Jump to content

User talk:Marcocapelle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 549: Line 549:
== Question regarding removal of parent categories to avoid circular categorization ==
== Question regarding removal of parent categories to avoid circular categorization ==


I noticed that you and other users removed parent categories for [[:Category:Philosophy]], like Humanities, Abstractions, Thought, Academic disciplines, Beliefs. Doing so seems unintuitive and illogical to me. Is there an universal concensus to kill circular categorization at all consts? If so, can you give me some info on why this was made "recently" (during the last few years)? Because I wonder if it's worth.
I noticed that you and other users removed parent categories for [[:Category:Philosophy]], like Humanities, Abstractions, Thought, Academic disciplines, Beliefs. Doing so seems unintuitive and illogical to me. Is there an universal concensus to kill circular categorization at all consts? If so, can you give me some info on why this was made "recently" (during the last few years)? Because I wonder if it's worth. [[User:CreativeName1|CN1]] ([[User talk:CreativeName1|talk]]) 22:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:38, 8 February 2019

Millennium categories

Moved this back as the discussion is incomplete.

@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)[reply]

  • I would not object to categories such as those, but only for cases where certainty as to date is impossible even within 100 years. In general there have not been enough centuries to require anything higher, such as millennium categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely millennium categories are more appropriate than century categories for prehistoric archaeological cultures, where the dates are fuzzy (like Longshan culture and Baodun culture), or states from traditional folk-history, whose very existence is disputed (like the Xia dynasty). Kanguole 12:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was largely echoing the problem and that we have to investigate if other related categories are that much accurate or not and this CFD can become an example. The categories that you named are going to stay though. Excelse (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Establishments in the Holy Roman Empire by year

Is there an easy way to nominate the hundreds of categories without going into each one individually? I don't have the stomach to do that. I just want to roll them up into decades. Even that will be sparcly populated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Bible categories

I know you as a good editor in category namespace, so why are you replacing child categories by the less specific parent categories? I reverted a few of them, since I am sure this is some mistake. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resource-based view and marketing

I am intrigued by your decision to remove the Category: Marketing from the article, Resource-based view with the assertion that it is not directly related to marketing. RBV has been included on the syllabus of university subjects in marketing strategy since the early 2000s. Marketing scholars such as George S. Day, who recognised the value of RBV for marketing theory, have been instrumental in developing the theories around RBV and its implications for marketing. Leading international journals in the marketing discipline, such as the Journal of Marketing, appear to have recognised the importance of RBV for marketing and have been accepting papers on the topic for the best part of 20 years. At international marketing conferences, both academics and practitioners have been teasing out the marketing implications of RBV for the best part of 20 years.

Below are a just a few of articles on RBV in a marketing context, that may be of interest, and incidentally, some of which, were cited in the article:

  • Srivastava, R.J. Rajendra K.; Fahey, L. and Christensen, H. K, "The Resource-Based View and Marketing: The Role of Market-Based Assets in Gaining Competitive Advantage," Journal of Management, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2001, pp 777-802. <Online: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/125>
  • Hunt, S.D. and Derozier, C., "The Normative Imperatives of Business and Marketing Strategy: Grounding Strategy in Resource‐advantage Theory", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp 5-22 <Online: https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620410516709>
  • Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A., "A Configuration Theory Assessment of Marketing Organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, January, 2003, pp 100−115.
  • Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, P. R., & Fahy, J., "Sustainable competitive advantage in service industries: A conceptual model and research propositions," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, October, 1993, pp 83−99 <https://www.parsproje.com/tarjome/modiriyat/139.pdf>

BronHiggs (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I am currently in the process of updating this article; have expanded it substantially and have organised the content into logical headings and sub-headings. Prior to this, the article was very vague about the context of just about everything, and was equally vague about even the meaning of RBV. It was little more than an unfocussed stub. Incidentally, the list of articles is far from exhaustive; rather it was merely a representative sample of articles published in quality journals at different stages of the evolution of the RBV concept and written by notable scholars in the field. BronHiggs (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely lost interest in the article on Resource-based view. It was always my intention to confine my editing to marketing related articles (which is my area of expertise). But since, this article has now been deemed to be unrelated to marketing, I have decided to leave it for other editors to make the necessary improvements. The article, in its present form, clearly states that RBV is inter-disciplinary and specifically names scholars from both management and marketing disciplines. If this is insufficient, then I am quite sure that I have no idea what would suffice. So, I won't be expanding any further in some kind of vain effort to clarify which discipline(s) are relevant, just for the sake of a category label that might (or might not) be helpful to some users. I will be removing this article from my watchlist and from henceforth will not be monitoring it for vandalism or for the insertion of various editors' pet topics (such as the recent multiple attempts to squeeze the 1950s' Edith Penrose into the frame, as some kind of pioneer of the field).BronHiggs (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in the Cretan State has been nominated for discussion

