hinduism by city for example.

Category:Hinduism in Delhi is also in Category:Religion in Delhi subcat of Category:Religion in India by city

Category:Hinduism in Kabul is also in Category:Religion in Kabul, subcat of Category:Religion in Afghanistan and Category:Religion in Asia by city

Category:Hinduism in Kolkata is also in Category:Religion in Kolkata, subcat of Category:Religion in India by city

Category:Hinduism in Lahore is also in Category:Religion in Lahore, subcat of Category:Religion in Pakistan by city

Category:Hinduism in Mangalore is also in Category:Religion in Mangalore, subcat of Category:Religion in India by city

So first, part of the problem is Category:Hinduism by city groups cities irrespective of what state or country they are in. (So does Category:Islam by city, etc.)

Second these appear to be duplicative of the Religion in Z by city cats.

And even if the goal is to have a top-level search from Hinduism by city, rather than Religion by City, then that should be integrated into the existing Religion by city trees.

Category:Hinduism by location subcats should be trees (subcats of each other) not direct subcats of Category:Hinduism by location.

To me this seems like a mess to either be cleaned up, or deleted as duplicative.

Does that better explain? - jc37 17:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @ Jc37: it explains better. In Christianity the religion by city categories are consistently organized by continent, in Islam only partially (there is only Category:Islam in Asia by city), in Hinduism it is not organized by continent at all. But I am afraid I do not share the opinion that this is a problem. Especially with Hinduism, I would not expect any cities outside the Indian subcontinent, so inserting a continent level would not add anything. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  AFAIK, nearly every location cat-tree that we have uses city < (county and/ or state) < country < continent. We may skip a tier due to small cat etc, but that's usually the setup as far as I've seen. Putting city, country, and continent in the same cat, as is done in Category:Hinduism by location, is a new one to me. - jc37 02:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• @ Jc37: it really depends on how much content there is. For example, Category:Cinema by city has an even smaller tree. In case of the religions tree, many countries have a city subcat for the capital only, so then adding a country layer is not very efficiënt. A continent layer could well be added consistently for Islam though. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Disestablishments in the Kingdom of Naples indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Medieval Kingdom of Croatia has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Archduke of Austria Category? The whole code for Austrian rulers is still underway. Is the edit premature? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I answered in the CfD discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Explicit and Bibliomaniac15: the closures of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_12#Sierra_Nevada_(U.S.) and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_4#Category:Sierra_Nevada_(U.S.) were correct each on their own but they do contradict each other, which is mainly due to participation of different editors in the two discussions. What is the normal follow-up procedure in instances like this? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Marcocapelle: Thanks for the heads up. It seems best to me to reopen a consolidated discussion, which I have done here. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The article reads (Modern interpretation): Moses speaks of "Mithridates, satrap of Darius" (identifiable with Mithridates I of Pontus) installed by Alexander to rule over the Georgians. Darius died in 330 BC, and Mithridates I of Pontus was not born at that time ... Mithridates II of Cius should be written here, because during his transfer (302 BC) the Kingdom of Iberia was formed. Correction is necessary here. Thanks in advance.-- Lasha-george ( talk) 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• @ Lasha-george: I have no opinion on the matter. You'd better be bold and implement the correction. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

ok. Thank you Marcocapelle.-- Lasha-george ( talk) 08:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! You were helpful in supporting 2 recent CfRs, one in July and another in August, for changing categories like "American female classical composers" to "American women classical composers". I thought double-precedent would be enough to switch to "speedy" for my next batch; unfortunately that doesn't seem to have as many eyes on it. Would you mind looking over the current CfR (below the collapsed yellow bar on that page) and, if it still seems reasonable to you, supporting it? Thanks so much! // Knifegames ( talk) 18:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

...Apologies if this isn't how (speedy) CfRs work, by the way… I'm new to these! // Knifegames ( talk) 18:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ Knifegames: I am afraid the speedy process is usually very strict, it would normally only work there if "women" would have been a long established standard. Otherwise if it is a matter of full discussion again and there the proposal may gain quick consensus again. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh okay, thanks so much for letting me know! I'll let it sit another day or two & then just resubmit through the usual channels. // Knifegames ( talk) 21:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Now that the nom has been defeated, will you propose the changes that you mentioned? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I will put it on my list. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marcocapelle,

I have a question and a comment after coming across some templates you tagged for deletion at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion. Why is the deletion of templates being discussed at CFD and not TFD?

