User talk:Marcocapelle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


HI, I recall looking at the saints tree and decided it was a mess - hence my suggestion to start a slower conversation vs. at CFD where people feel pressured to !vote. Take a look at the whole tree and see what other inconsistencies you find - we should never have a female category as a subset of a male one, for example - I did a lot of clean up in the royalty tree since princesses were often children of princes, instead of sibling categories. But then once you start that broader discussion we can take our time to figure out best solution, and then if anything needs to be killed or renamed we can bring to CFD, pointing to previous pseudo-consensus from the other page. Let me know if this makes sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of "unncessary diffusion"[edit]

When I undid St. Timothy I hadn't realised that the parent category had been sub-divided. I don't believe that Category:New Testament people as a whole needs diffusion. I just don't have the energy to continually fight these misguided attempts to do so. While sorting people by the bit of the New Testament they get a mention in sounds like a good idea initially, maturer reflection shows that it leads to an unhelpful proliferation of categories. Taking Timothy as an example, he's mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, several Pauline epistles, and Hebrews. A category for each of these on the bottom of his article, in addition to the 14 other categories he's already in, is too many. And under the current scheme what does one do with Jesus? Add another 27 categories to his article? I'm cross-posting this to Laurel's talk page as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Dear Beeswaxcandle, I realize that occasionally people fall in two categories, but I created the categories such that it doesn't happen very often. To add on your 27 number, I agree that it's definitely not meaningful to subdivide any further than these three categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Female religious leaders[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry I didn't notice your proposals at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2 about women clergy earlier; I'm glad it's still open! Thanks for making these proposals. I have suggested using "Religious leaders" rather than "clergy"; please comment. – Fayenatic London 10:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eastern Orthodoxy-related controversies[edit]

Hello Marcocapelle,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Eastern Orthodoxy-related controversies for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of categories[edit]

Hi, thanks for your edits but removal of these categories was ill advised, I've restored them. You may want to note on Talk pages before or after removing any similar. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages in categories[edit]

Hi. I've looked at Talk:Christian views on the Old Covenant too and don't see how it has been added to any categories. I would think that no talk pages (including user talks) should be in categories. I also saw your reverted edit that implied my own talk page is in a number of categories. If that is true, and if you find out how to remove them, I would appreciate it if you could pass that technique along to me. It is definitely not my intention, and I'd be happy to know how to rid the categories of such things also. Evensteven (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about the latter, I thought I was still on your personal talk page but I was actually the article's talk page when I noticed the categorizations. So that was initially just a wrong insert from my side. As for the first point, you'll have understood that I have no idea how to remove them. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Thanks, regarding my talk page. On second thought though, do some special categories exist specifically for article talk pages? I'm thinking of project classifications (importance, article quality ratings, etc) of articles specifically. Talk:Christian views on the Old Covenant includes use of three templates for three projects that the article belongs to, and perhaps those templates create (transclude) automatic entries for such special-purpose categories. In that case, I would guess that they shouldn't be touched except through the controlling templates, as automation would be responsible for providing accuracy and consistency. Evensteven (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear Evensteven, I removed the links to the categories from Talk:Christian views on the Old Covenant and this resulted in removal of the categories that were in this particular discussion. So at least that's part of the deal! Still, the talk page is classified in a number of other categories that aren't mentioned on the talk page. I don't have any idea why. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Marcocapelle, cc User:Evensteven, As previous request, could you please stop deleting categories, discuss first on Talk pages, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • In ictu oculi, I have not been involved in deleting categories. This communication is about talk pages themselves being in categories, and I was asking questions only. In particular, I was interested in removing my own user talk page from any categories it might have been in, as this did not seem right. I'd be glad to know if I'm off track about that, as this is not a subject I know much about at present. Evensteven (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


Don't you think that Christian views on Hades should be merged into Christian views on Hell? Editor2020 04:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I completely agree. However, trying to get articles merged is not a priority for me personally. Meanwhile I've come to the finding that it's even more difficult to have an article edited, merged or deleted than have a category merged or deleted, because people really feel as if they're the owner of an article (especially so with articles that have a very limited audience of readers and editors, like this one will undoubtedly have). Having said that, if you would be willing to nominate this page to be merged/deleted and you would update me about it then I'll definitely support you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

German words and phrases[edit]

Hi Marcocapelle,

I think I disagree with your removal of Fach from Category:German_words_and_phrases. If you look at the article it discusses terminology of various Fächer at length. But you're removing many other articles and it's hard to tell what your criteria are. Isn't Category_talk:German_words_and_phrases the obvious place to outline your project? Sparafucil (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It is definitely the right place, but so far I've experienced that nobody ever replies when I post something as a category talk. It seems like this is just not a place where anyone would ever look into. Which I think is very unfortunate. As for your disagreement, I think generally I've been quite conservative, but occasionally I may have acted too quickly, like the one you mention. For further info please check Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_12#Category:French_words_and_phrases (which was posted merely as an example language). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you could assume if no one replies there that it's not that controversial. I don't understand your rational though; can't you explain it? I didn't quite understand what you were getting at before withdrawing the Fr. deletion proposal either. Sparafucil (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm thinking about renaming Category:Christian politics to Christianity and politics, as a subcategory of Religion and politics. Thoughts or input? Editor2020 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Definitely agree, not only for consistency, but also because it would additionally allow to classify controversies between Christianity and politics in here. Funny detail, two articles are already classified in Category:Christianity and politics while it doesn't even exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Editor2020: Wait, there's also a Category:Church and state law which is almost all (but not entirely) about Christianity and hence has a substantial overlap with Category:Christian politics. I think, ideally, the highest level should become:
and a level below that
(the latter two containing most of current Category:Christian politics but not the part overlapping parts with Category:Church and state law).

Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to add even more categories to the multitude we have now. Editor2020 20:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
ps. I'm not sure, but I think that Category:Church and state law is supposed to be about Separation (or non-separation) of Church and State, i.e "church and state" law. Editor2020 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? I hadn't even considered this. The current content of the category is also much broader than just that and I don't see an urgent reason to limit the contents to just separation issues. About what I wrote above, let's just forget it for now. If you propose the rename, I'll support it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Christian law[edit]

You seem to be changing the scope of Category:Christian law, as the articles you are adding do not fit the main article template, which is a link to Church order? Editor2020 03:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Yes, I know, this can't be the final solution. The previous main article used to be Canon law which did not make sense because Canon law is a category on its own. And there is no article about Christian law because it redirects to Canon law! So my bet is that the original intention has been to have this category for Canon law/Church order related topics. But currently the category has become a strange mix of Church order, the two new "Law" child cats and some single articles of which I'd say they are more about ethics or beliefs than about law.
I have deliberately not moved out anything from this category as I haven't figured out a solution yet. Though I did add Canon law as a child category. And I grouped the two "Law" child cats so that they can easily be transferred somewhere else if anyone would know good solution for this. Now I'm thinking of it again, maybe the best solution is to just split the Christian law category in two, so Christian law and Church Order? What's your opinion? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Category tree[edit]

Do you know if it is possible to display a graphical representation of a category and all of its subcategories, up to X levels deep? Editor2020 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It has been possible for sure, and I don't think the option was hard to find. Since I can't find it back now, I'm afraid the option has been removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I found one, it's at Special:CategoryTree, mysteriously enough. Editor2020 16:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Okay but that's just a list, not a real tree. In fact I found what I meant previously, it's namely in Dutch wikipedia, there it shows real trees. Every category page has a line in small font that says:

Hulpmiddelen: Alle categorieën - Toon bovenliggende categorieboom (png/svg) - Toon onderliggende categorieboom (png/svg) - Zoek artikelen met CatScan.

