User talk:Marcocapelle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Late Ancient Saints categories

Hi, I noticed that here you only nominated Category:Saints of Late Roman Thessalonica‎ for upmerging to one parent, Category:Saints of Roman Thessalonica‎, and not to the other valid parents Category:Christianity in Late Roman Thessalonica, Category:Late Roman-era Thessalonians and Category:Christian saints of Late Antiquity. Don't worry, I spotted what I thought was an oversight and added the former contents there also. But please do look out for multiple parents more often. Hope this helps!

I also came across Category:Late Ancient Christian female saints, which seems to need a cleanup if you have finished what you started there. – Fayenatic London 23:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks (again)! Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Marcocapelle. You have new messages at Vin09's talk page.
Message added 14:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vin09 (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Early Modern Belgium

@Fayenatic london: @Ricky81682: In this very old CfD discussion I've added a summary of the discussion thus hoping that an administrator will find it easier to close the discussion. Would one of you be willing to do this? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for the summary. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Aden Site

I reverted your category removals at Aden Site. The topic there is both the archaeological remains (and search) and the initial settlement there. It's similar to me how the Stonehenge article is both about the original structure there and uses categories for that and about how it is today as an archaeological site and is in categories for that. Do you agree? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's pretty questionable at least, because the category is not a characteristic of the topic of the article but instead it is a characteristic of a topic (village) that is mentioned within the article while the article contains virtually no further information about the villages. But I'll leave it for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the article could be split into two stubs then, one about the settlement and another about the archaeological findings but I doubt anyone would support that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree, there's simply too little info about the villages to merit a separate article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Medieval syria

I've moved the deletion discussion of Medieval syria from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval syria to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 20#Medieval syria because WP:RFD is the proper venue for discussing the deletion of redirects. 18:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Foreign involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been nominated for discussion

Category:Foreign involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

These all seem to quote the wrong category - [1] for example. Do you know why this is? It is very time-consuming for those with the articles on their watchjlists, as they look wrong, even when right. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not a wrong category, but a longer string than just a grandparent-grandchild relationship, because the string is Mesopotamia - History of Mesopotamia - History of Iraq - Archaeology of Iraq - Archaeological sites of Iraq. I'm assuming this whole explanation is not really necessary to write in a summary. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not put what you actually did - which is easier to type anyway? These are just confusing and misleading. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a summary so I assume it's not necessary to be overly precise. I could write something like "removed grandgrandgrandgrandparent category of ..." but so far, while I was just writing "removed grandparent category of ...", other people seemed to understand the concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Celtic art

What the hell are you doing? All these changes are wrong. Please leave these poor categories alone. You obviously have no idea about the subject, as you've been told before. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Marcopelle should stop editing anything related to categories. Hawaan12 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

For reference, Johnbod has added the categories back. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your question at the Help desk

	Hello Marcocapelle. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Múscraige

I don't understand the removal of the Gaelic dynasties category. Can you explain please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I see I made a mistake in the summary, that's confusing, the summary should have been "removed parent category of Category:Érainn". Múscraige is in Category:Érainn which is a child category of Category:Gaelic-Irish nations and dynasties. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Good move

Thank you for intervening as you did here, I think someone needed to. What you did was nicer than, say, WILL YOU TWO PLEASE SHUT UP!!, something that I've almost written in other discussions a few times in the past ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagged categories

Hey, Marcocapelle,
Could you look at the documentations for Template:Db-xfd? Because the links you are posting to discussions aren't working. An editor ends up with a url like "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/log/October 24". You just need to include the page name for whatever area (Articles, Templates, Categories) for the page where there is a deletion discussion. The template provides examples that explain this better than I. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip! Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Kurdish secession CFD

Hi, I'm just having a look at this CFD and considering closing it, but I'm a little unsure of the final result. Briefly, I was considering closing it as (1) no consensus to merge everything to a single Category:Kurdish separatism, but (2) there does seem to be consensus to change "secession" to "separatism" somewhere. So what I am confused about is this: would we rename both the Category:Kurdish secession in Iran and Category:Kurdish secession in Turkey to use "separatism", or does this just apply to one of those two nominated categories? My sense is both, but I just wanted to check to be sure. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Good Olfactory: Both would definitely make more sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As you no doubt have seen, this is going to create a naming consistency issue in Category:Kurdish secession by country. If these are issues of separatism and not secession in all of the relevant countries, you might want to pursue a rename of the others to match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Colonial Brazil categories

Hi, following the close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_4#Colonial_Brazil, there are lots of subcats to be renamed. I won't mind if they are done without discussion; IMHO it's allowable under WP:G6 as housekeeping after the CFD.

As well as moving, category pages will need editing to remove "Colonial " from templates and sort keys.

Would you be willing? – Fayenatic London 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london: I'll have a look tomorrow. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london: I think I've done it all, anyway I'll check again after deletion of empty categories has been executed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • So far so good, I think... Tipping open the sub-cats of Category:16th century in Brazil, I see that the "15XX in Colonial Brazil" categories are empty and need to be moved to "in Brazil". – Fayenatic London 20:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

db-self

You know that if you create a category by mistake as you did with Category:Books about Islam en society then the quickest and cleanest way of deleting it is to tag it with {{db-self}} (or {{Db-g7}} to its friends)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Deluge (talk • contribs) 03:31, 10 April 2016

• I didn't. Thanks for the tip. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • {{db-author}} is the name that sticks in my mind. There are yet more alternatives; {{db-oops}} is rather nice. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Amnesia

I see to remember promising you that i would nominate a page or a category for deletion but the name escapes me. Can you help? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Laurel Lodged: It was page Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire to be nominated for a move. Fortunately I remembered where to find the discussion, it's here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Holidays

From 14 to 24 April, it's uncertain to what extent I'll have internet access. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

When you're back, you might want to reply again at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_9#Category:Muslim_philosophers. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A new section in CFD

I started a proposal at village pump here for a new section in CFD called CFRc (Categories for recategorization) where users who like to change sub- or parent-categories, can ask the experienced community. I believe you will like to join the discussion and poll. CN1 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Christian monks from Palwstine

Given the successful renaming of the above category, what now to do with its parent, Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule? I think we're agreed that the term "Holy Land" is not appropriate for the region at that time. Nor is "Land of Israel". But is "Palestine" broad enough? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Laurel Lodged: I suppose Palestine would be appropriate. What's your concern exactly? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Notifications with wrong section link

Hi Marcocapelle, I have a repeated problem of notifications linking to the wrong section on CfD pages. I wonder if it is something specific to the formatting of (some?) CfD log pages.

E.g. see Special:Notifications. Today I had a notification

"‪Place Clichy‬ mentioned you on ‪Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 Febru...‬ in "‪Category:Wiki Loves Women Writing Contest‬".

The of state part is redundant with of sub-national entities in the pro..."

The mention (of both of us) is actually in the section after that, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 17#Category:Provincial and state governors by country.

Do you get the same error in your notifications? – Fayenatic London 21:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london: That's right, I have the same problem for quite some time. Luckily it refers at least to the right page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:History of the Roman Empire

What's your feeling on this? Isn't everything about the Roman Empire history? Would you agree that the contents should be upmerged to Category:Roman Empire ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Laurel Lodged: Agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please notify category creators of your nominations.

This is quite a basic courtesy; as you make a large number of nominations, actually quite essential. Tim! (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC) I reiterate this demand. Tim! (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Tim!: Meanwhile I've started to use Twinkle, this tool should notify category creators automatically, isn't that right? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Tim! (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy of Economics

Hello, Marcocapelle - In reply to your note on my talkpage, User:Stefanomione created the Category:Philosophy of disciplines and has placed all the "Philosophy of" subcategories in that category, which makes very good sense. Philosophies are "meta" to the disciplines that utilize them, rather than the other way around. I think the cat is now fine as it is. Regards, Meclee (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Meclee: But Philosophy of Economics should be reachable through the Economics tree as well, don't you think? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If that is your major concern, add a <See also|Philosophy of economics> to the Category:Economics page or place a link to it in the already existing <hatnote>. The category structure is supposed to be primarily hierarchical and not tautological. That's why we have specific policies about this related to (WP:OVERCAT). To eliminate catalog clutter, start by deleting parent categories when subcategories are already listed. One can follow a subcategory back to the top parent category if that info is needed. Circular reference defeats the purpose of cataloging articles. Regards, Meclee (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.: Another option would be to add Category:Philosophy of economics as a parent to Category:Economics. Meclee (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Meclee: Given the hierarchical category structure, it would make more sense to have Category:Philosophy of economics as a child category, rather than as a parent, don't you think? After all, from the perspective of economics, philosophy of economics is a subdiscipline of economics, not the other way around. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I definitely disagree, as already stated. Most economists would disagree, if they ever thought about it. Philosophers would certainly disagree. Philosophy is the underpinning of all disciplines. That's why the most advanced degrees are called "Doctor of Philosophy in x", not "Doctor of x." It's called a discipline because it is discipline of our thoughts. What guiding principles do we use to discipline our thoughts? Philosophical principles regarding ontology, epistemology, soteriology or science, pathos, logic, ethics, etc. If you are convinced I am wrong, repeat what you've written above on the category talk page and put out a RfC and we'll look at the results. Regards, Meclee (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