Secondly, your tagging of pages for deletion after closing a discussion is usually impeccable, perfectly done for admins reviewing pages tagged for speedy deletion. However with these template discussion, you've been including an incorrect link on the CSD tag, it links to a non-existent TFD page and not the CFD page where the deletion was discussed. So, I need to go into the page history and copy the link from when the template was nominated and change the link on the Twinkle CSD pop-up notice. If you could add in the correct link rather than relying on Twinkle to add it for you, fewer mistakes will happen.

Thanks again for your closure of discussions at CFD, that area of the project has really has needed some extra help for a while now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies for the trouble that I caused. I was not aware of this particular application of Twinkle, I am always pasting script like {{db-xfd|votepage=Log/2021_September_1}}, so I will have a further look at Twinkle.

The deletion of stub category templates is discussed at CfD usually in conjunction with discussing the stub category that the template refers to. The fact that in these particular cases there were no corresponding stub categories to be discussed is exceptional. Nevertheless for consistency it makes sense that these stub category templates were nominated at CfD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Fayenatic london and Bibliomaniac15: since yesterday the old cfd template suddenly requires different syntax, it is no longer
{{old cfd | section heading | date = date of nomination | result = result | action = action proposed}}
but instead
{{old cfd | section heading | date =date of nomination | result = result | action = action proposed}}
(mind the change in =date).

With the old syntax I am getting a redlink in the reference to the category discussion. This probably means that all past old cfd notices will also display redlinks. Is there some way to revert this change? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Marcocapelle: Nothing has changed in {{ old cfd}} since last January, according to the template history. Templates are never space sensitive like that. I took a look at your contribs and saw you were having problems with Category talk:Campeonato de Portugal (league)...maybe you forgot to put in the "section" parameter so it wasn't linking to the correct section? bibliomaniac 1 5 06:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I was (also) surprised to see that nothing had been explicitly changed in the template. The section parameter has never been a requirement. I was able to figure out the problem is related to a space because with the old syntax it gets linked to

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/ 2021_September_9

instead of

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_9

Also I was right in assuming this problem affects all past old cfd notices, e.g. see Category_talk:Albums_arranged_by_Klaus_Voormann. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem. I just spent some time sifting through the transclusions and magic words used in that template. One thing I noticed at Category_talk:Albums_arranged_by_Klaus_Voormann is that there are 2 spaces before and after the 7 for the "reverse date" part of the message. So I would guess that this is some underlying module of lua code or some underlying transclusion. Still looking, but I agree, it is really odd... - jc37 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• date =2021 September 7| = no extra spaces before or after the 7

vs.

• date = 2021 September 7 | = has an extra space before and after the 7

I think this isn't limited to dates, just that they appeared on our radar. My guess is this is a change in how arguements are handled. I'm now looking for a recent change "somewhere" which might reflect this. - jc37 10:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

this was a recent change in June to the reverse date template. And though it's interesting, I still think there is some underlying change that affected this - jc37 11:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this is it, or at least refers to it. See the documentation about removing leading whitespace. My guess is that some update, removed that feature of the underlying module. - jc37 11:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's interesting that under the section "match" (subsection ignore errors) an error appears:

• {{#invoke:String|match|s= abc |pattern= %d }} → String Module Error: Match not found