Category:Establishments in the Cretan State, 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. Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

project tags as well

the whole thing you are currently editing has me wondering (not your edits, previous edits) I do not think much thought has gone into it - 'service industries' with economics project tag (?) And a few other weirdnesses - not that I may have helped in tagging... It really lacks a solid and probable oonnection of categories and project tags, that I know JarrahTree 23:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nah - maybe it is relatively ok (project tags and categories) - something doesnt gell in parts of it though JarrahTree 23:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much for what you are doing - it seems no one had much interest in tidying it up and making sense - you have - appreciated JarrahTree 15:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JarrahTree: I've got a message that you sent me an email, but I didn't receive it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Odd - it was basically to do with some of the nonsensical project tag additions, they should be self evident if you were to follow some of the category talk pages - seemed trollish even. However I have no idea what happened to the email system. JarrahTree 10:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JarrahTree: The email arrived, but with delay of a day. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re the country/regions absurdity missed the conversation - wwikix legacy still haunts - the crazy category mixups are weird and unresolved even now - JarrahTree 23:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JarrahTree: Which ones exactly? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • apologies lost links, when I track down will let you know - but in my view - any of the larger category trees created by User:wwikix or whoever he was the compulsed dutch editor - remain unless dimsantled potential disasters waiting to bite their own bum, imho - although some eds seem to somehow explain in terms that they understand, some of the headbanging aspects of category calamatous conundrums, or words to the effect JarrahTree 13:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare and the Vikings

Hello. As the only editor I know who's actively managing categories, do you have any thoughts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#William Shakespeare? Basically I'm wondering whether putting categories into other categories is meant to be a transitive "is a" relationship[1], as loosely implied by Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization and any exceptions should be considered for cleaning up, or whether categories can be just sets with no logical structure per User:gracefool/What is a category?.

[1] i.e. if article A is in category C1 and category C1 is in category C2 then A must logically be an example of a C2.

Your thoughts (or pointers to others' thoughts) would be welcome please. Certes (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: although WP:SUBCAT sets out a pretty strict view, in practice a broader approach is accepted in English Wikipedia. Postdlf recently summed it up well here (now archived here). – Fayenatic London 21:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Fayenatic london. Wikipedia talk:Categorization is exactly the page I was looking for. I see the topic has come up again, so I'll keep watch and see what emerges. One view is that we have two types of category — the strictly transitive "A is a C", and the looser "A has something to do with C" — but the categories aren't explicitly, erm, categorised as such. Certes (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untagging Years and decades in various European countries

Fayenatic london, I originally placed these CfM/CfD tags, and can remove them, if desired. Would only require an example and the go-ahead.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: Brilliant, please go ahead. I was just about to compile a list to post at WP:CFDWR, but I don't think we need to leave any "Old CFD" notice on the talk page, which is part of the outcome when Armbrust processes that page. Just revert/remove the CFD tags. Thanks so much for watching out for the close! – Fayenatic London 21:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: As requested, I've given an example edit summary 
CFD was withdrawn pending case-by-case consideration, see [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_19#Years_and_decades_in_various_European_countries]]
at Category:1340s establishments in Bohemia. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Superb! Thanks agin, Tom. – Fayenatic London 09:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename category Ukrainian medical doctors

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Ukrainian medical doctors to Category:Ukrainian physicians Hugo999 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to full discussion Hugo999 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Scotland

You'll have noticed that the Category:Government of Scotland is different from the Category:Scottish Government. The former refers to governments in the region of Scotland while the region was part of different states. The latter refers to the devolved institution of modern times within the UK. It seems anomalous to have Category:Government of Scotland linked to a UK parent category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging categories for deletion

Hi Marco, thanks for tagging categories for deletion. However, when you do so, you're still tagging them with links to CFD pages from 2017, rather than 2018. I noticed this after looking at your deleted contributions because of this edit by Grutness to Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles, which provided a link to the logs for Category:Works about knees. Graham87 04:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A sheer coincidence - I only realised WP:DAFT still existed last week, and thought that would be a good one to add! Grutness...wha? 05:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on allowing some categorization in redirects

As you and another editor are actively questioning my new categories and/or redirects, I have made a related proposal WP:Village pump (policy)#Allow some categorization in disambiguation pages (or within redirects to them) and solicit your feedback for consensus.Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your ongoing work on categories. It's a difficult - and extremely messy - area which doesn't attract enough Wikipedians. Your logic and perseverance is greatly appreciated! Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Related"

Hi. Re your edit at VPP I think it's better (especially when dealing with editors who have difficulty understanding categories) to use the word "similar" rather than "related". For example, if John Doe was the first person to climb Mount Foobar then the article about the person and the article about the mountain are about related topics (and hence should wikilink to each other), but they are not about similar topics so wouldn't be categorized together (one would be in a <nationality>-mountaineers category and the other in a mountains-of-<country> category). DexDor (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