My two cents as someone in the field; philosophy of economics is not a particularly noteworthy sub-discipline of economics in the modern day. I would throw it under the category Category:History of economic thought. Economic thought certainly had its origins as philosophy, so this would make the most sense. Modern scholars who occasionally write about the philosophy of economics are economic historians, as far as I've encountered them. Category:Economics as a sub-category of Category:Philosophy of economics is obviously incorrect and I oppose that in the strongest possible terms. Semantically, every scientific discipline (broadly construed to include the social sciences) must originate in philosophy because we must confront the issue of whether our own observations can be assumed to be accurate. That doesn't mean that Category:Philosophy should be a parent for all of academia; that's not useful categorization. ~ Rob^Talk 19:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Religious studies vs. Category:Study of religion

Do you envision this category as being for the academic study of religion? Many categories of that (Jewish studies, Buddhist studies, etc.) are currently categorized under Category:Theology studies. Editor2020 (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Editor2020: The academic study of religion is what the category is currently used for, and this is in accordance with the category's main article. It's quite questionable whether Jewish studies and Buddhist studies should be under theology. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Editor2020: Speaking of theology, you may be interested to join these two discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

CFDs

Stop closing my mergers as keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• For reference, see e.g. this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Talking of CFD, I keep noticing your good work there, with much appreciation. Are you still content to go without the mop and bucket? It's been several months since you declined, and you look more than ready to use the toolbox. I'd certainly be willing to nominate you. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm perfectly fine, if only because with more tools available I may be tempted to spend even more time on Wikipedia than I currently do. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Stefanomione_revisited

Hi. You've been doing yeoman's work at Cfd. (And I too think you would make a great admin, based on the patience you've shown). If you have anything to add at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stefanomione_revisited, please do. (My first was more a sort of howl of agony.) thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes to globalization categories

Hello. You've been making some wide ranging changes to the Category:Globalization catalog including proposing renames as well as rearranging the catalog structure. The Globalization article, navigation Template:Globalization, and the structure of the category have been designed to be compatible to make it easier for users to find information. I think that we have sometimes been working at cross purposes and I would ask you to please discuss your thoughts about changes to the organization of the catalog on the current talk page Category_talk:Globalization to save both of us some time and try to coordinate efforts. Regards, Meclee (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Meclee: So far I have the experience that category talk isn't really used by anyone. I'm happy to align with you but it'll work just as easy through our mutual personal talk pages. There's only one last thing I had in mind for this category, which is to nominate the following in CfD:

Category:Globalization issues to Category:Global environmental issues and Category:Global demographic issues: split to make the category names less ambiguous. If anything in the current category does not fit in the new categories it may be upmoved to Category:Globalization.

In the end, globalization will be conveniently split up by four aspects: economic, (socio)cultural, environmental and demographic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Category talk pages are there for the same purpose as article talk pages and, in my experience, are used when needed to propose major changes. As now listed on the Category_talk:Globalization page, there are five major aspects that are direct sub-categories of Category:Globalization:

• Category:Economic globalization‎
• Category:Global business organization‎
• Category:Global natural environment‎
• Category:Sociocultural globalization‎
• Category:Workforce globalization

Many of these intersect with other parent categories created by related WP:WikiProjects. In general, those intersections should be allowed to remain as created by these related projects.

I have no specific interest in the Category:Globalization issue but it was created by @User:DASonnenfeld for purposes he envisioned. I would suggest notifying and discussing with him. Regards, Meclee (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• So, to summarize, in this list of five, I'm missing the demographic aspect, while I think Business and Workforce should be part of Economic, just like Category:Business economics and Category:Labor economics are part of Category:Economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have replied to this question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Globalization#Changes_to_Globalization_categories. Regards, Meclee (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Alans

Hello, Marcocapelle -- I see you have edited the article on the Alans. I wanted to discuss a recent edit to the article with you. It is this edit.

1. I am guessing from the editor's edit summary that he saw "barbarians" as racist, so he changed it to "newcomers". I know that word has the potential to be interpreted as racist, but I believe it is used by historians in the right context. I don't know if historians are no longer using that word. There is an entire article on Barbarian, and the singular and plural form of the word appears several times in Vandals. However, the word appears nowhere else in the article except in the title of a work in the footnotes. So, I don't know whether that change was an improvement or not.

2. The editor may also have objected to "tiny", in "tiny minority". 200,000 out of 6,000,000 is small, but I'm not sure I would call it tiny. Also, I think "tiny" is not a very encyclopedic word. I have no problem with the removal of "tiny", but I think "a small group" would read better than "a minority".

3. In the original sentence, I believe "compromised" is the wrong verb. I believe it should be "comprised". In the process of making his changes, the editor removed "compromised" but did not add another verb, so now the new version is missing a verb.

4. The original sentence had "within a much larger Hispano-Roman population". The editor removed "much" and changed the linked phrase to "existing". I think "much larger" is accurate and "much" should be put back in. I also think the linked phrase adds some needed clarity, so this should be put back the way it was.

I wanted to know what you thought about these various changes.  – Corinne (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I just skimmed the article and made a few minor copy-edits, mostly to punctuation. I noticed a long passage in the section Alans#Medieval Alani that is in italics. If it is a real quote, I think it should be in block quote format, don't you? Also, there is no introduction to the quote, nothing to indicate who said it or where it is from. If the article were not as developed as it is, I would nominate it for TAFI.  – Corinne (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Corinne, thanks for sharing. Personally I think these are modest edits, not controversial in any way. Let's see how other people react. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about CFD

Hi! Quick question about the comment you made when you closed this CFD. When you said, "This closure is without prejudice against a follow-up nomination of [Category:Retrospective diagnosis] as possibly being too subjective", did you mean that your reasoning for deleting the "lists of people by proposed medical condition" category shouldn't be interpreted as tacit approval of Category:Retrospective diagnosis or were you saying that you think the retrospective diagnosis one is too subjective and potentially should be nominated? Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 00:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Permstrump: I meant it shouldn't be interpreted as tacit approval or as tacit disapproval of Category:Retrospective diagnosis. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

French sol

Hi Marcocapelle, you have intervened on this article and have a trackrecord of fiddling with categs and such. This is why I'm coming here to ask you if you know anything about how to establish a link between the French article and the English one (and with all the other languages, while at it). It's about getting the link to appear on the left handside of the page. I tried but my edit here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1003363#sitelinks-wikipedia doesn't go through for some reason. The title in French is "Sou" (but that shows in the page linked - it's just the En. article missing there). Can you do something about this please? Thanks very much. 88.219.191.85 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I don't know how to help you with this. You'd better inquire at Wikipedia:Help_desk. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Anyway, just now I found the Sou (coin) = Solidus (coin) page, which corresponds better. So, just as well you didn't do anything :) Have a good day.Basicdesign (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Poverty-related probems has been nominated for discussion

Category:Poverty-related probems, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. McGeddon (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Disciplines vs Sciences

I recently came across some changed categories in some history of science articles I follow. The change seems an appropriate response to moving those articles to the category History of disciplines. I fear, however, that the recategorization may have gone too far; in English not all learned disciplines are sciences. To quote the Oxford Dictionaries OnLine, science is:

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: 'the world of science and technology'.

To this native English speaking historian of science, other systematic studies such as the study of law, history, literature, philosophy, and for some experts, mathematics are not considered sciences. There should be a category for the histories of such non-scientific disciplines. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• @SteveMcCluskey: Could you indicate more precisely where in the category tree you'd like things to change (back)? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. My first guess was a category under the category:History of ideas, in parallel to the category:History of science which is already there. Browsing around that category I found that there is already an article on History of scholarship which is defined as "the historical study of fields of study which are not covered by the English term 'science'". Since that topic pretty well matches what I had in mind here, creating a matching category:History of scholarship would resolve the issue I raised. I'll leave the further problem of restoring any former history of disciplines articles that may have been improperly recategorized to History of science to those of you who know their way around the categorizing routines. Best wishes SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Political economy

Hey. I closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_4#Category:Political_economy as no consensus, but I also wanted to respond here to your comment regarding inclusion criteria. Political economy is a very well-defined field in economics (well, as well-defined as any other field). Its scope is anything that involves how laws and government facilitate (or don't!) economic activity. Its an interdisciplinary field that is more-or-less the intersection of economics and political science, with some vague hints of sociology thrown in. ~ Rob^Talk 13:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: Thanks for your note, but I'm not convinced yet. Even if there would be consensus about such a clear-cut definition (while I haven't seen that in Political economy) then I still wonder how the inclusion criteria of Category:Political economy would differ from Category:Economic policy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Economic policy is specific actions (recommended or actual) that the government takes to intervene in the economy. It's not a field of economics in the sense that every single field propose policy solutions. For instance, in a recent paper I wrote, I suggested that future research should seek to determine which standardized test to give to high school students by finding which standardized test best predicts lifetime income. That's an economic policy suggestion, but it's clearly not part of the political economy field.