If you click the second from left (bovenliggend, either png or svg) you see all categories above and if you click the third (onderliggend, either png or svg) you see all categories below, including their interconnections. That is really cool! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Easter & History category[edit]

I don't understand the purpose of Category:Easter and history, which you created and stuck some articles into. What kind of articles should this category have? What related to Easter *isn't* also related to history? In particular, I don't see the merit in sticking the various alternate theories of the resurrection of Jesus into this article. "Easter" usually includes the holiday & the Christian theology thereof; these aren't exactly related to that, and the original Category:Resurrection of Jesus seems much more on point. But maybe I'm missing something? SnowFire (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear SnowFire, I've pointed out the scope of the category more clearly by indicating the lead article. In addition, please note that I created the category originally as a childcat of "Christianity and history", that's also how I got inspiration for this category name. If you feel the category should be named differently (most likely in accordance with the lead article), feel free to propose and I won't object. Also, if you think it is more appropriate to have this category as a child of Category:Resurrection of Jesus rather than of Category:Easter, I won't object either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


I added Category:Anglo-Saxon gods, but it displays as Category:English gods. Editor2020 03:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just checked, apparently Category:Anglo-Saxon gods is being redirected to Category:English gods. It might be a good idea to reverse this redirection, or not? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Italian municipalities CFD[edit]

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15, which explains the rationale for "Communes" rather than municipalities.

Oh, and see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_13#Category:Proposed_public_transport_in_Brazil which I think will be to your liking, as it allows most of one layer to be removed. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

large tree exception[edit]

The main reason for this exception is that it would create large categories if we upmerged a whole lot of small categories into a larger one. Another reason for the exception is that in some places we are categorizing by a basic trait of the articles involved. Nationality and occupation are both well established traits. I think in general as long as there are enough articles to justify having a particular occupation category split by nationality, we should split by all nationalities we can find.

CfD closure[edit]

Hi, thanks for your interest in closing CfD discussions, especially during the current backlog.

You asked here about withdrawing a nomination. It's fine to do this early on if you see it as a mistake. Please either just record "withdrawn", or do both the following:

  1. close the discussion with {{cfd top}} and -bottom templates. See WP:CFDAI for where they go.
  2. then, remove the template from the category page(s).

However, once there has been substantial discussion, I don't think you should do this. It's fine to record "withdrawn", but an independent closer might judge that there has been sufficient discussion to close it as a "keep" outcome, which has some value as a precedent and should be recorded on the category talk page.

Incidentally, if you feel like closing any discussions in which you have not participated, that would be very welcome. Please read WP:Non-admin closure and WP:Consensus if you have not done closures before. Any that you judge have a consensus of "Keep" or "No consensus", you could implement yourself. The instructions are at WP:CFDAI.

If you would like to do Non-Admin Closures of any of the early ones outstanding on the list at WP:CFDAC, I'll be willing to implement any of your closures that need admin rights (i.e. deleting, merging or renaming). Let me know on or off-wiki if you would like any more guidance! – Fayenatic London 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


If classical religions are no longer regarded as paganism, then what is? There is 3000+ years of sources referring to it as paganism. Isn't it verging on OR to say that it's no longer used? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to be very careful about using Wikipedia's naming of articles to determine status and should use the definition of Paganism provided in the article,

"a broad group of indigenous and historical polytheistic religious traditions—primarily those of cultures known to the classical world. In a wider sense, paganism has also been understood to include any non-Abrahamic, folk, or ethnic religion."

If it's polytheistic, indigenous, non-Abrahamic and old, it's paganism. If it's not old, it's neopaganism. Editor2020 02:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Some further observations on the definition in Paganism:
  1. "indigenous religions" redirects to ethnic religion, so this part of the definition excludes Hellenism and Ancient Roman religion
  2. "of cultures known to the classical world": is by this part of the definition paganism including or excluding classical religions? I would say the latter.
  3. The next line says: "Modern ethnologists often avoid referring to non-classical and non-European, traditional and historical faiths as pagan". Which again says "non-classical" and besides the whole sentence seems to imply that Paganism shouldn't really be used as a category on Wikipedia at all.
  4. Also the further text of the article is far from fluent, apparently edited by different people with different views on paganism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It's like it was written by committee! Editor2020 16:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Black Hebrew Israelite religious leaders[edit]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT? Editor2020 02:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems like opinions diverge a bit when a category is small enough for WP:SMALLCAT. Personally I only take the initiative for a SMALLCAT nomination for categories of size 1 or 2. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Searching past CfD discussions[edit]

The easiest is to try the search box on the CfD page. For this one, as an admin, I went to the deleted page information and found out when the old page there was nominated and then pointed to that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Female clergy[edit]

I have closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy. DO you want to now implement the changes or do you need assistance? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment i'm on vacation and have only mobile access which makes it very cumbersome to implement. Is there a deadline for implementation? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have progressed this by implementing the decisions supported so far. – Fayenatic London 21:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with tagging for deletion the Category:Condensed phase[edit]

I looked at your and User:DexDor comments, and you two summed it up correctly what I wanted to do. I have never tagged a category for deletion, therefore, thanks for pointing out how to do it. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Church CfD[edit]

@Fayenatic london: @Laurel Lodged: @Sillyfolkboy: The content of Category:Church has been completely changed since the CfD started. Please consider joining the discussion again after this new development. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Re Category:Prince-Bishops of the Netherlands. According to the map, the bishopric extended into modern day Netherlands. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I know, but it's for such a limited part that I would suggest that "Netherlands" is not a defining characteristic of "Prince-Bishopric of Liege". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it wise to cherry pick which bits of the truth we like? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of like or dislike, it's a matter of judgment what Wikipedia community would still consider to be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


The word "Islamist" is a neologism and zero Muslims self-describe as such. Nonetheless Wikipedia has propelled this word for usgae at least hundreds of times; (See Category:Islamism and its subcategories). I would appreciate if you would rename them as i'm not sure how to do that. Thanks a lot. (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@ I'd be happy to teach how to nominate categories for renaming. However, you need to have a good motivation to begin with - and your claim that a word is a neologism is just not good enough. Since the word is being used already (in google you get 23 million hits), you should show written sources, e.g. academic papers or newspaper articles, that explain that this is really not a good word. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Shi'a Muslim monarchs‎‎[edit]

