User talk:Marcocapelle

Hi. I've been cleaning up some old CfDs that weren't closed properly and found this one that you nominated. It closed as "manually merge" but two of the categories were never deleted and still have CfD notices: Category:People of Indo-Mauritian descent and Category:People of Indo-Trinidadian descent. I assume you know what to do with the contents (if anything) before they are deleted, then they can be tagged with G6. Mclay1 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 15 § Category:History of Czechoslovakia by topic on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi!

May I ask if you can precise your feelings in this discussion? In a recent similar discussion, you had suggested a merge to parent Category:Schools offering Cambridge International Examinations, which became the outcome. Here, you have so far not expressed a preference towards deletion merging or partial retention of some of the most-populated categories. As it stands, all such categories may be deleted without any merge target.

As a side note , and you don't have to answer, but I feel this whole affair is a lost bullet is what has become a saddening personal feud. I had moved away from the topic of sports for some time to cool down waters and had a look into international schools. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that my edit history was stalked and now a structure of 50+ categories that had stood for 10 years without challenge is up for silent deletion immediately after I tried to marginally improve it. I think you know I don't mind trimming down redundant category trees even in large numbers, but this is not what we see here. Place Clichy (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just proposed a framework to lessen the excessive placement of people in expatriate categories in at Category:Expatriates on the talk page. I am not sure if that was the best place to put it. I am also not entirely sure that the year rule is enough. What I do now is that placing people in expatriate categories for playing on a sports team in a country for just a few months is excessive. I almost wonder if we need sports expatriates categories at all since we basically categorize almost all sportspeople by every team they played for. Maybe we should just end all sports expatriate categories and limit sportspeople to only be in the fooian expatriates in boo categories if we have evidence they were resident in the country for at least a year (or maybe it should be a higher amount of time) outside of time required to play a sport. I have doubts that people would be willing to do such drastic changes all at once, I have seen too many cases of proposing large scale changes to just have editor after editor oppose them because of unique issues that only affect a few cases. The frustrating thing is then when you try to propose that specific cases be treated differently then the whole group because of unique issues, people then come back and insist we have everything the same, even though not all issues are the same. I in the past was told my categorizing people for being in France a just a few years was excessive, so I am not sure why we have so many sports expatriate categories that are about only a few months.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Another editor has decided to badger me for removing someone from an immigrants to the United Kingdom and place there in immigrants to Great Britain. The person immigrated in about 1785. Indisputably before the United Kingdom was. The claim is there consensus that people before 1801 should be placed in categories that say United Kinfdom even though this is historically inaccurate. I challenge that there is any location that this was ever actually decided. Evidently trying to be historically accurate on Wikipedia causes people to attack you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just realized we have an article names Eunuchs in Vietnam. I am hoping my having pointed this out will have some influence on the discussion on the naming of the related category. Generally we follow the lead of articles in naming categories. I see now reason to not do so here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

We also have the same think with Eunuchs in the Byzantine Empire. So both of these cases we have an article with the exact name I have proposed for the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I was able to add a sub-category that belongs here, so now overall the category has 22 articles. I have proposed renaming Category:Military personnel from the Savoyard state to Category:Military personnel of the Savoyard state since most of our military by former country categories use of and not from and what matters is what military a person served in, not where they were born, raised or even were a national of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Category:Sailors from Louisiana now has more articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Category:Radio stations of the University of Southern California has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I placed a bunch of articles on people clearly born and resident in Ottoman Macedonia in Category:Bulgarian people in Ottoman Macedonia. A bunch of these edits were reverted without any actual explantion. Just one complaint against "unilaterally" creating the category. This is beyond frustrating. Moving people from a parent category to a child category is acceptable. Moving them from a very amophous category that links basically ethnicity and location to one with much clearer scope is also an improvement. Category:Macedonian Bulgarians has the very vague header "This category includes Bulgarians, inhabiting or originating from the historical and geographical region of Macedonia." The standard rule is that an article can be moved from the parent to a sub-cat. This refusal to allow it is very frustrating. This is frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

• @Johnpacklambert: let's check what happens in Todor Aleksandrov. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, hope you are well!