Starting to think this is a mediawiki issue. - jc37 11:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm joining this conversation after replying on my talk page. I've solved the issue on Category talk:Albums arranged by Klaus Voormann. Some of the spaces weren't normal spaces, so the template wasn't ignoring them. After replacing them, it works normally. Does doing this fix the other problems you've seen? MClay1 ( talk) 11:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It also fixed Category talk:Campeonato de Portugal (league). I guess that was it. What was your process for inserting those templates? Where could the weird spaces have come from? MClay1 ( talk) 11:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I was also pinged to this discussion, and I think that Mclay1 is correct regarding the spaces issue; there is no reason why whitespace should make any difference, and a change from July shouldn't only just now be popping up. I did a few dry runs at the various locations here, and it doesn't matter how many "normal" spaces are present, the template always gives the same output. (please ping on reply) Primefac ( talk) 11:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Primefac (and Mclay1) - Thank you very much for looking into this. I didn't realize there might be "special" spaces involved. Though I'm still wondering why there is an error in an example in a section "ignore errors". Any ideas on that? - jc37 11:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

In Module:String#match it gives plenty of examples, and to me it makes sense that you would show what happens if there is an error, and then what happens if there is an error but you tell it to ignore the error; nothing weird about it. Primefac ( talk) 11:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again : ) - jc37 12:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ Jc37, Primefac, and Mclay1: thank you all for looking into this. To answer the question, since maybe a year I have been copying the old cfd script from my sandbox and until yesterday without any problems. I am afraid that all old cfd notices I have added in this period will now contain a redlink. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  Which I spose could mean that mediawiki used to interpret that character just fine, and now doesn't. Ouch. - jc37 12:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  Checking your sandbox, it does contain those special spaces for some reason. Replacing them with a normal space with the spacebar will fix the issue (at least going forward). All the old ones could be fixed with AWB or a bot? Interestingly, when I was testing the problem, changing the year in the date parameter altered the result. With an early enough year, there was no problem, and some years showed the extra spaces in the text but the link still worked. Not sure what that was about. MClay1 ( talk) 12:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I went to [13] and the result for your space appears to be: U+0020 : SPACE [SP]

Which I think is the "normal" space. Though I suppose the website in question could be converting it, so I dunno. - jc37 12:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

laughing at myself here - you've provided a nice puzzle and I'm just diving in : )

You mentioned that you are copying the text from your sandbox. is that from the page directly, or the sandbox edit window? Maybe it's a wiki skin issue. - jc37 12:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Jc37: I am glad you like the puzzle :-) I am copying directly from the page, not from the edit window. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Playing with the edit history of Category talk:Albums arranged by Klaus Voormann and testing my keyboard's spacebar, the spaces from your edit definitely seem to give a different result. Could be skin or browser of something else. I wonder, if you try copying the text from the edit window of your sandbox and previewing, do you still get the same redlink? - jc37 12:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Jc37 It's not that character. It displays as a normal space in the edit history comparison, but if you go into the source and copy it, that website says its U+00A0 : NO-BREAK SPACE [NBSP]. So basically it's working the same as  . MClay1 ( talk) 13:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you very much : ) - jc37 13:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for pitching in! Didn't expect the discussion to get this expansive. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ Jc37, Primefac, and Mclay1: this was a very ... interesting ... problem. Anyway, I copied the script from my sandbox to Notepad, then copied it back from Notepad to my sandbox and now it appears to be working fine again. But, presumably there is no straightforward solution for all the old cfd notices that I left on category talk pages that meanwhile contain a redlink, is there? Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  I suppose you could ask a bot owner/awb user to see if they can (are allowed to) change the non-breakable spaces (U+00A0 : NO-BREAK SPACE [NBSP]) to "normal" spaces (U+0020 : SPACE [SP]). Should probably be as simple as filtering your edit history by "category talk" namespace. - jc37 22:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  AWB can automatically change unicode spaces because of this issue, so I would just run it over recent edits. Primefac ( talk) 23:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Historical events by country has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 ( talk) 17:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I've begun a new CfD discussion for Category:African Americans shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 18#Category:African Americans shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States. As you participated in the previous discussion earlier this month you may want to take a look. All the best, –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 18:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marco,

Did you mean to tag this category for deletion? It was part of a CFD you closed. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have shown an interest in articles related to psychology.

WikiProject Psychology is a group of experts, students and enthusiasts improving Wikipedia articles with any connection to psychology. We have a noticeboard where you can ask for help, or where your input will be very welcome. To stay in touch, add the WikiProject page to your watchlist ( here's how to do this). You might also find these links helpful:

• How to write a psychology article
• Psychology tasks that need doing
• Psychology portal

If you make big improvements to a psychology-related article, or small improvements to many, you will earn our lasting gratitude, or even a Barnstar. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia.