On the other hand, the European Journal of Political Economy recently published papers on the effects of organized crime on electoral outcomes, the role of partisanship in medical malpractice tort reforms, and how the risk of civil conflict informs how we set up our political institutions. These are all related to the political economy field, but none of them carry with them policy suggestions. (I should have noted before that political economy can also be about applying economic methodologies and thinking to political problems, which is common to most applied fields of economics. I would say the organized crime and civil conflict papers fit that bill.) These aren't two categories that firmly overlap.

It's very difficult to rigorously define fields in economics because they all overlap. My research could be characterized as labor economics, public economics, the economics of education, or just straight up education. In some sense, the field is defined by (a) where the researcher publishes it; (b) what methodology is used, as each field tends to use slightly different methodologies; (c) what the researcher's CV says in addition to the subject matter. Even though the lines blur, it's not true that these fields overlap. It's more like a complicated Venn diagram. But you need all the circles for anyone familiar with the field to find what they're looking for. ~ Rob^Talk 23:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Award for 100,000 edits

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

Awesome accomplishment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.

Congratulations!  – Corinne (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not …

Hi Marcocapelle ! Why not nominate simultaneously … • Category:Works in the philosophy of economics • Category:Works in the philosophy of mathematics • Category:Works in the philosophy of physics • Category:Works in the philosophy of psychology • Category:Works in the philosophy of social science ? Renaming them all, I fully agree. And then again : not all were created by me. Stefanomione (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Good point, thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Music Licensing is a controversial subject

Not happy that you removed a category called Controversies in the Music Licensing Wikipedia Article...SMH!

Music Licensing is a controversial subject because some TV shows aren't out on DVD because of rights issues and some songs removed. For example they removed one song from The Facts Of Life complete series on DVD because of this nonsense. It's like censorship, and I say to feel the pain "Can't we watch TV shows on DVD in it's entirety?" instead of edited because of broken flawed copyright system.

I had to re-add that category to that Wikipedia article. Sorry Marcocapelle! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, this is about Music licensing and another editor has reverted Shkarter's re-adding. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

SMH! Spencer H. Karter (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollbacks

Hi, please excuse the rollbacks on Deaths BC categories. I thought I had reverted everything from Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme but I've just discovered that I missed a batch. I was trying to avoid rollbacks until now, but they do save me time. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing clinical psychology tests as a category

Hi, I would like to inquire about your removal of Clinical Psychology tests as a category. You stated that it was "grandfathered". Can you explain why you made those changes, and suggest an alternate category for these tests?

Thanks for taking time to edit Wikipedia! Ongmianli (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Ongmianli: Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. So if an article is already in Category:Clinical psychology, it shouldn't also be in one of its parent categories like Category:Behavioural sciences because that is less specific than Category:Clinical psychology. Nor should be in the parent of a parent (a "grandparent" of the original category), e.g. Category:Social sciences because that is even less specific.

I'm not sure which article you have in mind exactly, so I can't give you a detailed answer about an alternative right now, but just in general it is not at all necessary to have an article in multiple categories. That's only needed when an article belongs to clearly different topics that haven't been intersected. For example, article DSM 5 is in Category:Clinical psychology (a psychology category) but also in Category:Medical manuals (a manuals category) and that's perfectly alright in the current situation. However, if there would have been an intersection Category:Clinical psychology manuals, just hypothetically speaking, the article should have been categorized only there, not in Category:Clinical psychology and Category:Medical manuals because these would both be less specific than Category:Clinical psychology manuals. - Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle:: This is really helpful. Thanks for providing the example! I have other pages that I have done *exactly* what you said *not* to do... and will work to change those categories. I appreciate it! Ongmianli (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

NAC

Hi

When you close XFD discussions, please can you ensure that you use {{subst:nac}} per WP:NACD?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, User:BrownHairedGirl, some background info about this: when doing my first closures long time ago, I just followed WP:CFDAI that didn't mention the NAC code. Much later I saw another non-admin closure using the NAC code but since neither User:Good Olfactory nor User:Fayenatic london (who together did most of the closures at the time and guided me in doing this task properly) ever mentioned to me that I should use NAC code I figured it wasn't that important. Just out of curiosity: why is it important after all?

By the way, would you be willing to close a few dozens of (old) discussions? - there is a substantial backlog again. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• The answer to be found in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Peaks: economic theory or not?

Hi: Please see comment on Talk:Peak coal which also applies to your recent edits on other 'Peak....' Articles Gravuritas (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Gravuritas (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

?

Why are you removing Category:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles from so many articles? Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, because of this. Sorry Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Blame. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Bombpackage2 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Indian companies by year of establishment to Category:Companies of India by year of establishment per C2C (see Category:Companies by year by country) Hugo999 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I just (too little and too late)

discovered the discussion for deleting the category Category:Artworks surveyed by Save Outdoor Sculpture!, which was done mostly, as far as I could tell, because it was not verifiable. Actually (a word the means in my opinion) this is not true. Most, or all of the Save Outdoor Sculpture! material was, and is, collected by the Smithsonian Institute and shows upon their SIRIS website. So if you look at this somewhat randomly selected entry there [[2]] you will find in the "References" section, just like wikipedia, "Save Outdoor Sculpture, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia survey, 1993." Since the main reason for discontinuing the category proves to be false, whats next? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• * @Carptrash: First of all, please note that I did not close the discussion, I was 'just' a participant in the discussion. You should rather contact the closer User:SSTflyer about this. Second, the closer will probably recommend you to take this to WP:DRV. For reference, it's about this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see where this leads me. I am also getting into, well, starting, this discussion Category:Sculptures by artist -well, on the talk page - and would welcome your insights. Carptrash (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Natural experiment

I rewrote a section of the natural experiment entry to connect it better with econometrics. Iss246 (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Arrowverse

Hi, if you want to make a related nomination of Category:Arrowverse as stated in the CFD now relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 1, now would be a good time. Do insert it adjacent to the related discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Unclean vocalists

Hi there. I noticed you do a lot of work with categories. I'm fairly unfamiliar with categories so I'm hoping you may help me. Would you have a moment to look at a comment I left here regarding the category Category:Unclean vocalists? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Magnolia677: Good questions you're raising here. If no satisfactory answer follows, you may well nominate the category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Updating Wikidata

Hi Marcocapelle, thanks for your ongoing help at CFD!

I noticed that you closed the CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_7#Category:Uncracked_codes_and_ciphers. You noted that the user had already implemented the rename. As it happened, the user had only done the en-wiki side of the work, overlooking Wikidata. If you look at the old category Category:Uncracked codes and ciphers, you will see that it still has interwiki links. Would you like to edit the wikidata entry which currently links to that page, and (i) re-link it to the new name on en-wiki, (ii) rename the Wikidata page too?

When we move a category or other page (manually or by bot), Wikidata gets updated automatically. However, copy-paste moves leave the links at the old name.

This is a detail that goes above and beyond the call of duty at CFD, and might be picked up by a bot and changed eventually, but I find it satisfying to spot and fix such things – hope you do too. However, if you don't have the time or inclination, that would also be fair enough. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 14:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london: I've made the changes that I think were needed, please check if what I did is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, you've got it! Like Wikipedia, Wikidata tracks your contributions: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marcocapelle . There are more than you might expect, because (as I mentioned) Wikidata is automatically updated when you move a page which has existing links there. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia usage conventions

Please look at my recent edits to First differencing approach to instrumental variables. Note that:

• One should not indiscriminately italicize everything in non-TeX mathematical notation. Variables are italicized; digits and punctuation are not, and capital Greek letters are not (since TeX and LaTeX don't capitalize them.
• Generally one should link to singular noun phrases such as instrumental variable rather than to plurals. You can write [[instrumental variable]]s and the reader will see "instrumental variables" as a clickable link and clicking on it leads to the singular title instrumental variable.
• Ranges of pages should have an en-dash, not a hyphen, thus pp. 277–298 is correct and pp. 277-298 is not.
• It should be made clear to the lay reader at the outset when general subject area the article is about. This opening sentence does not do that: "When endogeneity is a concern in a dynamic panel data framework, it is possible to exploit the panel data structure of the data to deal with this issue." In prepended the words "In econometrics, . . . .
• The title phrase should be set in bold at its first appearance in the article, usually in the first sentence (but this need not always be verbatim identical to the article's title).