I wanted to give you a heads up. So the user who made the "Titanic aftermath" category I nominated apparently also uses AI in articles and to make them - they have been warned since and didn't deny using it either except that they were sorry, but their articles have been redirected/deleted since - and they are also making a lot of categories too for the articles they made and contributed too. I gave them a friendly warning to not spam create so many but I thought I'd give you a heads up on the matter.

Hope you're well! Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I am writing to request a reduction in the protection level for the page Bandhalgoti. I would like to contribute to the article by adding verified information and improving its quality. Could you please consider lowering the protection or let me know what requirements I need to meet to edit it? Thank you! Zalli.mb (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

• @Zalli.mb: I am not an administrator so I cannot help you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

So today an editor reverted an edit I did. I went to that page and started a talk page discussion on the matter. I did not even try to reinstate my edit directly. In response that editor went through and reverted about 10 more edits I had done. I did not even have a chance to react to them because I was busy at work. Then he went to ANI and proposed a topic ban on this subject he had not even spoken with me at all over before. This is very frustrating. I really think editors if they bring something up with another editor should allow that editor to show compliance with the request for a new behavior. It is also really frustrating that Wikipedia believes in punishing victims. In this case it really feels like the editor is acting out of anger over unrelated nominations on cfd, and he has been at times very rude and cutting about my contributions there and openly mocked and attacked what I have said. His behavior is very uncivil. He has at times openly invited people to bring an ANI on him for uncvility. However the way he waords it it is clear he knows that ANI has a long history or treating the brining of an ANI as a proper person to be punished. In fact I have one current topic ban that started when another editor brought an ANI complaint against an editor for being rude to me. I unwisely made a comment in support of doing something to stop his rudeness, which was enough to make it so other editors felt it was ok to punish the victim of the rude behavior. So much so they almost totally banned me from editing Wikipedia, and that ban was only slightly scaled back just over 3 years later and almost four years later still exist in force. Wikipedia is a toxic place where punishing victims is viewed as acceptable behavior, and people are rewarded for hounding and other rude behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

• This whole process is very frustrating. It feels like no one ever expresses support for my efforts. People just attack me for my attempts to improve Wikipedia. Some hound me over and over over it. Editors just keep on creating more and more topic bans on my behavior, which are in general written in broad and vague terms. Then I am attacked as being disruptive because I made minor edits that end up running into conflict with the overly broad and unclear, often deliberatey so, personalized restirctions that were placed on me. I am totally frustrated with Wikipedia. It is specifically designed to discriminate against, marginalize and punish people with autims. People are consistently punished for expressing how they feel. I am not allow to say anything without being punished, but other editors are allowed to go around and attack others with impunity and no reprecussions because being rude is allowed. I am tired of being treated like all the hours I spend trying top improve Wikipedia are useless. The constant attacks on my editing are debilitating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Do you think it might instead work to merge Category:Hawaiian songwriters and Category:Songwriters from Hawaii and then break out Category:Songwriters from the Kingdom of Hawaii and Category:Songwriters from the Territory of Hawaii (there may be better ordering of the names, I would favor writing it Hawai'i, but that might require article rename)?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

• • The articles are Hawaiian Kingdom and Territory of Hawaii (it was at times abbreviated TH, such as in the 1951 Columbia-Lippincott Gazeteer). So I guess we would name them Category:Songwriters from the Hawaiian Kingdom and Category:Songwriters from the Territory of Hawaii. The former would have at least 6 articles. The later would clearly get some. I think this would be a better move.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 10 § "Somalian" to "Somali" across the board on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I see that Segregationists has been renamed to Sehregation Activists. A review indicates that this has been tagged on people who A. Expressed a view of disagreeing with the methods and associations of Martin Luther King while not actually expressing support for segregation let alone being activists for it. B. People who expressed views on racial intellectual diffwrwnce, which is not on its face (or as indicated by the article) a support of segregation let alone activism for it. 3. People who voted against a peace of legislation. This is not a sign of activism. The category has been massively applied to a huge number of people who I do not think were activists. I really do not want to get in editing fights, but it really needs to be reduced in scope to only be on articles where the subject was an activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

• @Johnpacklambert: I will have a look. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • @Johnpacklambert: I have cleaned out letter A. This may take some time. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