Xurizuri (
talk) 20:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This to recognize your tireless efforts to keep wikipedia articles well-categorized. You have well over 300,000 edits (including more than 70,000 in category space), and I see that you are actively ensuring categories meet policy. Thanks! VR talk 16:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reorganizing all the consul categories. My only objection is that the 1st-century BC category shouldn't be listed under 'Roman Republican consuls' (since the empire began in that century), nor should the 6th and 5th century ones be listed under 'Roman patricians'. Avilich ( talk) 16:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ Avilich: as the larger amount of 1st-century BC consuls were consuls in the Republic, listing the whole subcategory under the Republic is okay. Also, all consuls of the 5th and 6th century were in fact patricians, until the Lex Licinia Sextia passed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I won't bore you with details, but there is no consensus that the narrative of the lex Licinia Sextia and that only patricians could be consuls is even correct or reliable. The 'Roman patricians' category already contains subcategories of confirmed patrician families; adding entire centuries of poorly-attested officeholders is to make a bold statement with insufficient evidence. Avilich ( talk) 18:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ Avilich: I was not aware that the narrative of the lex Licinia Sextia is being disputed. It should be mentioned more explicitly in the opening statement of the article. I will remove patricians as a parent category though. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I see your name pop up every time I dare to visit XFD. :D Thank you, but MY GOD wikipedia's categories are an inconsistent, contradictory mess. Maybe it is inevitable that this is so, I don't know. I dared to poke my head into it once, and I kinda never want to do it again. :D anyway, just a little rant and a thank you. Mvbaron ( talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have a question if you don’t mind: where would I post an RFC (as was suggested to me) about the re-evaluating a 2011 RFC about so-called “bias-categories” and if we can categorise people, groups and organisations under them (a BLP issue I suppose)? Someone suggested AN to me? But is that correct? So you have any idea? Thanks Mvbaron ( talk) 05:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ Mvbaron: probably Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography is the best place. Biography articles are the most impacted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm alright, thanks. I wouldn’t have found this :) Mvbaron ( talk) 06:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey,

I noticed we have Category:Male singers and Category:Women singers. Shouldn't it either be "male" and "female" or "men" and "women"? VR _talk 21:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ Vice regent: considering the distinction between gender and sex, it should be men and women. However men singers may sound a bit unusual. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marcocapelle,

I saw that you closed this CFD discussion and tagged the categories for deletion. In the interests of completion, you should probably drop a note on the talk page of AnomieBot or Anomie, the bot operator, letting them know that this category shouldn't be recreated every month. Without changing the bot's actions, it will just keep reappearing at the beginning of every month.

If you've already done this, well, thank you for taking care of this. There are several other maintenance categories that are created monthly that I just end up deleting on the last day of the month because they are always empty and I never thought of nominating them at CFD. Thanks for your work at CFD! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marcocapelle,

I don't always agree with your decisions regarding categorization (mainly because I look over all of the empty categories) but you could teach a class on how to tag a category for deletion after you have closed the discussion. It's just about perfect. Other non-admins who close CFD discussions should take a lesson from you on how to tag a category for speedy deletion. You link to the discussion so I can easily check and see the discussion and the decision that was made and that, yes, the category is ready for deletion. Although at this point, when I see that you are the editor who tagged the category, I don't even have to check any more because you are so consistently correct. There are so many pages that are mistagged for speedy deletion that we have to carefully examine that well-done taggings make our job much easier. Thank you for getting the system down right! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I started adding to Category:Impulse-control disorders and found this - Category:Habit and impulse disorders. I'm going to hold off for now because I don't want to just make a duplicate category. I truly wish that they hadn't decided in the past to make separate DSM and ICD categories (or to do most of what was done with the psych categories). -- Xurizuri ( talk) 13:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• @ Xurizuri: nice catch! I guess they should be merged one way or the other, with leaving a redirect. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)