Sorry for missing that conversation (pinging me is a good way of making sure I'm still reading). I think you've read my comments correctly - i.e. Category:Shi'a Muslim monarchs should directly contain biographical monarch articles, and not serve as a container for the dynasty parent categories, as it is now. SFB 14:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • That's okay, I'll have another look some time, because this CfD is from so long time ago that I've forgotten what it is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Need help before I can close an old one.[edit]

I'm ready to close this old discussion. I'm just not sure of what the second target is for many of these. So can you sum it up for me? BTW, this is going to fall into a very large work queue for manual double upmerges. Drop a note on the talk page to get me to follow up on this. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tagging category[edit]

Re this: I would just tag it with Template:Cfd. The important thing is that it's tagged and that it directs to the discussion. It's not so important that it explain exactly what is being proposed—that's what your nomination is for. Alternatively, you could use Template:Cfm, since per the proposal the articles in the category may have to be merged to some other category. Either template would be fine, I would think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


I'm really not sure what you're doing in pruning the Christian apologists category, but I fear that you are doing so in an indiscriminate manner. To remove Thomas Aquinas is simply over the top, as Summa contra Gentiles clearly attests. Please make sure to read the articles carefully - if they mention apologetics in the lead, it should be kept in the category. StAnselm (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @StAnselm: Thomas Aquinas doesn't mention apologetics in the lead and presumably quite right so, because his theology was much broader than just apologetics. It seems like currently nearly every theologian and Christian writer is being classified as apologist which merely turns it into an indiscriminate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, most of the removals I can't contest - I've only reverted a few. StAnselm (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with StAnselm that Aquinas should remain in the Christian apologists category, as a major figure in classical apologetics. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I didn't mean I was going to contest StAnselm's revert, it was just to explain my initial edit. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Monks and nuns who committed suicide[edit]

I did a quick change to the nomination at Category:Monks and nuns who committed suicide. I think you intended the split to be into one or the other and not both. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bishops of Jamaica, Bishops of Egypt[edit]

@Kelapstick:, @Laurel Lodged: In this discussion you supported the rename of Category:Bishops of Jamaica to Category:Anglican bishops in Jamaica. Could you perhaps join this new discussion about Bishops of Egypt, which is very similar to the Jamaican situation, in order to indicate if they should also be renamed to Anglican bishops of Egypt or, alternatively, if we should reconsider Jamaica? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 10 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |I suggest that the original name of the category should be restored]]. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Zinzendorf as theologian[edit]

Hi, I noticed the category deletion. While the Wikipedia article may not touch on it much, he was a theologian that seriously affected the Moravian Church, if not even others. His "blood and wounds" theology left a serious mark, for example. He was also the innovator of such theological speculations such as the Holy Spirit being female. I just thought I would see what you were thinking before I undid your revision. Thanks, Mikeatnip (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • The article in its current state does not mention much of theological work, only hymns and sermons. If you know more about it, then please expand the article.Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(American) People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian Descent[edit]

Hi, FYI that category was ALREADY considered for deletion two years ago. After in-depth consideration & contributions from experts in Byzantine history, cultural anthropology...etc. it was decided BY CONSENSUS to keep the category in question =>> I invite you to really read the corresponding Wikipedia archives before opening unnecessary CfD debates . . . B.Andersohn (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no harm in bringing it up again. Two years is more than enough of a gap between discussions on the same topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marco. Just read your reply. In a nutshell, FYI there are already FIVE other “ethnic” or “religious” (I don’t like the terms as we’re talking about a nuanced ethno-cultural group here) categorizations in Wikipedia + these are (highly) overlapping categories : the more general but v. old-fashioned “Melkite” (“…said to have been a mixed one made up of individuals who were originally Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Jewish…” = more “ethnic” definition + lost most of its significance circa 1730 CE… but still in use) and also “Greek Orthodox of Antioch” (more religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades), “Greek Orthodox of Jerusalem” (purely religious/geographic), “Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Antioch and Jerusalem” (an offshoot of the GOA = religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades ), “Rûm” (can be construed as “ethnic” or “ethno-cultural”, but rather vague as it also encompasses Western/Central Anatolian and Constantinoplean “Karaman” European Greeks with no connection whatsoever to Antioch/Cilicia/Syria or Jerusalem) and also “Antiochian Greeks” (either too narrowly restrictive = “ethnic Greeks of Cilicia and Aleppo” (that v. old definition tends to disappear) or too vague/too broad = simply synonymous of “Greek Orthodox of Antioch” but diluting the religious/cultural aspects of GOA and MGCCA with a mostly ethnic classification … ==> “People of Greek Orthodox-Levantine Descent” is more modern, clearer, sharper - yet broader and more nuanced. B.Andersohn (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


@B.Andersohn: @Good Olfactory: In the CfD discussion, would you both be willing to change the font color from black into grey for all texts that are related to the process of the discussion but not related to the content of the discussion? I'm just trying to think of a way to make the reading of the discussion a bit easier. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"would you ... be willing to change the font color from black into grey for all texts that are related to the process" = fine with me. As long as it's done the right way: I trust you & GOF on that front. B.Andersohn (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pascal as theologian[edit]

Please be careful with existing categories. Unless you have some special knowledge of the subject, it's probably worth assuming these are valid. Pascal was definitely a theologian, as well. HGilbert (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

With categories, the question is not whether Pascal was a theologian. The question is whether his status as a theologian is a defining characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd argue that's true in this case, but it's also worth mentioning that the "defining" test is flakily applied at best, hence the presence of things like Category:Burials at Saint-Étienne-du-Mont (and the whole Category:Burials by place tree), which suggests thousands of people are commonly and consistently defined as being a burial at a certain place. SFB 11:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
yes, and biographies consistently mention this aspect of his life and work, which is what WP:DEFINING spells out as the test. HGilbert (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, a number of biographical entries mention Pascal as a theologian in the heading or first sentence: [1][2][3] StAnselm (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Although personally I don't agree, I will respect the consensus on Pascal being categorized as a theologian. Btw I have deleted the contribution of B.Andersohn as we had a bit of an argument about a completely different subject, I don't believe his contribution here adds any value. 20:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Sillyfolkboy: The main reason the "defining" guideline on categories is applied "flakily" is because it's very easy to create a category and a categorization system, and doing so requires zero knowledge of the guidelines on categorization. When categories are nominated for discussion, the guidelines are generally applied, but almost literally any category can exist from creation to nomination largely unmolested and untouched by the guidelines that apply to it. So I think that the "flakiness" of application is a pretty bad reason for those who do know about the guidelines to say that they are going to ignore them or give them short shrift. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Marcocapelle, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas & ooo message[edit]