    Thank you. You are right. It will take some time. Thank you. It is appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Category:West Iberian languages of Spain has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I intentionally did not full it in to avoid an edit conflict. The issues here are complex. Your edit created an edit conflict. I will make the proposal soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Category:Films about women has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gray eyes (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:1630 in Brazil indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey @Marcocapelle, this category closed as a rename for CfD but it hasn't been moved yet . Anyway that the name change can officially take place that you know of? PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please disregard, the category has now been renamed. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please can you not include extra text in the instruction lines when nominating categories for renaming or merging. The system takes lines like this:

• Category:1501 in Lithuania (1 P) to Category:16th century in Lithuania and Category:1501 in Europe

and they end up on the Working page to instruct the bot but it will not process them with extra text in. Please can you keep the lines clean so they are easier to process. Thanks in advance. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, Marcocapelle,

I hope you are having a good summer. I was looking through a few days' CFD nominations and I think you made this nomination but there is no signature, identifying the proposer. If you managed to pull this together, could you add your signature? I'm really impressed with these complicated mass nominations, so kudos to you if you are responsible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Category:Scholars by ethnicity has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 13:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rename all userbox categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It turns out that category:Psalms does include phrases, not only psalms. I think for consistency it would be good to create subcat category:Phrases from psalms, akin to Category:New Testament words and phrases. What do you think? --Altenmann >talk

• @Altenmann: we already have Category:Hebrew Bible words and phrases, we do not need to split that by every book of the Bible per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • My point is that the non-subcategory entries in category:Psalms are not psalms, ie., they are already split out, and I am suggesting a technically correct subcategory. Or are you suggesting to move them into Category:Hebrew Bible words and phrases? --Altenmann >talk
    • Also. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

P.S. Another issue: the hatnohe there says "For the battle in the Yom Kippur War, see Valley of Tears. I'd rather point to Valley of Tears (disambiguation) instead, but I cannot come up with a good phrasing for the hatnote. (Igather, template:Also is typically used at paragraphs' ends) --Altenmann >talk 07:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• The current target is more to the point, isn't it? Why would you change this? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • I fail to see why other targets in Valley of Tears (disambiguation) are less to the point.--Altenmann >talk 14:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
    • @Altenmann: I think I misinderstood you before. Do you mean something like "For other uses of Valley of Tears see Valley of Tears (disambiguation)"? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

PPS. Can Valley of Tears (disambiguation) be merged with Vale of Tears (disambiguation)? (see All pages with titles containing Vale of Tears ). --Altenmann >talk 07:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• @Altenmann: that makes sense for sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• See Valley of Tears (disambiguation) now. What to do with red link Vale of Tears (disambiguation)? redirect or move?--Altenmann >talk 17:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, Marcocapelle,

I've run into an editor who has acted in opposition to several CFD closure decisions and I've been trying to correct them when I come across them manually. The ones I've been dealing with have been involved with "causes of death" for people in different geographical locations.

But I just discovered Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Category:Deaths from brain cancer and almost all of the mergers in this closure decision have been undone. I need your advice, do I just cut and paste this old nomination into a new nomination for today's log? Go to speedy renames/mergers? This would be made easier if I knew how to operate all of the categorization tools we have at our disposal but I haven't learned yet about Cat-a-lot or the others. Seeing how many large nominations you have done over time, I was hoping you could advise. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• @Liz: the way you describe the problem it seems to be a case of disruptive editing, so I think this should not require a new CfD discussion at all. @Timrollpickering: what do you think of it? Is it possible to re-process the nomination of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Category:Deaths from brain cancer directly? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • Probably best to, stick it on the working page. If an editor wants to challenge a discussion outcome there is a way to seek to replace consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
    • Thanks so much for the advice. We are going through a period of longtime sockpuppets in category creation and recategorization and I think this might be another case. I think I'll also ping Smasongarrison because they know about a similar case they reported to SPI and there might be some similarities. Thanks again for sharing your expertise in categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

      I think that tossing it on the working page seems like a good idea in this situation. ^SMason_Garrison 19:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Okay, here is the embarrassing moment where I admit that I've been an editor for 13 years and an admin for 11 years and I don't know how "Working" works. Would I list the categories to be deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Empty then delete? If I had experience with the Working page (much less the other closure pages), I would have started closing CFDs years ago. Thanks for your understanding and guidance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• I'd guess so, but that is for User:Smasongarrison or User:Timrollpickering to confirm. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply