Jump to content

User talk:Marcocapelle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zingvin (talk | contribs) at 02:23, 10 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree that Marcopelle should stop editing anything related to categories. Hawaan12 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, Johnbod has added the categories back. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ~ RobTalk 19:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

CFDs

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ~ RobTalk 13:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. ~ RobTalk 23:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply] 

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

?

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

I see, because of this. Sorry Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @WilliamJE: Thanks for checking, you are completely right. I'll correct it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment misplaced?

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

Ottoman history cat etc

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • @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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcocapelle&oldid=784792995"