Merry Christmas to everyone who visits my talk page these days. Please note that, until December 31st, I will probably respond less frequently and less elaborate to anything that happens in Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Marcocapelle -- I believe you are watching the article Cilicia and will review this latest edit [4]. I can't judge the appropriateness of the added material, but I just wanted to point out that it broke up the word "Byzantine", so that only "zantine" appears after the newly added material. CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It's actually not on my watchlist, but I corrected it anyway. Thanks for spotting! Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of "not a defining characteristic of this article"[edit]

What do you mean by removing people from the Greek Orthodox categories with the above explanation? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NONDEF. Nearly all people of Greek and Russian nationality are a member of the Orthodox Church and will have been married and have had a funeral in an Orthodox Church so those are not defining criteria for a person. An article should give specific personal info on their being a member of the Orthodox Church. The category becomes of much more value to users of the category if the articles in the category do so. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Saints categories[edit]

These are pretty messy, but your edits often do not help. It is NOT a good idea to remove one from an RC/EO category merely because there is nothing specific in the article (there often is in an external link). Being "Byzantine saints" does NOT mean an RC category is not needed. Equally before a certain date RC & EO categories are inappropriate - the late-Roman one does for both. And so on.... Frankly I wish you you would leave these alone. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I already gave up after I realized it was too messy. Happy to discuss how to improve at some point of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Film writers[edit]

Just wanted to ask a favour. In the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 27#Category:Film writers, you registered support for my renaming proposal — but after you posted your comment, another user offered an alternative wording, "Writers on film" instead of "Writers about film", which I'm also comfortable with. (Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area has some subcategories named in both formats, although "on" does seem to be used more frequently than "about" is.) So I wanted to ask if you could look at the discussion again for a moment — if you have no strong opinion either way regarding the on vs. about question, that's completely cool, but if you do have a preference it would be helpful if you could add that to the discussion as an update to your original post. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note[edit]

my recent comments (with very recent edits) in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21#Category:Metropolitans of Kiev and all Rus'.Axxxion (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • perhaps you could sort out the problem with the List of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev#Notes bungled reference. The current problem was caused by my edit, but there had already been a similar problem. I just cannot get to the bottom of it there.Axxxion (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It looks like it's solved now, I changed UOC-MP2 to UOC-MP1. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Space Goth[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Space Goth, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on Sybaris on the Traeis[edit]

Can you please take a look at this edit you made to Sybaris on the Traeis? I see that you removed Category:Archaeological sites in Calabria from Medma with the same edit summary, but here you removed Category:Ancient Greek sites in Italy? Assuming that you are removing Category:Archaeological sites in Calabria because these cities haven't been discovered, I agree with your change. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Indirectly yes, because the cities haven't been discovered there can't be an archaeological site. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Greek city-states[edit]

Well, Troy is currently a subcat, and it's not in Greece. More generally, while Greek city-states in Magna Graecia would generally be considered Greek colonies, many Ionian cities such as Phocaea definitely are Greek city-states. Phocaea is a subcat of Ionian League‎, itself a sebcat of Greek city-state federations. Place Clichy (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough! Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders in the United States[edit]

Hi, I should have told you sooner that I've nominated Category:Religious leaders in the United States for speedy merger. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: No worries, you did tell it earlier, I've seen your message in the CfD discussion. I have no objection at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ancient Slovakia[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Ancient Slovakia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~HackedBotato Chat with meContribs 15:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please engage in discussion about mass cat removals and changes[edit]

I pinged you on my talk page a couple of days ago in order to establish what you are doing with categories, and what you intend to establish as an alternative structure.

You've not responded as yet, and are still removing categories and going straight to the categories to be moved board without engaging with the regular editors of the articles it is affecting.

I would be extremely grateful if you would engage as your logic is being lost on myself and at least one other editor who has noticed this activity. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this matter of collaborative editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Marcocapelle. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 06:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Maybe I do not know procedure, but I explained why I do it in edit summary. You should not create categories which refer to two so distinct time periods, one medieval another Habsburg. There are lot of issues involved here. Firstly medieval Kingdom of Hungary was very different from Habsburg one. Secondly, there was Ottoman period, which separated two periods. Thirdly, Habsburg period includes several separate Habsburg lands, which were not part of Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, etc. Redbluelighting (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Redbluelighting: Although the Habsburg administration of the Kingdom of Hungary may have been different in some respects, it was also a continuation of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary in many respects. It's not a coincidence that we have a large Category:Kingdom of Hungary with many subcategories and articles that are applicable to the whole or a large part of the 1000-1918 history of Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia have separate articles about each period of the Kingdom of Hungary. Categorization should follow that. Therefore, category "Kingdom of Hungary" should be rather divided into several subcategories like "Kingdom of Hungary (medieval)", "Kingdom of Hungary (1526-1699)", "Kingdom of Hungary (1699-1867)", "Kingdom of Hungary (1867-1918)", as all of these are very distinct time periods in the history of that Kingdom. Redbluelighting (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Redbluelighting: That's fair enough but beside the point of our discussion, if I'm correct. The point being there is a more or less continuous history of the Kingdom of Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of the Kingdom of Hungary in all these time periods was rather nominal than factual. Besides that, this continuation did not covered all territories during the history. For example, the territory of Slovakia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary during all these periods, but it is not case with some other territories like Transylvania or Vojvodina, which had periods of Ottoman history and Habsburg history outside of the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary. For example, some parts of modern Vojvodina were within Habsburg Military Frontier until year 1882 and were not part of the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary before that year. I also started discussion about these topics on several talk pages:

You also removed article "Budin eyalet" from history categories of several countries. Why? If you look part of that article about administrative divisions, you will see that some of these administrative divisions were located in Kosovo, Croatia, etc: When you recategorizing articles you should not assume that these categories were placed there wrongly. Instead, please try to read article text to see why one article is placed in all these categories. Redbluelighting (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions as to how best to break down the periods into smaller and more intuitive categories, Redbluelighting? Naturally, there would probably still be overlaps but, ultimately, the existence of such categories is to provide the reader with a good method of cross-referencing and further exploring the content of related articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox holiday: Revision history[edit]

Marcocapelle, You mentioned that there were implications with our holiday nominations to Template:Infobox holiday. Now that those categories are being deleted, I'm not exactly clear on what needs to be done here. Is this something I can help with? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @RevelationDirect: I hope you can! I've opened the syntax of the template once and it apparently assigns categories automatically, based on the contents in the Infobox in the article. If certain categories are deleted I would expect that the categorization rules in the template need to be adapted accordingly. User:Fayenatic london has also mentioned this. I would prefer not to do this myself as I'm not at all acquainted with template syntax. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As you noticed from my comments at CFD, the template does already test for the existence of the categories that are populated via the infobox. For the "to be determined" ones, simply comment-out that line within the infobox, as I have done for one. Presumably the other two "to be determined" could likewise be nominated at CFD now. – Fayenatic London 17:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Orthodox bishops[edit]

There was sufficient consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_21#Category:Albanian_Orthodox_bishops to close it per the nomination. Please purge afterwards as required.

Also, please would you add a note on the category pages stating the date/century from which each category is effective, and that bishops before that date should be categorised in Category:Bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (or whatever else might apply)? – Fayenatic London 17:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Done. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Greek sites[edit]

Hi, pinging as requested – I just closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_24#Category:Ancient_Greek_sites_by_country. – Fayenatic London 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

CFD implementation[edit]

Hi, I'm really glad you're helping with closing CFDs. Please remember to remove the CFD templates from category pages after a keep or "no consensus" close, e.g. this one. WP:CFDWR is not protected, so you can use that as a non-admin; just list the category links, as a bulleted list (see the page history for examples). Ideally, you'd add an {{old cfd}} template (or, in a simple case, {{cfd end}}) to at least the top category's talk page; see WP:CFDAI for the full instructions for admins. Thanks again! – Fayenatic London 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Fayenatic london: You're right, I have added this template when I closed a couple of discussions a few weeks earlier but I forgot to add it yesterday. I'll check them again.
By the way, the backlog has grown enormously during the last couple of months and although I still feel quite junior I thought it would not harm to do the less risky types of closures like keep, no consensus, administrative closure, delete empty category. In one case I closed the discussion as deleted whereas the category still contained only one member, in that case I just emptied the category and inserted a speedy deletion template. The latter might not have been entirely official procedure but it was effective anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, that's a fine way to do it. {{Db-xfd|votepage=link to closed discussion}} is probably the best template to use (it's listed under G6 at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). – Fayenatic London 07:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not faulting you at all for closing this; although you obviously know we're not meant to close after participating in a discussion, you recorded your rationale for doing so, which IMHO is fair enough given the current backlog at WP:CFDAC.
You redirected the old category using the ordinary redirect markup. Please note that for categories there is a special template, {{category redirect}}. It helps to use this, because if someone selects a category redirect page using WP:HOTCAT, HOTCAT substitutes the target category automatically. You may find that a useful trick; e.g. if you close a small category as "rename" and want to keep a redirect anyway, it's very quick to change the category on each of the members (no typing required). – Fayenatic London 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Just dropping in to thank you again for your ongoing help at CFD, including housekeeping at WP:CFDAC. – Fayenatic London 10:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Protestant denominational families[edit]

Hi, I noticed this category and think that it's a good idea. However another editor has placed a "non-diffusing" banner on it. Was that your intention? I think that the banner isd a bad idea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide an opinion[edit]

Would you please check out Category:Abrahamic texts and provide your opinion. Thanks! Editor2020, Talk 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. either the name and the scope of the category needs to be changed to Category:Texts of Abrahamic religions per actual content, i.e. drop the overlap criterion;
  2. or the category should be upmerged to Category:Religious texts because almost nothing in the category qualifies as overlap per the current scope.
Personally I don't have much affinity with Abrahamic religions as a WP categorization layer (so I would rather go for the second alternative from that perspective) but since it's an established tree it'll probably be easier to get consensus on the first solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Editor2020, Talk 22:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Editor2020: Have you decided what you are going to do with it? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think upmerging to Category:Religious texts would be best. If you would like to nominate it, please do. Editor2020, Talk 15:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Polish Austro-Hungarians CFD discussion[edit]

I closed the discussion per your withdrawn but just so you know, the fact that a split requires manual review isn't a reason not to list it or to request a split. We have an entire set-up for categories requiring manual work at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. If it's a legitimate discussion to remove the category, the main ones can be moved with the OR issues, etc. done a case-by-case basis. In contrast, we had a discussion about ancient crimes: I disagree and felt that you were arguing that the categories shouldn't exist because they should have been empty since the articles in them weren't on point. To me, that means the articles needed to be removed and then the categories listed for CSD C1 (and if someone reverts to put it back, then the article talk page discusses whether the category is appropriate). That's separate from whether the concept of the category is legitimate. Thanks for your help at CFD otherwise, we have backlogs a plenty. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your feedback, greatly appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Any time. If you're going to help close and get rid of the backlog, I wanted to make sure you knew that you can list complicated ones too. Also, double-check your sig. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: With my signature, that's strange, I'm sure I've typed a 4~ as usual because I've never typed the date and time manually. Do you have any idea about the cause? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
* You probably had one too many. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Rename Category[edit]

Shouldn't Category:2nd-century B.C.E. biblical manuscripts be renamed to either Category:2nd-century BCE biblical manuscripts or Category:2nd-century BC biblical manuscripts Editor2020, Talk 23:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Editor2020: It seems very obvious to rename to the latter (since BC is the usual form), I guess you can nominate this for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Editor2020: Is there any reason why you haven't nominated the category yourself (yet)? I'm just curious :-) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Things don't seem to work out well when I get involved with those guys. ;) Editor2020, Talk 21:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Editor2020: You could have increased your hit rate with an easy one as this. Too late though because now I'm doing it on your behalf. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Hot springs of France[edit]

Hello Marcocapelle. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Hot springs of France, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: category no longer empty - the category reference in Fontaine Chaude was coded wrong, but I have fixed it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

997 in Germany[edit]

I object to having a 10th-century in Belgium category at all. Belgium in the 10th-century is an anachornism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Czech history categories[edit]

@Brandmeister: I noticed that this discussion was closed as 'no consensus', probably because the two of us disagreed on the exact target, while we actually agreed on the necessity to rename, so 'no consensus' is the worst outcome for both of us. Can we reach consensus on any of the two alternatives and try a new nomination together? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would accept possible alternatives like "in Bohemia" instead of "Czech lands", etc in case of renomination. Brandmeistertalk 20:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

More Award categories: White Elephant[edit]

Hi, after your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5#A_few_more_award_categories there remain other White Elephant award categories, currently linked from this one: Category:Knights Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Elephant. Presumably these are no more notable. – Fayenatic London 14:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with CFD nominating a group of categories[edit]

Thanks for the advice but I've been having the greatest difficulty trying to nominate the "Lakes of..." Scotland categories en masse. I've either misunderstood or it seems very much more laborious than addressing each category individually with Twinkle. Are you referring to the few lines after "For umbrella nominations..." in the instructions, in which case it has to be compiled manually (there are 19 categories)? I've tried to construct a nomination listing 4 for now, with the intention of adding the rest as and when I do it correctly. I then have to add the merge template to each category page separately (is that right?), but when I do this it, unsurpsrisingly I guess, it separately duplicates the nomination on the CFD page. When you say "you need to add the title that you use for the collective nomination", is that within the the syntax of Template:Cfm; I'm afraid I don't understand what form the synatax should take. Thanks for your help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Mutt Lunker: The correct syntax to place in (for example) Lakes of Argyll and Bute‎ (with the intention to merge into Loch of Argyll and Bute)‎ is:
As you'll see, the template now also appears on this page, so I'll remove it after you've seen it. With 19 categories it's quickly done when you click the bluelink "this category's entry" after you've saved the template. By clicking the bluelink you're immediately back on the right CfD page. With a more excessive amount of nominations (i.e. many dozens) it's okay to ask for help. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - saw what you were doing and tried it with Category:Lakes of Dumfries and Galloway but it doesn't seem to have appeared at the CFD page. Will try to see what I've done wrong. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mutt Lunker: Yes, you succeeded in the template, that was the difficult part. The easy part is on the CfD page itself, that is I just copy the same line over again and just adapt the category name. As someone may already have told you, that may go more efficiently with Twinkle but I haven't really bothered to dig into that. Once you're experienced in doing it, it takes only 5 minutes or so for 19 categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sri Sachidananda Bharathi-I[edit]

Can you pls let me know the reason to change the category to poets ? Hindu Saints or religious figures will be more appropriate. Pls clarify Kbala1055 (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • User:Kbala1055 There was a whole paragraph about compositions and hymns so poets seem to be appropriate. The category used to be "Religious figure" but this is very vague and I was trying to make that more concrete. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the reply. He composed the poems only after assuming the pontificate of the Peetam. So "Hindu religious figures" is really appropriate as he was the pontiff of the Sringeri Sarda peetam. This is 1200 year old. Primary responsibility is the pontificate and secondary incidentally he has composed many poems works as a head of the peetam during his reign. So I feel Hindu religious figures should be appropriate and you can add secondary category as "Hindu Poet" - Is this possible in wiki? Pls clarify Kbala1055 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hindu religious figures[edit]

Hi, after the consensus to merge at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_21#Hindu_religious_leaders, there are still a lot of child and grandchild cats of Category:Hindu religious leaders which use "figures". You may wish to nominate them for renaming to "leaders". – Fayenatic London 19:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Murder by minors[edit]

Hi, I just left a note for HandsomeFella, but he seems to be absent from Wikipedia at the moment. If he does not return, perhaps you might like to implement new sub-cats following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_10#Category:Murder_committed_by_minors. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello to you Marcocapelle. First of all, may I thank you for your fine observation at Talk:Kosovo as some of us continue to argue over the ideologies endlessly. I confess that I am party to the discussion but I really am trying to be as objective as possible. Clearly you have spoken and this post is in no way written to influence you to amend it - so FTR, please do not change your vote! Purely for your information, "partially recognised state" does indeed acknowledge the sovereign factor as proclaimed by the founders, and its lack of full recognition demonstrates territorial dispute. And why not? Where partial recognition is the case, territorial dispute is a conjoined phenomenon. Sometimes however, it is not always the entire proclaimed land that is disputed, very often it is a chunk or more (albeit small or large, even disjointed at times). For instance, Israel lacks some recognition but nobody claims Tel Aviv to form part of another country - the disputed land is purely Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as Golan Heights. The State of Palestine also lacks recognition and subsequently claims Jerusalem and the West Bank, but even those not to recognise Palestine realise that no other entity claims territorial integrity of the Gaza Strip. Israel has withdrawn from the territory despite its logistical influence from outside, and Egypt (who held it until 1967) renounced its claim long ago. Kosovo is an example of a breakaway state much like South Osseria, Georgia and Somaliland - the biggest opponent in each case is the country from which they all broke away. To that end, when we say it is a disputed territory, we refer to the land on the whole rather than the "partially recognised state" which refers directly to the Republic and its institutions. Thanks all the same Marco, and keep up your fine work. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hindu Revivalists[edit]

Hi Marco, I notice that you are attempting a clean-up effort of the Hindu Revivalists category and the corresponding pages. I am afraid it is a wasted effort. "Hindu Revivalism" is an evolving label, but in most cases there isn't a better label. Hindu nationalism was used for a long time, but the movements have now progressed far beyond "nationalism." The people that you are deleting from the category have used phrases like "Hindu resurgence", "Hindu upsurge" and "Hindu phenomenon". Scholars have also used stronger labels such as "Hindu triumphalism" and "fundamentalism." While the scholars still try to figure out how to characterise it precisely, I think Hindu Revalism is a fairly innocuous and safe label to use. I am also pining Vanamonde93 who knows the subject well. Here is a reference that deals with the subject.[1] Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt if you will find any scholarly sources labelling these people as "Hindu activists." The term is highly ambiguous in any case. Hindu revivalism is a form of ethno-religious mobilisation. "Hindu activism" doesn't carry that sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, after some checking, I find that "revivalist" has a more specific meaning in English which wouldn't be appropriate for these people. So perhaps we could rename the category to "Hindu revivalist activists" (even though it is a mouthful) or something similar. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Could you add this in the category discussion? Thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Elst, Koenraad (2001). Decolonizing the Hindu Mind — Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism. Rupa & Co. ISBN 8171675190. 
FWIW, I too feel that or "Hindu nationalism" is the only terms that you can apply that is used frequently enough to have meaning. The other terms are bandied about a lot, without anybody bothering to define them enough, or without anybody getting into the nuance of where they apply and where they don't. I also generally feel that our categorization process is a bit of a mess, and so you have my appreciation for trying to clean it up, but I'm not getting into that. Which category discussion are you referring to? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for your reaction! I was referring to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Islamic clergy[edit]

Hi, I just nominated Category:Indian Islamic clergy for speedy merging; please see WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 08:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

English Anglican priests vs Church of England priests[edit]

Hi! Could you please explain your reasoning behind merging the categories English Anglican priests and Church of England priests? To me they are separate categories: English Anglican priests should not be a sub-category of Church of England priests.

  • Personally I think it's fair (though you may disagree) as 99% of English Anglican priests are Church of England priests that it becomes a subcategory.
    • I do disagree. The figure is probably 90%. Not all Anglicans are allied with the CoE and there are those who are not English.

For example, you may have someone who is English but is a priest with the Scottish Episcopal Church, therefore they would be categorised as an English Anglican priest but not as Church of England priest.

  • Agree, but I haven't encountered anyone like this yet.
    • Just because you haven't come across them, they exist. Also, you can't presume that someone is English just because they are CoE, therefore your new category system introduces assumptions/errors.
      • I have no intention to presume anything. If an Anglican priest is born in England (or clergy in England, see two paragraphs below) s/he should be in the English category, otherwise not.Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, you may have someone who is Welsh who is a priest of the Church of England, and would be a Welsh Anglican priest and a Church of England priest but not an English Anglican priest.

To use a real example, Joseph Cassidy (priest) was a Canadian who emigrated to the UK and became a Church of England priest; he was never an English Anglican priest.

  • Clergy who migrated to a new country are usually also classified as new-countryish clergy, so in this case both Canadian and English are correct.
    • I disagree, he would be a Canadian Anglican priest: Canadian refers to his nationality. Even if he had taken UK citizenship, he would be a British Anglican priest not an English one.
      • I've come across quite some English priests who migrated elsewhere (e.g. to English colonies) and they mostly were also in the country of migration tree. It seems to be a long standing practice to do so.
About British versus English, there are many biographies in Category:English Anglican priests of people who actually have British nationality (from 18th century and beyond). It seems like a long standing practice not to treat "British" and "English" too strictly as nationality concepts only.Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I presume by the babel boxes on your user page that you are Dutch. Perhaps you don't understand the idiosyncrasies of British national identities? Most people outside the UK don't. Hopefully the above examples help with this.

    • I presume form your replies that you don't understand this.

As you can see, English Anglican priests is not a "more specific categorisation" than Church of England priests. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 13:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Not to mention that many Anglicans at the Protestant end of the spectrum don't really like the term "priest" for Anglican clergy. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
A little help @Johnbod:? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 02:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Marcocapelle. I'm afraid our comrades are right in saying that these two categories are neither identical nor parent-child. For instance, all being well I will in a few years become an Anglican priest (though I would say presbyter since I am already a priest) in the Church of England. However, I identify as British, not English. My friend Dianna Gwilliams is a priest in the Church of England: she would almost certainly identify as "Anglican", but since she is from the USA she probably wouldn't identify simply as "English".
I hope we can see how the groups "people who are ordained presbyters in the Anglican tradition and who are (in whatever way) "English"" cannot be either identical to or parent-child to "people who are ordained presbyters and who were ordained in/are working in/have worked in the Church of England".
However, reading the conversation it strikes me there may have been, somewhere — or else there needs to be — a discussion about how the 'paedia as a whole assigns national identity. (i.e. birth, citizenship, residence, self-identity?) If anyone finds such a discussion, please do post it here! Dan BD 08:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Danbarnesdavies: You're probably right that the main issue is about national identity, especially with respect to people who migrated. I'm not aware of a discussion about it, if there was any it was probably before I joined Wikipedia. I've simply observed the fact that most clergy who migrated have been double-categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed that you are continuing adding your "improved" categories to articles. In doing so, you are adding errors. For example, you added the categories "20th/21st Century English Anglican priests" to Ray Pentland: he is Scottish not English but he IS a Church of England priest. There might be an argument for a categories such as English/Scottish/etc Anglican priest but they should be in addition to categories such as Church of England/Church in Wales priests. If there isn't a need for the nationality specific categories, then the default must be simply Category:Church of England priests. If you don't stop and correct this mess that you are creating, I shall be forced to go through your contributions and revert every incorrect category change you have made. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Since your previous comments I've been a lot more careful with nationality. This greater care has led, for example, to 154 English, 26 Welsh and 28 "other" 18th-century Church of England clergy. If incidentally I made a mistake I apologize. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I've re-read what I wrote above, and let me start by apologising if I came across as harsh; that wasn't my intention.
Would it be worth moving the new nationality categories out of the Church of England category and move them under Category:Anglican priests by nationality? Eg, move Category:English Anglican priests‎ to be under Category:Anglican priests by nationality rather than as they currently are under Category:Church of England priests. To compare, Category:Scottish Episcopalian priests‎ is under Category:Scottish Anglican priests: not all Scottish Anglican priests are Episcopalian, but all Scottish Episcopalian priests‎ ARE Scottish Anglican priests. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Thanks for your message, apologies accepted. The issue with categorisation here is that the vast amount of Church of England clergy articles are currently not (yet) in the tree of Category:Church of England clergy while they should. Instead the majority of Church of England clergy are currently in Category:English Anglican priests (of which at least 99% is Church of England clergy). By not establishing a parent-child relationship between Category:Church of England clergy and Category:English Anglican priests, the former category would miss out on very many articles that do really belong in it. The parent-child relationship for English clergy is sort of comparable with the parent-child relationship in Scotland between Category:Scottish Episcopalian priests‎ and Category:Scottish Anglican priests, insofar that Category:English Anglican priests - just practically speaking - serves as the synonym of Category:English Church of England priests. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Protestant ministers and clergy by nationality[edit]

Hi, I just came across Category:Protestant ministers and clergy by nationality; you seem to have created all the "ministers and clergy" categories this month. Doesn't this layer duplicate Category:Protestant religious leaders by nationality? – Fayenatic London 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Fayenatic london: It seems to vary by country, e.g. in Germany and Switzerland it is clearly Protestant clergy that is fully comparable to Roman Catholic clergy. In the US there seems to be Protestant clergy and 'other' Protestant religious leaders next to each other. In fact I'd rather get rid of the Protestant religious leaders category (merge them to Christian) as for them it's pretty subjective if they are Protestant at all (mostly they are just of Protestant descent). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Huh? – Fayenatic London 22:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I assume your first sentence refers to "cuius regio eius religio", because those countries have a state church. The US has no state church, it's more like a free market, and some churches would use the word "clergy" more than others. However, mainstream churches that don't identify with Roman/Eastern Catholicism or Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy are in the historical and theological Category:Protestantism. I assume you wouldn't dismantle or upmerge that? (There are others that make exclusive claims and rely on other writings; while for Wikipedia purposes they are within Category:Christianity, they are not Protestants, e.g. LDS and JWs.)
    • But whatever your views on those vertical distinctions, I cannot see any reason to insert an additional horizontal layer in the category hierarchy for ministers. – Fayenatic London 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Fayenatic london: Sorry for not replying any earlier, I was away for a few days and while I'm using Wikipedia Lite on my tablet when I'm away, it has been very unstable lately and after a few unsuccessful attempts I gave up. (More precisely I gave up after I managed to reply to Gaia Octavia Agrippa in the section above, also only after several attempts.)
You're right that US is much more like a free market, resulting in much more mishmash in the religious leaders category. Which is alright, as it just proves the point that a Protestant religious leaders category, as a parent of Protestant clergy, could be a viable category in the US. Though I wonder if we (if I) should spend any effort on moving Christian religious leaders to Protestant religious leaders because the Protestant identity isn't always very clear. Then finally, for most other countries than the US, I see not much reason for keeping Protestant religious leaders as a parent of Protestant clergy simply because there are hardly any articles about Protestant religious leaders beside Protestant clergy. So US and non-US are two very different issues but they may lead to the same conclusion: keep Christian religious leaders as the parent of Roman Catholic clergy, Eastern Orthodox clergy and Protestant ministers and clergy - and remove the Protestant religious leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem over timing – I assumed you must be busy with something else.
I still don't see the need for "Protestant ministers and clergy", as the name Category:Protestant religious leaders was chosen at 2013 June 5 to replace "Protestant ministers", and at 2014 October 18 to replace "Protestant clergy". (These are included in the list of precedents at Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories.) – Fayenatic London 17:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you still disagree with me? I was hoping for an agreed merger/rename ("ministers and clergy" —> "religious leaders") under C2E. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: Honestly I do, but let's also focus on where we do agree upon - namely that there are too many layers. Meanwhile I no longer see the need for "Christian clergy" as an intermediate between "Christian religious leaders" and "clergy of any particular church" because after all the discussions that we had I now tend to see "clergy" as a specified term (synonym if you wish) of "religious leader", i.e. as a specified term used in the context of a church. In that respect I guess we sort of agree, don't you think? But that same reasoning also implies, the other way around, that I no longer see a need for any more detailed religious leaders categories in the context of churches (like Protestant churches), so there we disagree. At the same time I'm actually hoping, while we already have categories like Category:Lutheran clergy and Category:Anglican clergy, that I can convince you that Category:Protestant ministers and clergy by nationality is not a bad thing at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly I wasn't aware that I might have done something wrong by continuing the discussion here. If I did I apologize. @Fayenatic london: What's your view on this comment? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? I'm not canvassing about an existing CfD or any third party edits. I'm hoping that Marcocapelle and I will come to an agreed course of action that we can implement under C2E to merge some categories at he has created. That's not WP:CANVASSing. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in Ireland:[edit]