@Fayenatic london, Explicit, Black Falcon, BrownHairedGirl, and BU Rob13: There is a growing backlog at WP:CFD again. It would be appreciated if you could close a number of open discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorizing chess openings

Why are you recategorizing all the articles in Category:chess openings? I don't think this is a good idea. What advantage do you see in using a lot more categories? Quale (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'll become more easy to find related openings. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better to make a suggestion at WP:CHESS Talk page and seek consensus before going ahead with this. I don't actually know any chess players who use the terms "open game", "semi-open game" etc. They're old-fashioned 19th-century style terms and not really very useful. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Will do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic Theology vs. Christian Theology

Help! I've read the articles but can't figure out the distinction. Editor2020 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Editor2020: I've been notified before that systematic theology is not a very common term - while I thought it was. The article systematic theology explains what it is, but you are probably wondering what it is not. For example the following is not included in systematic theology: Christian philosophy, homiletics, liturgics, pastoral theology, liberation theology, feminist theology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman sites in Gaul

I think that something needs to be done to put some clearer distance between two entities. There is the Roman Province entity and the modern state entity. There are some instances where the two have been conflated - this is bad. In most cases, the two are unrelated - that's usually not a problem. The problem mainly arises where the two are quite closely related. For example, you have Category:Roman Gaul and Category:France. The two are not identical. Large parts of Gaul were in Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany. It's absurd and ahistorical for France to claim "ownership" of Gaul as it does with Category:1st millennium in France. I think that Category:Former countries in French history offers a direction and a path forward. Suppose all modern countries used this convention for marrying with Roman Provinces? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magma - igneous categories

Refers to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_16#Magmatism_not_igneous_petrology. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you comment that read

If you want to pursue this, you need to provide the full list of categories to be renamed and you need to tag these categories, see WP:CFD#HOWTO.

That is what I did and why I arrived to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. I tagged them all but did not mention all in the entry. It took me a while since the number is very large. I don't get why the entry was closed, I mean there are more opinion that those of Volcanoguy's and in fact I did not got the chance to bebuke his absurd claim that volcanic rocks are not the product of magmatism! Mamayuco (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the talk pages of the categories. Mamayuco (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I just checked. @Mamayuco: you tagged the category talk pages.[1] But you need to tag the actual category pages.

And then you need to list all the categories at the top of the cfd discussion, one per line, like this:

Propose renaming:
etc. All of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mamayuco: I'm sorry to be the messenger of even more bad news for you but you can't continue a discussion that has already been closed by an administrator, unless the administrator is kind enough to selfrevert their closure. In this case it concerns User:BrownHairedGirl who might or might not be willing to do so. Otherwise you should start a fresh discussion today and link back to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamayuco:

  1. don't reopen a closed a cfd discussion. Start a new one on the current day's cfd page
  2. categories need to be tagged the actual category pages, not the talk pages --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a new discussion and begun to tag all pages (do not close the discussion prematurely or we both will have more work). The whole processes is overly bureaucratic and difficult to grasp. Mamayuco (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mamayuco: If you are a first-timer on CfD (probably you are) I can well understand you feel that way. Alerts to involved editors and Wikiprojects are automatically triggered by tags on the category pages, that is the reason why they need to be there and why they are useless on the talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mamayuco: it's not bureaucracy, it's WP:CONSENSUS-building. Unless there is proper notification of those who might be interested, then there cannot be valid consensus.
Unfortunately, the wiki software is crude and under-developed, so group nominations like this need a lot of work. But that's bad technology, not bureaucracy.
I wish that the Wikimedia foundation would spend a lot more money improving its software, and rather than on funding the mostly low-impact national Wiki Chapters. But we are where we are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William d'Ecouis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglo-Norman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemia

Hi, I have closed the Bohemia CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 21, and started to implement it. See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_19#Bohemia_(entirely). Please could you assist with the merges?

Oh, and where I found that the nominated categories were also in Habsburg Monachy, I also merged the contents there, although I did not record this in my close. If that was unhelpful because this hierarchy is only going to need merging later, feel free to revert those edits from my contribs. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film scores by A. R. Rahman

I am thinking of challenging your non-admin closure of this on the following points 1) There was a clear majority for merge (3 -v- 1), 2) the in favour !vote was very weak (dividing music by the lyric!) and 3) your rationale was other stuff exists. Do you want to reconsider first? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, there is clear consensus to merge for these categories, and we could probably merge the other categories mentioned without a discussion, citing this as a precedent. --woodensuperman 11:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at the very least, a rename is needed, as the contained articles are film articles, not score articles, which take the format "Films scored by X". --woodensuperman 11:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richhoncho and Woodensuperman: I'm counting 3 in favor of merge, 2 in favor of keep and rename of which 1 largely on procedural grounds. Which means a much clearer consensus may emerge when procedural objections are resolved. It wasn't clear enough that the merge votes were also in favor of renaming as an improvement over the current situation. Let me reopen the discussion so that this latter point may be stated more explicitly. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French actress stubs

Hi, re this: why do you need to edit the doc? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: It would need redirecting to Category:French actor stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't. The documentation (which is automatically generated by Template:Asbox) stays the same; moreover, non-category pages (including templates and their doc pages) should never redirect to category pages. It is Template:France-actress-stub that should be amended, to redirect to Template:France-actor-stub. Compare for instance Template:England-actress-stub. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging categories

Hi, when you merge categories, please merge not only the members of the category, but the content on the category page, esp. parent categories.

E.g. here is one that you missed.

Thanks for keeping up the work at CFD! – Fayenatic London 14:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Categories for Discussion

You shouldn't close categories for discussion. Closing those you commented on is especially frowned up. Get an admin to close it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I've said elsewhere, I have no objections to your CFD closes, and am very glad for all you do here.
However, please could I ask you to reopen the one at the bottom of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_8? I think the opposer's concern is misplaced, and would like to explain there. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Children

I admit that religion is a theme in these novels, but I would not go as far as say that the novels are about religion. In that light, I'd ask you to reconsider this edit. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undone, then. Thanks for the reply. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodborne religion

Hi. Why did you remove Category:Religion in fiction from Bloodborne in this revision of yours? The game does, apparently, have certain religious themes. Interqwark talk contribs 02:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Interqwark: Religion is not a particularly defining characteristic of this game though (per WP:CATDEF). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks for explaining. Interqwark talk contribs 02:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

relisted cat

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Rising Sun, 1st class You may wish to move this to a new date so it may get some notice. Just a mild request. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion scientists

Hi, Marcocapelle. Are we supposed to stop commenting/answering in this CfD, because more than seven days have gone by? I'm not sure of the rules and conventions here. Thanks for your answer. Eleuther (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again, I've reread the CfD policies, and it seems to be okay to continue to contribute, until the discussion has been closed, so I will continue to do so, unless you tell me to stop. Thanks again, Eleuther (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleuther: Once a CfD thread looks like this, with the cyan background and "The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories" message, all discussion is closed. Some unclosed CfDs might carry a {{closing}} template ("Close in progress: An administrator or other editor is in the process of closing this discussion."), and you shouldn't really comment on those either. But in the absence of those two types of message, discussion is still open - and may in some cases go on for some time. See for example Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 13#Category:Events at the 1997 European Athletics U23 Championships which is still open after eight weeks - the last comment was just three days ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Redrose64:, thanks. I see that the first thread (Sir Sly) and the last one (Women Mayors of etc) both have these closed templates, but the other four threads don't seem to have them yet. ...? Eleuther (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 29#Category:Combustion scientists is still open for discussion. Each daily CfD page shows a number of CfD discussion threads, which are entirely independent of one another - the only common factor is that they were all nominated on the same day. Closure of e.g. that for Category:Sir Sly has no bearing on the others listed for 29 May. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marcocapelle, I think this may be a good time to close this thread, probably as "no consensus," perhaps with the idea of opening a similar one later. The thread has been very badly polluted by Sławomir Biały's dispute with me, to the point where the thread is not really readable by other people. No one else has contributed for five days. I think this would be a good time to say, okay, let it be, let's start over later. Do you agree? Eleuther (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European migrant crisis (2015)

You suggested this new title and, on reflection, I think I would support it. It looks like my attempt to have the present "crisis" recognised as part of a historical migration pattern is going to fail. If it does, I would like to see this proposal taken forward if you care to make it. Deb (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport in the Palestinian territories

Hi, I noticed another group of non-contentious categories needing renaming at Category:Sport in the Palestinian territories, if you have the time! – Fayenatic London 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Entertainment in the Palestinian territories, Category:Religion in the Palestinian territories... – Fayenatic London 09:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And subcats of Category:Palestinian society. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ! I found a few other categories, which I listed here. Place Clichy (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, it was useful that we got a clear consensus about the date cut-off at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_9#Palestinian_territories. I've finished implementing that CFD now.

Feel free to nominate years & (dis)establishments from 2013 when you have time.

Please note the objection at the foot of my talk page, that recent events in Israeli settlements within the West Bank were not "in the State of Palestine". For those particular cases, we were able to bypass that problem (for now?) by using the intermediate category layer "in the West Bank". – Fayenatic London 21:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled category

Category:Voodoo practicioners Isn't this Category misspelled?

Category:Politicians in Tanzania

If the CfD closed as "delete", why did you redirect it instead? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I have seen a discussion between (past) closers of discussions who leave directs at their own discretion if in the discussion their has been no mention of leaving a redirect or not. If you think a redirect is wholly inappropriate in this case, I'm well prepared to get it deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hi again Marcocapelle, I know you have declined this a few times already, but I consider that you're ready to be an admin, and will be a fine one too.

Moreover, about me: I'm thinking of making a major ongoing time commitment to an unrelated charity project starting in a few months' time, and I will have to become practically retired from Wikipedia.

As we both know, you and I have become the most consistent "workers" at WP:CFD for a few years now. Your contributions to closing and advising at CFD are already invaluable, but it would certainly be handy for you to have access to the full toolbox.

Please would you consider adminship again? You probably know that the RfA itself can be time-consuming for the candidate; it helps to read up on policies beforehand, and to plan for the nomination to happen in a week when you will have the time to answer questions.

I'll be very happy to nominate you, if only you'll accept.

Kind regards – Fayenatic London 22:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fayenatic london: First of all, if you decide to leave Wikipedia, I wish you all the best and thank you for everything you learned me (although it's not the time to say goodbye yet). Second, I'm sorry to be so stubborn, but the problem really is that not enough admins are around in this forum and making me the single owner of it would be a really poor solution for that problem. I still keep hopes that other admins will jump in when the backlog becomes too excessive. Perhaps we are getting a new admin already [2]. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Are you planning to retire from Wikipedia at a very particular date, and if so will there be a goodbye party? Just curious. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Good questions. The new commitment is now more likely to start next spring than this autumn, as I thought earlier. I expect I would still look in occasionally at Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 07:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_2#Category:2._divisjon_players

Err why does no consensus mean 'delete'?! GiantSnowman 07:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NOCON states two different things which seem to be contradictory in this particular case and I'll list them in reverse order:
(2) In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. In this case, prior to the bold edit (the recreation of the earlier deleted category page) was a non-existent category page to which (imho) it should be reverted by lack of consensus.
(1) In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. The question is, how should 'normally' be read in this particular case? Does it exclude the above?
Pinging @Fayenatic london: for third party advice. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misdirected yourself by thinking it's a deletion review. As I understand it, DRV does not re-evaluate the arguments for deletion, but assesses whether the closer acted properly. No-one is challenging whether the previous close was a valid view of the consensus in that discussion.
Rather, this is a fresh CFD, and should be seen as an opportunity to assess whether consensus has changed. In a case where there is no consensus but a previous CFD had shown a strong consensus, then I would have said the outcome of the previous one should stand; I have closed some discussions in this way (sorry, can't remember specific precedents). However, as the previous CFD only had two participants (nominator +1), it carries little weight. Therefore this CFD should be assessed on its own merits; and as there was no consensus to delete, we shouldn't delete.
That's how I see it in principle, anyway.
The other way to find a decisive outcome would be to set aside some of the arguments, either on policy grounds, or because they were refuted by other participants. I don't think either of those applies here. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Fair enough, I'll revert. Apologies for the mistake. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it, ignore me. GiantSnowman 07:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​Thanks. BTW, I registered as user:fayenatic london, so pinging me with a capital L doesn't work. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CFD relist

Hi here, cfd relist should follow Template:Cfd relisted, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait next time bot updates WP:CFD/AC and I will look at that page after bot updates Hhkohh (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See [3], bot read discussion as closed Hhkohh (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Live and learn! I don't remember ever seeing that template used before; I've only seen the old discussions being left where they were, not replaced by the template. However, this template is mentioned in the infobox at WP:CFDAI, and I acknowledge that WP:CFDAC and the list linked above are both being updated in a way that does recognise the template. So, we might as well use it. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Economics writers

Economists are not a subset of economics writers, because economists aren't necessarily always writers at all. It should be the other way around, with economists as a parent to economics writers rather than a child. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bearcat: Agree that in general economists aren't necessarily always writers. However economists who are notable are nearly always writers as well. Notable economics writers = notable economists + notable economic journalists. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican expatriates in Israel

Nope, not at all. GiantSnowman 07:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sigh

Thank you for bringing that issue with that user to my attention. Posting it on something as high-traffic as A/N was not the best idea; I had to revdel five diffs (and I'll probably have to get it oversighted).

If you see something like that again, please put it on an admin's talkpage - preferably that of someone with oversight. DS (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd closures

Is it just me, or are some of the rash of closures Timrollpickering hs been doing unacceptably vague? Do he often do this stuff? I accept there has been a build-up. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish concentration camp survivors has been nominated for discussion

Category:Jewish concentration camp survivors, 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. Catrìona (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Community-building organizations

Would you allow that Jesuit development centres might be a Non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Community-building organizations? It seems to me that they should both be allowed. Would you suggest making Jesuit development centres a category by itself, so that such categories as "community-building" can be added to further specify the work? Jzsj (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj: Per WP:SUBCAT we do not categorize articles both in a category and also in its parent category, simply because an article in a category is supposed to belong to each of its parent categories as well. I can't see how that is different here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need HELP ! For creating babel in Meetei Mayek .

Information are here

  • mni 0 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯀꯔꯤꯁꯨ ꯈꯪꯕ ꯉꯝꯗꯦ ꯫
  • mni 1 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯑꯔꯥꯏꯕ ꯋꯥꯍꯪ ꯅꯠꯇꯔꯒ ꯑꯆꯝꯕ ꯑꯌꯤꯕ ꯄꯣꯠꯁꯛꯇꯤ ꯈꯪꯕ ꯉꯝꯃꯤ ꯫
  • mni 2 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯑꯆꯝꯕ ꯈꯟꯅ ꯅꯩꯅꯕꯒꯤ ꯃꯇꯥꯡꯗ ꯁꯦꯝꯒꯠꯄ ꯉꯝꯃꯤ ꯫
  • mni 3 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯑꯁꯤ ꯌꯥꯝ ꯁꯣꯏꯍꯟꯗꯅ ꯏꯕꯗꯤ ꯉꯝꯃꯤ ꯫
  • mni 4 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯏꯃꯥꯂꯣꯟꯒꯤ ꯃꯑꯣꯡꯒꯨꯝ ꯋꯥ-ꯉꯥꯡꯕ ꯉꯝꯕ (ꯑꯗꯨꯝ ꯑꯣꯏꯅꯃ. ꯑꯩꯒꯤ ꯏꯃꯥꯂꯣꯟꯗꯤ ꯅꯠꯇꯕ) ꯫
  • ‍mni 5 ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯟꯐꯝ ꯑꯃꯥ ꯑꯣꯏꯅ ꯍꯩꯔꯕ ꯑꯃꯗꯤ ꯈꯨꯃꯥꯡ ꯆꯥꯎꯁꯤꯟꯅ ꯌꯥꯝ ꯍꯩꯅ ꯑꯇꯣꯞꯄ ꯂꯣꯟꯗ ꯍꯟꯗꯣꯛꯄ ꯉꯝꯕ ꯫
  • mni N ꯃꯁꯤ ꯁꯤꯖꯤꯟꯅꯔꯤꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏ ꯑꯁꯤꯅ ꯃꯤꯇꯩꯂꯣꯟ ꯁꯤ ꯏꯃꯥꯂꯣꯟ ꯑꯣꯏꯖꯕ ꯑꯃꯁꯨꯡ ꯄꯟꯊꯩ-ꯄꯥꯎꯔꯧ ꯂꯣꯏꯅ ꯈꯪꯕ ꯍꯩꯕ ꯫


  • For Meetei Mayek font

Incubator:Wp/mni/ꯃꯔꯨꯑꯣꯏꯕ ꯂꯥꯃꯥꯏ

  • See also

Meetei language


We used " ꯫ " as full stop in writing an article in Meetei Mayek 


Awangba Mangang (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Something is wrong with the templates of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries and they no longer populate the Project's categories. Stop deleting categories, while we have to populate them by hand. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question and advice

What do you think about categories such as Category:Populated places in ancient Thessaly and similar for other historic regions of the ancient world to reduce the clutter in Category:Ancient Thessaly and Category:Geography of ancient Thessaly? We have some similar Category:Cities in ancient Epirus‎, but they are not being used carefully - not all are poleis of antiquity nor having city status under Macedon, Rome, or Byzantium. Technically, populated places not cities. I think it better to be accurate than not, and would like your opinion and advice as to creations and perhaps having a subcat entitled "cities" (as per Epirus) solely for poleis or cities qua cities. I appreciate your consideration. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess I should add that I don't like "Category:Places by former country" type constructions for a number of reasons; foremost, clutter: think about how many categories somewhere like Jerusalem or Istanbul would be in. However, for places that have been lost or their habitation is not continuous and only revived recently, it is ahistoric to say Troy is a city of Turkey - or to categorize it as such (it may be a formerly populated place in Turkey, but that's a nuance). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years of the 15th century in Germany

Hi, Category:Years of the 15th century in Germany should be deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 12#Medieval Germany, but it remains populated through a template. How should this be approached? ℯxplicit 00:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to force category number headings instead of 0-9?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T203355

@Marcocapelle, Fayenatic london, and BrownHairedGirl: due to yall's category experience, would you know how to segregate a category's contents into separate numerical subheadings; for example, 0, 1, 2, etc., instead of the default behavior grouping them under 0-9, similar to how A, B, C, etc. appear by default instead of A-Z...? I couldn't find a WP:MAGIC word for it and am out of ideas.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I have no idea even where to search for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Category refers to "the 0–9 heading", but doesn't offer any way to change it. Pinging User:DannyH (WMF) because he noticed the issue at meta:Talk:Community Tech/Numerical sorting in categories a couple of years ago. – Fayenatic London 06:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a category page, the subheading under which a given page is listed is determined by the first character of its sortkey. If that is a digit, the subheading will be 0-9, and that cannot be changed.
This is fairly recent behaviour: a couple of years back there could have been up to ten separate subheadings, one for each digit, but that was done away with when true numeric sorting was introduced. This in turn was done so that 10 could follow 9 instead of preceding 2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. It would still be useful to have a magic word to override default behavior, if that's possible. For example, I'm creating an error tracking category, and am assigning alphanumeric sortkeys based on the type of error encountered, and would like to use 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 separately. DannyH (WMF), how would I go about requesting a magic word to do this (assuming there's no other solution)? Should I start with a WP:VPR? I couldn't find any recent relevant discussions there.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that we can do here. It is a phab: matter. As a follow-up to my previous post: the category sorting algorithm was changed just under two years ago, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 149#Sorting in categories unreliable for a few days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction conventions categories

You recently closed a discussion and deleted Category:International science fiction conventions. (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_13#Category:International_science_fiction_conventions). Thank you.

On the same page there are two other similar headings waiting for decisions. Is there something that can be done to move the discussion along? User:Gameinfirmary and I have been cleaning up that corner of the database and our work is on hold. Fuddle (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything myself, as I am involved in these discussions. You just need to have some more patience, unfortunately. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gameinfirmary: You can file a request at WP:AN/RFC#Deletion discussions. Make sure you state which discussions you want closing, don't leave a blanket request for the whole day page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While you may be lucky this time, I generally have the experience that this does not speed up the closure of the discussion very much. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
category magic
... you were recipient
no. 1723 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews and Judaism in Ottoman Palestine has been nominated for discussion

Category:Jews and Judaism in Ottoman Palestine, 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. Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Century establishments template with no table

Hi, I'm not sure whether I've showed you this trick before: [4]

Hope this helps!

Looking around what's left, are the Republic of Florence etc supposed to be in Italy, or directly in Europe so that the old Italy categories are obsolete? E.g. Category:14th-century disestablishments in the Republic of Florence is in an Italy parent, but other Italy categories have become empty. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingdom of Arakan

Hi, no doubt you would see this anyway, but I have nominated Category:Kingdom of Arakan for splitting; please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_19#Category:Kingdom_of_Arakan. – Fayenatic London 10:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merbabu

Has basically quit, not much in sending message to him - automated or not

Also if you are going at this rate, I am no longer interested in whatever argument you bring up - you could be capable of pulling apart the whole of the south east asian project and the Indonesian one if you try hard enough.

I prefer and like it when you keep to getting rid of grandfather, father categories that exist in the larger project and so on - but really if you are sufficiently efficient and rigorous, you are going to find projects that simply do not have participants with the slightest interest in your dismantling. It might all make good sense to you - but in the end some parts of the Indonesian project are fragile due to lower editor involvement, and systematic erosion of the component parts of the potential project - will neither elicit a response, or even a flicker of the objection - as those interested are simply not around anymore. One thing to keep such a project is problematic enough, removing parts of the category tree may indeed be fulfilling for you, but after this message, do not expect explanations or contexts from me about things, it gets too demoralising. Happy editing. JarrahTree 12:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Executed Widerstand Catholics

Category:Executed Widerstand Catholics

Hi Marco, I noticed that you created this category. I was considering 1) renaming to an English name, such as "Executed Catholic members of the German resistance" or 2) deletion, figuring that being in Category:Roman Catholics in the German Resistance and Category:Executed German Resistance members is sufficient. Would appreciate your input. Thanks. Catrìona (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Catrìona: I will certainly support a rename. In fact I initiated a speedy rename of the parent category from Widerstand to German Resistance myself, see this dif, but apparently I forgot to include this category in the nomination. Also I won't oppose a merge to the parent categories, in fact I do not remember why I specifically created this category at the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would prefer deletion because it seems like they were executed for their resistance activities, rather than their membership in the Catholic Church. In addition, many of the articles Category:Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church are miscategorized because many were persecuted by Nazi Germany for reasons unrelated to Catholic faith. Catrìona (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed Widerstand Catholics has been nominated for discussion

Category:Executed Widerstand Catholics, 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. Catrìona (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu movements and organisations

Are you thinking about splitting Category:Hindu movements and organisations? Editor2020 (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary on category adjustments

Hi, Marcocapelle, thanks for all your work on Categorization. A request: could you please use more transparent edit summaries on non-obvious category adjustments? For example, on this one to Sant (religion), a summary of new key for Category:Hindu religious leaders isn't all that helpful; I had to go look at the category page to see that you meant to move the article listing to the top of the category page to separate it from the biographies (at least, that's my assumption; I can't read your mind). If so, can you just say that, instead? Something like, Sort to top of category along with other non-biographies or whatever way appeals to you. In general, an edit summary that merely describes what anyone can see by looking at the wikicode ("blanked category key", "new key for category XYZ") is not that helpful; what's useful, is your intent or goal in doing so. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mathglot: With all due respect I do not agree with WP:EDITSUMCITE when it comes to explaining why. Edit summaries are imo useful because they save editors the effort to check the code to see what has been changed. If someone does not understand why the change was made a discussion is needed. I sometimes see discussions by means of edit summaries (especially in cases of multiple reverting) but I don't think that is the right way to go, generally. Besides your request would boil down to no longer using Hotcat (which automatically generates the edit summary for category changes), while this is a commonly used tool by editors frequently working in categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered if Hotcat might in fact be the culprit. I've noticed some analogous problems with other semiautomated processes, can't remember if with Huggle, Twinkle, AWB, or which one it was now, but I wish they would all give you the ability to override the default summary with one of your own. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Marcocapelle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli settlement has been nominated for discussion

Category:Israeli settlement, 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. ImTheIP (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church categories

Thank you for sorting churches finer! Two questions: why "Roman Catholic" when our article is simply "Catholic"? And evangelisch means Protestant. Lutheran needs "evangelisch-lutherisch", and there's also Reformed, "evangelisch-reformiert". I am not sure about some articles. Reinoldi Dortmund for example, I'd be surprised if it was not plain evangelisch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protect an article

Do you know how to protect an article? I'm having an issue at Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Editor2020 (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks you guys. Editor2020 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP number block

@NinjaRobotPirate: You just blocked my IP address for reasons that I do not understand. I am just a private user, editing at my vacation laptop, have been editing from this laptop all week, and have used this laptop during numerous earlier vacations. Is it the Wifi connection that is insecure? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP number block

@NinjaRobotPirate: You just blocked my IP address for reasons that I do not understand. I am just a private user, editing at my vacation laptop, have been editing from this laptop all week, and have used this laptop during numerous earlier vacations. Is it the Wifi connection that is insecure? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. You need to follow the instructions given in the block notice when you try to edit. In particular, I suspect you've been hit by an autoblock. The system should give you instructions on how to appeal that. If you can't figure it out, I guess let me know, and I'll dig deeper with the checkuser tool. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marcocapelle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. WhatismyIP.com provides the following information: * Your Public IPv4 is: 82.113.183.179 (I guess this is due to my Wifi connection?) * Your IPv6 is: Not Detected * Your Local IP is: 192.168.0.32

Decline reason:

Often, public internet/WiFi like that on trains is blocked either due to extensive vandalism from that range or the fact that it is a webhost. I'm afraid you will need to wait until you reach a location that is not blocked to be able to edit. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The range 82.113.183.179 is within is blocked as a webhost range. Have you recently started editing in a different physical location than previously? 331dot (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some users in your position might be able to request an IP block exemption, but these are rarely granted, and only for good cause. Typically that is when the user is from a country that restricts Wikipedia or internet use in general(like China). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first time one of my blocks turned out to be wifi on a train. Give me a minute, and I'll change this to be anon-only. From what I can tell, this block was in response to typical vandalism, not long-term abuse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing people by descent

It would be appreciated if you weighed in at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Update on Category:American people of African descent and explained why you focused on the "American people of African descent" and "American people of Asian descent" categories and not also on categories like Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of German descent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? You did after I asked you to. As you know, we discussed the matter. I don't see why you felt the need to reply in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: My apologies. I just got a notification that I had 4 new messages on my talk page and I assumed this was one of them. Next time I will have a better look at the date. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split Category

I see you are working through religious articles. Do you think we should remove Category:Lists of theologians and religious studies scholars? The articles List of religious studies scholars and List of religious studies scholars already exist, and "List of" seems odd for a category. Editor2020 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comment about CFD closures

At WP:ANFRC, you posted about "General comment about CFD closures". I am not saying that you are wrong about doing so. However, I have been told that "people are aware that there is a backlog" and that you may want to "close the simplest discussions yourself" (unless you do not have the authority to do so, i.e. deletion). Just my two cents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Marcocapelle,

Ive seen your edits on quite a number of articles on medieval europe and I would just like to ask for your help in searching for citations regarding the birth and death years of a few lesser known Merovingian kings (the rois faineats) since right now quite a few of the dates/sources given are dubious.

Many thanks! FlavusTitus — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlavusTitus (talk • contribs) 05:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding removal of parent categories to avoid circular categorization

I noticed that you and other users removed parent categories for Category:Philosophy, like Humanities, Abstractions, Thought, Academic disciplines, Beliefs. Doing so seems unintuitive and illogical to me. Is there an universal concensus to kill circular categorization at all consts? If so, can you give me some info on why this was made "recently" (during the last few years)? Because I wonder if it's worth. CN1 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcocapelle&oldid=882415629"