Michael Hardy (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making these improvements and for your elaborate explanation. Please note - in case you might have thought so - that I haven't written this article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marcocapelle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A CFD you closed

There is actually a consensus to upmerge this[3] to People from Powell County, Montana. Just merging it to the town article is going to cause another AFD because Helmsville, population 26, only has those two entries....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @WilliamJE: Thanks for checking, you are completely right. I'll correct it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It was an odd CFD so an error was easy to make. When a occupation category is merged, it normally goes into the town. When nominating the category for merging, I noted that Helmville was a small community and that Powell County would be more appropriate. Now I am to nominate the category Helmville for deletion since the category's only content is the town. I didn't know about the town category till today....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

CFD key word missing

Hi, did you omit to state an opinion about your desired outcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 24#Category:Devourment compilation albums? – Fayenatic London 08:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Recategorization of statistical data

I think you are going a bit overboard with moving everything from Category:Statistical data to Category:Statistical data types.

The latter category is a reasonable fit for e.g. categorical vs. continuous vs. discrete. But an outlier is not a data type; and e.g. Category:Statistical outliers‎ most lists methods, not data types. Chire (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

JMP categories

I noticed you removed a couple parent categories. I reviewed the guidelines on categories and understand why.

For reference, the categories in question are as follows:

Statistical Software (parent category)

Data analysis software (child category)

Data mining and machine learning software (sub-sub category)

In this particular case, I think the parent category Data Analysis Software is more on-target than the child category Data Mining and Machine Learning. Is it ok for me to swap them out? There would still only be one category from this hierarchy. CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• @CorporateM: Fair enough! Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Why math: moments for kurtosis?

The change of the category from the Theory of probability distributions to Moment (mathematics) seemed officious and inappropriate. Kurtosis certainly is more statistical than mathematical. Changing it to a math category makes it seem like it is not as applicable as otherwise. Why did you do this? What is your logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.192.47 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you want to propose renaming Moment (mathematics) to Moment (statistics), please go ahead, and the category name can follow speedily. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, I thought the original "Theory of probability distributions" was a better summary of the content of the page than either. "Moment" is very limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.192.47 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Theory of probability distributions is still the parent category. And moment as a category is not very limited, as there are over 20 articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, cool. Thanks for your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.195.172 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Accounting/taxation categories

Hi there, I saw a note on my watchlist that you had removed articles like fiscal year from Category:Financial accounting, so I've been investigating. It seems like you added Category:Corporate taxation to the financial accounting category, and then removed financial accounting from many articles, apparently using automated tools. I don't think you should have done this, or maybe you meant to do something different. As my example, fiscal year has much broader accounting implications than just on corporate taxation: it really should appear on the top level of the financial accounting category page, and probably not in any subcategory. I'm going to be out for a bit but if you need help working through a categorization scheme for the corporate taxation subtopic I'd be happy to help, or you might be interested in asking at the Accounting task force. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• You're right that Fiscal year is broader than just about taxation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Dimadick (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, have a merry Christmas too! Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello Marcocapelle: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 14:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

User Intent AfD

Hi, need your help explaining that "User Intent" or "Query Intent" is a real SEO term / CRO term

Article for Deletion Discussion Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/User_Intent#User_Intent

Thanks! JoseRolles (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Natural experiment

Truth in advertising. I had placed the category econometrics at the bottom of the natural experiment page. Some econometrics research involves natural experiments. I wondered why you deleted the econometrics category from that WP entry. You may very well be justified. I would like to know why you think the category should be deleted. Thanks very much. Iss246 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Natural experiments may be conducted in any academic study, not specifically in econometrics. It might have been a different issue if the article would have had a special section about natural experiments in econometrics, but that's not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A feature article or category for Van Leeuwenhoek's revolutionary discoveries

Hi, I created Category:Microscopic organisms described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek page, do you think it useful? Compare with Category:Constellations listed by Ptolemy. I know that you created Category:Constellations of Petrus Plancius page. Thanks. zingvin (talk) 15:01, 3 Jan 2017 (UTC)

• @Zingvin: I notice that Category:Constellations of Petrus Plancius has meanwhile been deleted. That's not entirely unsurprising because it's questionable whether the person describing it first is a defining characteristic of these constellations/organisms. A list may be better than a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Exactly, Category:Constellations of Petrus Plancius was recently replaced by Category:Constellations listed by Petrus Plancius. Mean that it not been deleted. We have Category:Discoveries by Galileo Galilei page, why not have a similar (category) page for Van Leeuwenhoek. Leeuwenhoek's importance to modern biology (microbiology in particular) no less greater than Galilei's importance to modern astronomy. We need remember that the Dutch invent both telescope and microscope. After all his great contributions to science in general, Galileo didn't invented the telescope but improved it! zingvin (talk) 20:02, 3 Jan 2017 (UTC)

• This is weird, although I agree that the new category name is better, why hasn't it been renamed through a WP:CFD process? That would have saved a lot of manual work and would have been more transparant. Probably you don't know the answer either. Anyway, back to your question, as said previously this looks like a borderline zone for categories and you should be prepared that someone nominates the new category for deletion; a list would definitely work better. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

As a participant in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 22#Category:People paid by Big Pharma to schill and related discussions, you may be interested in participating in the RfC that addresses one of the main issues brought up in that discussion. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

fully understand

where you are coming from - and it will probably surface at some point, the issue at this stage is how to work through some draft ideas, no big deal. It might not happen for a while. If and when, I will let you know JarrahTree 08:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepperbeast (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion declined. BethNaught (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jobas

I'm very concerned by the edits of this editor on 16-18 January, & may take the matter to ANI. He has done large numbers of edits removing "bad behaviour" cats (persecution, massacres, violence etc.) when done by Christians and/or to Muslims, and added similar numbers of stuff done to Christians and/or by Muslims. Some are no doubt justified under OCAT duplications but many seem not to be, and the sectarian trend seems clear from looking at them en masse. From his user page he says he is an Arabic-speaking Christian. What do you think? Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Johnbod: Did you discuss with him directly? That should be done before taking anything to ANI. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well he did not discuss with me anything, and assuming my edit's to be sectarian trend because of my background or for being "Arabic-speaking Christian" is wrong, i have nothing against Muslims. I completed the User:Marcocapelle edit's the redundant category. for example many articles had two Categories of both :Persecution of Muslims and Violence against Muslims or category:Persecution of Muslims and category:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, so what i did was removed parent category or change it to more specific one, the same edit that user Marcocapelle have done, or replacing the category in articles about acts that done to Christians and/or by Muslims to Category:Persecution by Christians by Muslims, the same edit that user Marcocapelle have done, to redundant category and related to more specific category, or when we have article that have two Categories as :Persecution by Christians and Christianity and violence, so what i did was removed parent category, so maybe in some articles i have removed by mistake or by inattentiveness a category that should stay inside the article, you can revert my edit. meanwhile User Xenophrenic did remove all articles form the Category:Persecution by atheists and leave it empty.--Jobas (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at a number of your edits, and several of them make no sense of that basis. The overall trend seems clear. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is some examples of my edit: removed already has the sub-cat category persecution of Ottoman Muslims, here anther example redundant cat; already has the sub-cat Crypto-Islam, or here redundant cat; already has the sub-cat Anti-Muslim violence in India or redundant cat; already has the sub-cat persecution of Ahmadis or redundant cat; already has the sub-cat Violence against Muslims, while here I removed [Category:Persecution of Muslims since the article is about a comedy-drama action film, that discuses the Islamophobia. I don't think this kind of edit's are sectarian edit or anti-Islam, I did not removing "bad behaviour" cats (persecution, massacres, violence etc.) I redundant category; that already has sub-category that fit in the same subject. again if in some articles i have removed by mistake or by inattentiveness a category that should stay inside the article, you can revert my edit or you can corrective me in the wrong edit that I have done so I can revert it.--Jobas (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Johnbod and Jobas: I'm happily sharing my talk page to facilitate the discussion. Johnbod, can you give some examples of edits that you think were really wrong, and/or could you react on Jobas' comment above? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously it's fiddly. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Marcocapelle. User:Jobas left the following note for you at the CfD page. I'm not sure why he/she thinks they need a messenger. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:Marcocapelle, please kindly inform User:Xenophrenic that it is inappropriate to refactor my comments and omit important information from them. This censors my perspective and does not give me opportunity to voice my concerns. I would be grateful for this gesture. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Civil awards and decorations of Indonesia

Hello, Thanks for all your help closing out Categories for Discussion. I think this category might have been missed after closure though. (If you're still in the middle of this, I'm not trying to rush you!) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Problematic churches categories

As initiated here, there are plenty to go through. The user has created countless categories for villages (!) and listed them at Category:Churches by city.--Zoupan 09:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to upmerge Category:20th-century reformed church buildings

I have moved this proposal from Speedy to Full Discussion ; seeWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_31#20th-century reformed church buildings Hugo999 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment misplaced?

I think that the comment you added, you accidentally added in the wrong place. -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman history cat etc

Hello Marco, would you mind leaving a comment here? Thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

"No consensus"? How diplomatic of you. Nevertheless, the closure of the Constitution CFD was the right thing to do. Took some courage to stand up to unsubtle bullying. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Very diplomatic indeed given the 75% result against renaming. Let's just hope the nom doesn't get any ideas about trying again in future. AusLondonder (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Marcocapelle. You have new messages at John Cline's talk page.
Message added 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--John Cline (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

History vs year categories

Hi, I see you have been busy categorizing history articles for Lithuania, Poland, etc... I disagree with an edit like this. I understand there is a policy on (grand)parent categories, but such edits really hurt navigation of history categories. The Category:History of Lithuania (1918–40) category was a holding place for historically significant events of that period. I have used it to get an idea of significant stuff happening in a particular country in a given period. Now, the significant historical event is buried down somewhere in year categories that contain a lot of random stuff with much less historical significance (e.g. football matches). If you don't know exactly which year the event occurred, you will have issues finding it. I really don't think that's right. Renata (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Renata3: By the same reasoning someone else would put football matches in the higher category, dependent on personal preferences about what's important in life. The higher categories are really meant to find overview articles that cover most or the entire period of that category. If everyone would put single events there, the overview articles would become impossible to find. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Persecution

@Xenophrenic and Jobas: After this discussion has been closed it would make sense if I would renominate the category at some point in time for rename and purge as suggested by the closer of the discussion. Do you have any tips for me how to handle this successfully? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a current discussion initiated by User:John Carter that covers the renominate all categories relevant to religious/atheistic persecution. it would be prudent if Xenophrenic participated in the discussion created by User:John Carter instead of keeping edit warning. Thank you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:3rd century in Great Britain

What do you think about this series of categories? GB didn't exist of course as a state. So strictly speaking it ought to be "Category:3rd century in Britannia". Or, at a stretch, it could be made to fit the island, though I'm not entirely comfortable with that solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Laurel Lodged: Probably the creator of the category had the whole island in mind (as the header indicates) which is fair enough. Since Brittannia is an exonym, it wouldn't make too much sense to use this term in a category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the island scope Marco. By the time you get to Category:18th century in Great Britain, there is definite blurring going on. The state is the majority of the articles (i.e. they include the island of Ireland). And isn't it suspicious that the structure ends in the 18th century, precisely at the time of the creation of the successor state, the UK? Secondly, is Brittannia any more of an exonym than the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for the conquered peoples of modern Ukraine? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: You're right there is a problem in relation to the 18th century. In the ancient centuries, must we have an umbrella category on top of England, Wales and Scotland, or can we perhaps live without that layer? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the best thing to do is to rename Great Britain to Category:Great Britain (island) and all of it's children accordingly. They should mainly contain geography articles I imagine down to the 21st century. We should also create Category:Great Britain (state) with children starting Category:18th century in Great Britain (state) and ending Category:19th century in Great Britain (state) even though it only existed for a single year in the 19th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Sounds good to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please

What is the same of Category:Perth City Link precinct and Category:Perth Link precinct? - (there is a word missing between the two) - and the csd for Perth Link precinct was valid as far as I can tell - I fail to see how the cfd is for both... JarrahTree 08:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

viz (diff | hist) . . Category:Perth Link precinct‎; 15:15 . . (-16)‎ . . ‎Marcocapelle (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 769084327 by JarrahTree (talk) too late for speedy as it's already on CfD) [rollback]

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Perth_City_Link_precinct

explanation of sorts - the tag at the front of 'Perth Link precinct' is a misnomer - the CFD is actually about 'Perth City Link precinct' - the first was created accidentally (which why I had tried to make it CSD), the second was intentional - but in the end, considering the mucking around I couldnt give a damn - the splitting hairs over whether a category means one thing or another is equivalent to wandering through talk pages with endless go around conversations - and some seem to enjoy that, I do not. In the end no big deal either way JarrahTree 12:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Passion of Jesus

In categories, "in art" means in the visual arts exclusively. Please don't add performing arts things to the category here. An "in the arts" container category can be set up if necessary. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Johnbod. I have carried out further changes, in effect un-merging the former contents of Category:Passion (Christianity) and renaming it instead to Category:Cultural depictions of the Passion of Jesus. (This gave a neat outcome in terms of category page history and wikidata links.) I am not wedded to "Cultural depictions" but it seemed a better fit than "Portrayals" or "... in the arts".

Marcocapelle, please excuse me for just doing it without waiting for your views – that was improper of me. At least I have sorted out the error introduced by my nomination. If you can support the current outcome, may I request that you add a note to your close stating that after discussions on talk pages, in which Johnbod made the above argument, the close was revised to rename the parent category instead of merging. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but we need a Category:Passion plays (a distinct and old genre) to complete the tree. I have changed most of the contents of the art category - was mostly plays, and lacking most of the art. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london and Johnbod: Thanks both for improving this further, I'll add a note to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to run at RFA?

I thnik I want to nomiante you at RFA. What do youthink about this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Od Mishehu: Thanks a lot for your confidence - but please don't bother because:

1. Most importantly, the administrative problem at CFD is that there are not enough people (either admins or non-admins) who are closing discussions on a regular basis. If I would become an admin, that situation would not change. Honestly I don't fancy the idea of closing more discussions than I do now, it shouldn't become a one man show.
2. Less importantly, I had checked WP:RFA before and seen that current admins are generally pretty hesitant to accept new admins (for good reasons!) and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't qualify by lack of experience in anything else than categories.

Hope you understand. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• • @Od Mishehu: I notice that you've already started the nomination. Would you be willing to revert it? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I had intentionally created it in my own userspace in case you would say no. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I hadn't noticed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, you have my support regardless of your experience in other areas, should you ultimately decide to run at some point (I'd be happy to co-nom with @Od Mishehu:). Your closures have been invaluable to reducing the backlog at CfD, and I've not yet seen a closure I disagreed with. VegaDark (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Ali-Illahism

An article that you have been involved in editing—Ali-Illahism—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

--MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Improper non-admin closure of CfD

While I can't quibble with your close of the CfD for Category:People from Green Township, New Jersey as a non-admin, your actions at Category:People from Frankford Township, New Jersey are improper. There is no clear consensus for deletion whatsoever, and you have no legitimate role putting your thumb on the scale to push your position, certainly without the authority granted to admins. Your tagging the category for Frankford as meeting the criteria for speedy deletion only compounds the abuse here. If you intend to use your work at XfD as a means towards becoming an admin one day, I would suggest being far more careful to review the actual discussion and to only use your ability to make non-admin closes in those discussions where consensus is unequivocal. Undoing your close of Category:People from Frankford Township, New Jersey would be a good-faith means to acknowledge your error there. Alansohn (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Alansohn: The arguments to delete the category are much stronger than to keep. If you disagree, please turn to WP:DRV. Just for info, I have no aspirations to become an admin, I'm just trying to help out in an area where very few admins are active and I wish we would have more admins here. If you know a couple of admins who would be willing to close category discussions on a pretty permanent basis, I'll be happy to stop closing discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that you lack the authority to make this decision in the first place and have blatantly abused the opportunity to make a Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. WP:BADNAC is rather explicit that in such situations, where strong policy arguments have been made on both sides and there is no clear consensus, that nonadmins should avoid jumping in to situations where "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." Your ex post facto argument for the close would be a rather poorly argued vote, but it wasn't even offered except after the fact; your close as "merge" offers no explanation for why the majority of policy-based votes that address the wording of WP:SMALLCAT should be ignored and votes that misrepresent it should be given greater weight. At worst this was a "no consensus".
    Given your abuse of authority here that you have no right to use, you are best advised to undo this improper action and allow a duly-approved administrator to take appropriate action here. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Alansohn: Your criticism of not having argumented the closure while closing is justified and I'll correct that. However I don't regret the closure as such and therefore DRV is the right next platform to discuss this. Obviously I'll refrain from closing similar New Jersey discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Marcocapelle: AFAICS, your closes were both based on a good reading of the discussion, and I don't think that WP:BADNAC applies. However, if [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn] remains unhappy with your closure, then if you like, feel free to revert your closes and I will do an admin close in the same way. That's only if you want to do that.

If you prefer to leave the closes in place, that's fine. I will support your closes if there is a DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for your offer. Either way the result will be the same, so let's just leave it for now. However you may consider closing the two next (similar) discussions on March 16 that I deliberately skipped to close. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Done[4]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sailboat components

Umm, your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017_April_5#Category:Sailboat_components doesn't make sense to me.

AFAICS, User:Mindfrieze and I agreed that there should continue to be a Category:Sailboat components, but that both it and Category Sailing ship components should be subcats of a new "sailing vessel components".

Your close prevents that happening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to add my assent to the above objections. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl and B.S. Lawrence: My apologies for this misunderstanding. I'll reopen the discussion since I don't exclude the possibility that User:Mindfrieze misunderstood it the same way as I did. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you user: Slazenger? + Vandalism

Hi! User:Slazenger systematically/manically try to delete the category "Kingdom of Hungary" and most of the other important categories from the Wiki articles. (Vandalism) Do you know that the usage of two or more account in Wikipedia is not allowed. --Blemse (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Blemse: I'm not Slazenger, can't remember I've encountered them either. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Marcocapelle: Slazenger admitted in the edit comment of Austria-Hungary article that you and him are the same person. Can you explain the cause of your vandalism, why do you delete "Kingdom of Hungary" and the most important categories from the articles? --Blemse (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Blemse: This is ridiculous. Can you share me the diff? Then I'll contact Slazenger about it and take it to ANI if necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User Marcocapelle campaign against the category: "Kingdom of Hungary" You systematically removed the Kingdom of Hungary category: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&type=revision&diff=775443548&oldid=775138968

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867&type=revision&diff=775443592&oldid=774109650

Than your sock account Salzenger immediatelly appeared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&type=revision&diff=775517612&oldid=775517466 --Blemse (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austria-Hungary#Austro-Hungarian_Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blemse (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Blemse: Where did User:Slazenger admit that him and me are the same person? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Blemse: If you genuinely believe that User:Slazenger is a sockpuppet of User:Marcocapelle, then please take you evidence to WP:SPI, where it can be investigated by those with the tools to do so.
  If you don't believe it, then please retract the allegation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Blemse: You may not be a rocket scientist, but you do see that you doubled the size of the article by accidentally duplicating everything below the category list, right? :^) I can't speak to Marcocapelle's removal of your added category, however adding 180,000 bytes to the article was *hopefully* not your intention. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 02:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you update the nom?

Per you suggestion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_11#Category:Silesian_American? I just came down with a nasty cold and I am only able to do the easy stuff I can do automatically... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts in doing strenuous but necessary work properly categorizing articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a page

Dear Marcocapelle,

As previously you have contributed to Wikipedia in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.

I believe it corresponds to the Wikipedia notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources:

links removed

If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.

According to Wikipedia guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Wikipedia. Aozolins-golin-riga (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Aozolins-golin-riga: I don't think it is prohibited to start a page yourself. While being personally involved is a drawback it shouldn't harm as long as the quality of the article is good and as long as you're transparent about your personal involvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Ancient foreign relations of India has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ancient foreign relations of India, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Tim! (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Catholic vs Roman Catholic

Hi, Marcocapelle! Regarding some discussion about this topic, I just want you to know about this discussion we had in the Spanish Wikipedia (translation). Our problem is that despite we Spanish just say "Catholic Church", "Roman Catholic Church" is starting to be a thing for us due literal translations from enwiki. We discussed why "Catholic Church" is better, at least for Spanish speaking users. I know enwiki and eswiki are different, but maybe some of our points can be usefull for your debates. --Grabado (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Grabado: It is very clear that the Catholic Church refers to itself as Catholic Church. I've heard, but I don't have any academic 'proof' of it, that Roman Catholic Church is the common term in countries where Catholicism doesn't dominate, because that solves the problem for non-Catholic churches with the classical creeds saying "I believe one holy catholic church". The argument is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the catholic church of the creeds. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Not true. The reason for the Roman Catholic term is because there are other non-Roman Catholic churches. Such as the Greek Catholic, Maronite Catholic and so on. Please educate yourself on issues before engaging in mindless deletionism.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Sanya3: These are all part of the Catholic Church, just like the Latin Church. You're confusing the Latin Church, as a church body, with Roman Catholic Church as an alternative term for the Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Crime

sheesh - I'll avoid the discussion above - the issues become so complicated...

however I have just intruded in your crime cat work - I am assuming that you may well wish to change where I may have put crime, it might be in some contexts better as criminal justice - the nuances are almost as annoyingly elusive as the catholic roman issue - my theologically astute friends off wiki havent been challenged by questions from me about the damned issues...

apologies if my intrusion has mucked anything up, please free free to revert me if it doesnt make sense JarrahTree 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• About Criminal justice, in what kind of contexts would it be more appropriate? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• sorry dont think it would be - I have misread the portal link - clever me :( - my problem was I didnt check inside the wikiproject crime talk page tag - the portal link is to criminal justice - when I tag a category mainspace with crime and years, the crime redirects to criminal justice portal... probably best to ignore me, sigh... JarrahTree 14:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Non-fiction

I noticed this category that may disturb you, Category:Non-fiction. Should it be nominated for deletion? Hyacinth (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Hyacinth: Does it disturb you and why? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Macrinus

Hello. The reason I am undoing your edit is that the category Ancient criminals implies that only persons physically responsible for crimes should be included. Otherwise there are myriads of politicians and other powerful people who are responsible for crimes, by employing other persons to do murders and other criminal activities (virtually, most of the Roman emperors). It wouldn't make sense.--Dipa1965 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for the Category Barnstar! May I also say how very much I appreciate all your ongoing contributions at CFD: thoughtful nominations, willingness to discuss and reconsider, taking the time to comment and therefore build consensus on other people's nominations, and of course your closing many discussions. Participating at CFD these days would be a lonely and frustrating experience without you. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

well said, and I share the sentiment fully - thank you for your hard work today! JarrahTree 09:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dragut Categories

Hello, can you tell me what you mean by "grandparent category"?

"removed grandparent category of Category:Ottoman Empire admirals"

--Cdfi (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Cdfi: Category:Ottoman Empire admirals is a child category of Category:Ottoman Navy officers is a child category of Category:Ottoman Navy personnel is a child category of etc. etc. is a child category of Category:Ottoman Empire. So in reverse Category:Ottoman Empire is a grandgrand..grandparent category of Category:Ottoman Empire admirals. In other words, if an article is in Category:Ottoman Empire admirals already, it shouldn't be in Category:Ottoman Empire as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Abu Eesa Niamatullah

Hello! I am notifying interested projects and editors that I've listed Abu Eesa Niamatullah for discussion at AfD, and you were listed on the revision history page.

I invite you to contribute to the discussion. Mujaddouda (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Conventions in Hawaii CFD

Your close of this discussion fails WP:BADNAC which says 'The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator.' You have one person arguing delete who hasn't openly changed their mind and one saying keep. This should be left to an administrator. The categories could just as easily be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT.

Your NADC is also careless because at least one of the other nominees is empty except for the convention centers category....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Hi there. I noticed you do a lot of editing with categories and I'm hoping to get your advice. I stumbled upon Category:Actresses of British descent and found it problematic because there was no criteria for "British decent". It could include half of Hollywood and Bollywood. As I clicked on the category links at the bottom it took me into a maze of categories which could include anyone really. The South American categories about actors and their decent was a twisted maze. Any suggestions on how to fix these? I suppose I could start a discussion on one of the talk pages about adding some criteria. I also didn't see a work group for categories, unless I missed it. Your comments would be appreciated. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Magnolia677: Descent categories are controversial, among others for the reason you mention, and partly related to that also because of their questionable degree of definingness. But - so far - they are not controversial enough to have them deleted. A place to start a new discussion, and perhaps to suggest a new solution apart from deletion, could be here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, and for pointing me to the workgroup. I may start a discussion. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides editing category pages, what are your real contributions to the article(s)?

Marcocapelle, when I started editing (27 Jan 2017), the article (Dutch East India Company) was very informatively poor. So besides editing category pages, what are your considerable contributions to the article(s)? - such as the VOC article. Zingvin (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Zingvin: Editors are not here to talk about themselves. See also the comment that User:Fayenatic london left on your talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox

I went to your sandbox because it came up with an alert; I am not sure how: I thought I was in a CFD, which is presumably where the item was to be uploaded. It was only when I had commented that I realised what it was! Deal with it as you think fit, whether by carrying it forward as part of the upload or removing it. This probably depends on what you end off uploading. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Peterkingiron: Thx for your note, if you came in the sandbox via an alert, it must have been me who has done something wrong in the sandbox, though I can't remember how. Anyway, once ready I'll upload it without your initial comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • fine by me. You probably prematurely put a ping in your text, which got recorded on my list. No hard feelings. @@@@

Thank you

Thanks for the info JarrahTree 02:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Category projects

It seems a waste of time to me to add projects to categories, but if you must, please note that art ones are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts NOT the Arts project, which I think is effectively defunct anyway. I have reverted what seems a clearly wrong edit of yours on the Rembrandt portraits. Why? Please be more careful. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories for ancient periods

Hi Marcocapelle,

In this nomination, you did not list the parent categories which would become empty as a result of the merges. I thought I would let you know that I do find it helpful when you have time to do that as well.

For info, it was also not up to your usual standard of thoroughness, as you made a few typos in the nomination (now noted with strike-outs). I only spotted these after processing them as nominated; thankfully there were not many member pages, so it did not take too long to trace what needed fixing.

Best wishes – Fayenatic London 12:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london: Oops, those are stupid mistakes, apologies about that. On the other issue, I linked to the empty parent categories in note 2, assuming that the closing admin would be so helpful as to delete these anyway. It's apparently better to set up the nomination in the more traditional way, even though it then becomes very big and messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, so there is, thanks — I didn't notice note 2! It wasn't me that closed the CFD, I was just helping with the double-merged ones that were listed by the closer at WP:CFDWM. I didn't pick up all of those in a note 2, so if you would have time to tag the remainder with {{db-c1}}, preferably linking to the CFD page in the edit summary, that would be very helpful. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fayenatic london: Thanks for helping! I've tagged the remaining empty pages yesterday after your previous note. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tim! (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Probably unwise of me to have entered a war with Tim. Nevertheless, your vote took courage. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories in question

Please note that a few proposals are still waiting for your opinion on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_2. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Derry categories

Hi Marcocapelle

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 7#Category:Roscommon, and for creating the catdab page afterwards[5].

Would you feel up to closing the next discussion on that page, which is the Derry city categs?

I don't want to presume on any particular closure, but if they are renamed I would be happy to create the catdabs afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I prefer waiting a further while on that one. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enuf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Montgomeryshire Architecture

Because nobody offered a reason not to use "Buildings and structures", and because that's clearly the naming convention, I've closed the "Montgomeryshire Architecture" CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 28) as "move to Category:Buildings and structures in Montgomeryshire". I've intentionally ignored the Powys-Montgomeryshire issue, since that's not so clear-cut, and I've started a new discussion specifically to address that issue. Please visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 17 (bottommost section) to offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Algerian Christian saints has been nominated for discussion

Category:Algerian Christian saints, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Industrial history

I am afraid that I have not been watching in WP as hard as I did a few years ago, partly because there has been a decline in vandalism. I looked at the last substantive article on Industrial history as you suggested. It was a horribly incomplete article, without any references, which did not deserve to survive. Of course there was industry before the Industrial Revolution, itself a term over which historians argue. And of course we have continued to have had industry since the end of the Industrial Revolution period. However, producing a general article on the subject and then discouraging other editors from adding excessive detail to it their pet topics will be very difficult. I am trying to concentrate on finishing a book, A gazetteer of the British iron industry, and cannot offer to work on reinstating Industrial History, though it is certainly an article that WP needs, providing an overview of:

• Ancient industry
• Medieval industry (including Guilds)
• Proto-industrialization (currently a brief article) and Cottage industry
• Industrial Revolution
• Industrialisation in Continental Europe and America, which may need to be extracted from the last
• Second industrial revolution
• etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

re Category:5th millennium BC in fiction

Please take a look at my comment in the discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Masada

Ha die Marco, if you ever want to run an idea by me, you are very welcome to do so! gidonb (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious

category magic

Thank you for quality creation of categories, beginning with Category:Jesus in the Bible, and the complex tasks to populate them (mantra: "more specific categorisation"), organise them, create redirects, discuss, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• For info, I just proposed renaming Category:Jesus in the Bible into Category:Life of Jesus in the New Testament per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:1st-century BC Egyptian people has been nominated for discussion

Category:1st-century BC Egyptian people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. GreyShark (dibra) 14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Establishments by year categories

After closing the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 10, I was thinking that it may be helpful to reconsider how templates such as {{EstcatCountryCentury}} (e.g. at Category:5th-century establishments in India) and {{EstcatCountry1stMillennium}} are used. The presence of so many redlinks is just an invitation to recreate these categories for even just one article. I am not sure what the solution is, or even if there is a problem to solve, but thought I would at least mention it. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the observation, I'll think about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Falcon: Great minds think alike! Glad to see others are also thinking about these. I'm intending to revise these templates after the next batch of category merges. I have a few things in mind:
    • for the century templates: only include the big table if century > the relevant threshold number, perhaps also if a new parameter "full=yes" (this would be for rare exceptions such as Roman Empire); before the threshold, display only cat pair and the parent categories; then it would no longer be necessary to make changes like [6]
    • for the year-by-country templates, display a warning along the lines of "categories by country and year should not be created before the 11th century", if used in a range that has been merged.
  • More suggestions welcome! – Fayenatic London 20:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree, especially with a new parameter "full=yes". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
      • For info, I already edited {{Year in Norway}}. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
      • ...and manually edited Category:1000 in Spain. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Establishments_by_year_categories. Please do not add any further comments here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

CFD backlog record

@Fayenatic london, Explicit, and Black Falcon: I think the CFD backlog has never been so small, time for a party :-D Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your good work closing CfDs! VegaDark (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Cats

Please let me know what you think a Christian music genre is, - "genre" is bad enough, and people seem to mean different things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: Music genre may be vague but music format (where the articles came from) even worse. If you have a better idea how these articles may be categorized I'll be glad to hear. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Christian music and Christian liturgical music are fine, - I wouldn't need anything extra. I think cantatas - the ones performed as a regular part of a service, belong in the latter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: If you're really bothered by it you might nominate the category at CfD but you should be aware that we have numerous genre categories and the likely comment I would expect is that it is not useful to single out this Christian music genre category on its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am only bothered when it's in articles I contributed to, and you kindly removed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – this is not a very suitable place to discuss these changes. Category talk pages may not be too suitable either, so I suggest the talk page of the classical music WikiProject. And close this one (and possible other ones) with a link to the centralised discussion to avoid the same topic being discussed in several places at the same time. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Francis Schonken: This short conversation (hardly worth calling it a discussion) was about chants for liturgical use, not quite about classical music. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree. BTW, a closely related topic was already opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#All cantatas are Christian; the general topic being your recategorisation efforts hitting on several categories and hundreds of music-related articles (all "Christian" afaics, whether you apply that qualifier correctly or not). Please centralise the discussion: I don't care where (preferably not in user talk page though), but please make all other related "Christian" "music-related" "recategorisation by Marcocapelle" topics on talk pages point to the same central discussion, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• (ec) I like to talk to people. (I have a question open at Classical music, and nobody answered.) How about a category for Bach's chorale cantatas, a distinct subset of the church cantatas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: Perhaps as a next step, but I haven't even finished populated Bach's church cantatas yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• If you prefer to change them twice ;) - next step: sort them by cycle, as the navbox has. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Church music in somewhere?

Category:Church music in the United Kingdom, - next question. Hear my prayer, O Lord (Purcell) (and others) were created because we sing it - in Germany. "from somewhere" perhaps? - I heard it recently in a concert, also in Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: Good point. Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_13#Category:Church_music_in_Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

NGL

Neues Geistliches Lied is not church music, - yes Christian, but to be sung anywhere, records making charts, - not restricted to churches. Contemporary Christian music seemed better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

& articles

See the proposal I launched to merge Chorale setting (organ) into chorale prelude. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:1st-century BC Egyptian people has been nominated for discussion

Category:1st-century BC Egyptian people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. GreyShark (dibra) 06:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Touching user pages

@Black Falcon and Rathfelder: For your information, I even received a "thanks" notice from two different users after removing a user category from their user page after closing the CfD discussions of October 8. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps we are winning the argument! Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Very encouraging! I also wanted to share a suggestion that recently convinced one user to remove several redlink categories—namely, to display the categories using {{fmbox}} instead of adding the actual category code. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Black Falcon and Rathfelder: On the other hand I now got an entirely hopeless revert, here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• He doesn't appear to be too active at the moment, so I'm hoping he'll respond to my comment within a couple of days. A caustic pun might be fine, but ignoring consensus is not. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 14:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly this is some of the best advice I have seen in regards to this issue. I'm wondering how @BrownHairedGirl: would feel about this solution (as opposed to creating hard redirects for those who re-add deleted categories). If you think about it, the only reason someone would be opposed to this solution is if they feel the ability to search for other users in a redlinked category (quite a weak rationale IMO) should outweigh the headache these categories cause for Special:Wantedcategories workers. Without all the "you are stifling our individuality/humor" arguments I wonder if we could actually get a consensus to make changes to the guideline to reflect that users are not to re-add themselves to categories that were previously deleted by consensus (with a penalty being page protection if necessary). VegaDark (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLEAN

	Hello Marcocapelle: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 05:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Disestablishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain has been nominated for discussion

Category:Disestablishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. --Nevé–selbert 07:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

My user page

Please don't touch it. Is this acceptable? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: Very acceptable indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ;) - It was almost exactly 5 years ago (and still hurts) that I decided to stay, to not give others the pleasure of me leaving (also). Remembered here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Beyond Ex-Gay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beyond Ex-Gay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Ex-Gay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:My hero academia

Hello!

I came across your "no consensus" close of Category:My hero academia. Given how little participation there was in the discussion, would you be willing to undo your close and reopen the discussion? If not, I can easily start a new deletion nomination.

Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: No problem reopening it. I'll then also relist it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll comment at the relisted discussion. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Marcocapelle. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Gender and Bible has been nominated for discussion

Category:Gender and Bible, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Content categories

What type of articles are supposed to be in the "content" categories? How does that differ from the "topics" categories? Editor2020 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Editor2020: Content was meant to be a container category, containing Bible books, chapters, verses, topics etc. Meanwhile I have noticed that different editors have different views on what a topic category is meant for, with a mix of "true topic articles" like Women in the Hebrew Bible and "single event articles" like Generations of Noah. Hence my suggestion in the CfD discussion to move "true topic articles" to the content category, so that it no longer remains a container category. Any "single event articles" that may be added there in the future can then immediately be moved down to the appropriate Bible book subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Marcocapelle. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Gay-related television programs

Regarding your closure of the CfD for this cat, I think it would be better if the header text was similar to that used in Category:LGBT-related television programs (the parent cat) for consistency. The issue with the cat was the fact that it has been used simply as an inclusive cat, rather than "related", and the change you made still supports that. Just to clarify, the header should read "This category includes television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming which deal with or feature gay characters or issues. They may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." --AussieLegend (✉) 04:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'll put your comment on the category talk page, unless you mind. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging categories

Hi, thanks again for all that you are doing at CFD.

When you closed this one, you helpfully left an {{old CFD}} on the talk page. I noticed today that the nominator had also tagged the target page, so I removed the CFD banner today.

I also saw that the redirected category still had an interwiki link, so I merged the Wikidata entries as well. This may be above and beyond the call of duty, but it's something that I find satisfying to tidy up after a merge. If I find a similar one, would you like me to leave it and point it out so that you can see how to do it yourself? The process is different from editing Wikipedia – I can't show you how to do it using diffs. – Fayenatic London 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

The CFD discusison Years and decades up to 1500 is ready for closure, but implementing it will take a lot of work. When I closed similar discussions in the past, I found it was most efficient to

(i) merge to the second target using WP:Cat-a-lot, then

(ii) list the source and the first target at WP:CFDW, at which point CydeBot leaves an edit summary that links to the CFD page. Note that it's easier to trim the double-merger list for CFDW if it's the first target that is left till last. After that,

(iii) list the emptied categories at CFDW for deletion. This generates an inaccurate log entry, stating that they were deleted rather than merged, but at least it links to the discussion page.

If I close the discussion, would you be prepared to do the first stage of the merging? If you notify me of batches being ready for the next stage, I'd then follow up with the rest of the work. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london: Thanks, yes I will! Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Fayenatic london: Croatia, Denmark, Hungary and Lithuania are done. In fact I've already combined (i) and (ii) for these four countries. As I was reading the articles anyway, it wasn't much extra effort to add both merge targets immediately. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, well done. Yes, it can be more satisfying to do it that way, especially when you find that the members are in other sub-categories already and so don't need to be merged. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Fayenatic london: Indeed. The other 5 countries are done as well now. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Christmas

I assume you are the nominator. When I click on the supposed link to the rename discussion on this page it appears to send me to the wrong page, as no discussion of the category. Editor2020 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Editor2020: Thanks for mentioning! I have corrected it now. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Countries cfd

Hi. I don't see much/any problem with the Indian Ocean category which is restricted to islands (or with the similar Caribbean one) so it might be better to remove it from the cfd. DexDor ^(talk) 14:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol and Tobacco in Drug cats

Please take a look at Category:Drugs by country. In the category tree system, Alcohol and Tobacco are both classified as drugs, so my Category:Religion and drugs cat was correct. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Assyrian inscriptions

The edit history of Category:Assyrian inscriptions points that you excluded them from the Category:Inscriptions category tree. Why? Dimadick (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Dimadick: That is not what I see in the edit history, I have only replaced Category:Assyria by Category:History of Assyria. It looks like it has never been in Category:Inscriptions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Your CfD close request

Hi Marcocapelle. You pinged me about closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Category:Users who do not wish to receive talkbacks. WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC says that non-admins shouldn't close as delete. Was there a RfC to change this for CfD? — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: There hasn't been an RFC that I'm aware of, but it is a long-standing practice in CFD that non-admins close discussions including merge and delete. In contrast to AFD, CFD usually suffers from serious backlogs, and non-admins like User:Feminist, User:BU Rob13 before he became an admin, and myself, help admins to close discussions in order to avoid the backlog to become even more problematic. Consider it an IAR situation. It's especially nearly unavoidable that a non-admin has to close a discussion in case the two "chief CfD admins" User:Fayenatic London and User:Black Falcon have both participated in the discussion, which is exactly the case in the discussion we are talking about. Finally, imho, in case of technical issues it is better that someone with sufficient expertise closes the discussion rather than an unexperienced admin. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional ping to User:Fayenatic london because of spelling mistake in the previous paragraph. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Non-admins can work CfD. It's in the CfD instructions and has been common practice for a long time, well before I joined the project. The key here is that non-admins are forbidden from closing when they can't take the next step in the process. The next step in the process at CfD is removing the category from all articles, which non-admins can do (similar to TfD, where the action is to orphan the template). Ergo you can make the close. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've closed the discussion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There's not much for me to add, so I just want to voice my agreement with Rob and Marcocapelle. Their assistance, and that of other non-admin closers at CfD, is both needed and appreciated. I shudder to imagine the state of the backlog if they didn't close discussions. And thanks JJMC89, for closing that discussion! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and endorsed! I was likewise encouraged to close CFDs before I became an admin, and am hugely grateful for non-admin help with closures and implementations. Merry Christmas one and all! – Fayenatic London 08:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Marcocapelle. AfC submissions Random submission ~7 weeks 1,484 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Years and decades in Wales up to 1700

Hi Marcocapelle

Just a quick note to say congrats on all your hard work upmerging the under-populated year-in-country cats from older eras when en.wp's coverage is sparse. I know that a lot of work is involved in preparing such big nominations, but the result should be a big improvement to navigation.

So I'm sorry that my objections to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_28#Years_and_decades_in_Wales_up_to_1700 led to most of that work going to waste. I just wanted to clarify that I do think your nom was correct from a categorisation perspective, and that my objections were solely because I fear that from a political perspective they could be seen v differently (I have connections in Wales, and am sensitised to the strength of feeling around such things). I do hope my comments did not appear to suggest that there was any political intent behind your nomination, and in hindsight I should have said that explicitly at the CfD. AFAICS, you have an impeccable track record as an upholder of NPOV, and I hope I have not inadvertently tarnished that. If you think it would help, I'd be happy to add a note to that below the discussion.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for your note. It hadn't even crossed my mind that you might have suggested political intent. I was just taking it as a valid argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I just thought it was better to check, in case any wires were crossed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Millennium categories

@Peterkingiron and Excelse: I sympathise with your doubts about the millennium categories but also feel that at least some distant and poorly populated millennium categories should stay, e.g. Category:Populated places established in the 5th millennium BC. And this may also differ by continent because Category:1st millennium in North America will be more useful to keep than Category:1st millennium in Europe. But then I wonder how and where we should draw the lines. I don't have an answer right now, just sharing some thoughts. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018

^{The Fox Hunt (1893) by Winslow Homer, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.}
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speeedily rename the category

Category:Scottish Baptist clergy to Category:Scottish Baptist ministers Hugo999 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

YYYY in Christianity

Hi Marcocapelle

I have cleared most of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 3#Years_in_Christianity_(1000_to_1500) from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Move/merge_then_delete ... but 8 still remain with NO BOTS prefixes.

Any idea what is supposed to happen to them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: I selectively merged them manually, it is settled now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Good work. Are the category pages now ready for deletion? (I presume yes, but best to check). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Yes they are and I've tagged them for G6. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I should have checked. I see someone else deleted them promptly.
        So that's another of your excellent year-cat cleanups complete. Congrats on all you have done with them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
        • @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for the compliment, but it is important to realize that it would never have been accomplished without the excellent help of Tom.Reding and JJMC89, see this page. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Always a pleasure to easily help get rid of excess. Thank you for your continued hard work in compiling all of it!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Templates for speedy deletion listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Templates for speedy deletion. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Templates for speedy deletion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Civic youth organizations

I've dispersed the members as best I can. Rathfelder (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)