I think you might want to revert the exclusion of this category from Anglicans. While it's clearly a reformed church, it is the COI position that it has full episcopal continuity. That is, it claims all pre-reformation bishops as well as the post-reformation ones. Naturally, the RC church denies this position. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Laurel Lodged: I will if you really think it's needed. To me it sounds as more logical to have Pre-Reformation, Anglican (16th+ century) and Roman Catholic (16th+ century) as three different entries. No? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's best to revert. Category:Post-Reformation Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland and Anglican bishops both have this as their parent. This allows both traditions to claim the pre-refeormation bishops as their own. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of Kingdom of Germany[edit]

Hi, I noticed you've recently participated in a discussion on the talk page of the above-mentioned article. I'm letting you know I've opened a move request here. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Muslim scholars[edit]

Hi, clearing up after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_10#Category:Shia_Muslim_scholars_of_Islam, I found that you had nominated just one category from a hierarchy, which now looks inconsistent:

Category:Muslim scholars
Category:Sunni Muslim scholars
Category:Scholars of Sunni Islam
Category:Sunni imams
Category:Shia Muslim scholars
Category:Scholars of Shia Islam
Category:Shia clerics
Category:Muslim philosophers
Category:Muslim scholars of Islam
Category:Hadith compilers

Fayenatic London 15:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Sunni Muslim scholars can be scholars of anything (while being a Sunni Muslim believer) while of Islam is more specific and to the point. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Shaivite category for F. G. Natesa Iyer[edit]

You had kindly removed the removed Shaivite category, for this person: with a statement "there's nothing about that in the article". If I can kindly submit-

1) His surname "Iyer - denotes a follower of the Advaita philosophy propounded by Adi Shankara.

2) As had been stated in the wikipedia article, F.G. Natesa Iyer held a very regard, of Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, whom he seems to have regarded as his personal guru? There is a statement, "I was enthralled in my service to Swamigal as service to Lord Shiva himself".

3) The wikipedia article also mentions his close rapport and association with Ramana Maharshi. Who was another noted philosopher sage of the Shaivite Advaita philosophy of the 20th century.

Would it be kindly alright, to kindly undo this edit?

Kind Regards

Anant (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @AnanthanarayanaSharma: Categories are supposed to follow the articles, not the other way around. If the article says that he was considered to be a Shaivite (and if that statement is based on reliable sources) then it is perfectly alright to categorize the person as a Shaivite, but not any sooner. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reorganised the article to include a section on personal faith and belief. I have also added a publication where he paid homage to Swami Sivananda. And the article also talks of Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, as his guru? Can we now kindly say that the shavite categorisation, follows from this section?

Anant (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @AnanthanarayanaSharma: Thanks a lot for improving the article. However the article still does not clearly say that he was considered to be a Shaivite or that he considered himself to be a Shaivite. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hindu revivalists[edit]

@Kautilya3: Hey Kautilya3, what's your opinion regarding the close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_10#Category:Hindu_revivalists? Should we undertake any new action here? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Welsh-speaking people[edit]

I was wondering if you will also be nominating Category:Cornish-speaking people for deletion? Deb (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @Deb: That may be a good idea. That is, of course, I would not nominate it for deletion but for containerization, that's quite a difference. Just like Welsh. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll be interested to see what category you put Charles, Prince of Wales into. Deb (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

District of Columbia categories[edit]

I feel the closure on the District of Columbia categories was premature. I did not have the chance to point out that not only are there examples of things which were founded in the District outside of what was then Washington, but the 1861 categories includes Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.) which was not within the city boundaries when it was founded. The same is true of Fort Reno. I am sure there are other things to add. However I have two concrete examples. Not counting concrete examples of things that were on the opposite side of the river, which since we categorize by what was in Virginia in that year must go in the District of Columbia category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @Johnpacklambert: My suggestion would be that you informally discuss with opponents about a possible reopening the discussion - as a procedural step. If you don't reach consensus with them about reopening the discussion, there wouldn't be consensus on the content of the discussion either. If you do reach consensus, I'll obviously revert. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Welsh-speaking people[edit]

Given the centuries of persecution suffered by Welsh-speakers (just read the history - it makes for shocking reading), the fact that the Welsh language still exists as a living language is nothing short of a miracle. Naturally therefore, it is of much interest to those interested in the Welsh language, those interested in Welsh current affairs, those interested in minority languages as well as to many members of the public in general, for it to be acknowledged that certain notable public figures e.g. politicians, sportspeople or musicians have the ability to speak Welsh. Indeed, failing to do so seems to suggest that the Welsh language is of no significance, to anybody. Whilst some may argue that the language that one speaks is not actually significant, this viewpoint is likely to be prevalent in individuals with a limited understanding of minority languages/cultures. Put another way, whilst the fact that a notable person can speak English may not be necessarily of interest - mainly due to the fact that English is the third most widely-spoken language in the world - by contrast, when a notable person who happens also to speak Welsh is not acknowledged as a Welsh speaker this is missing a very important point, simply because Welsh is much less prevalent than English. Yes, defining a cohort of Welsh-speaking people is of interest to many people, even if that does not happen to include the person(s) who instigated the deletion of this category in the first place. Therefore, just as the section 'Notable people with the name Prabhu', or 'Category:Black British people', for example, may not be of interest to a certain individuals, the fact that these Categories/Sections exist confirm the fact that they are of interest to at least some Wikipedia users, and the same is true for 'Category:Welsh-speaking people'. I hope that the majority of Wikipedia users/editors wish to build a more informative and inclusive encyclopaedia, and not an encyclopaedia that projects an Anglo-American bias whereby smaller cultures and languages are dismissed. I therefore call upon those who instigated this deletion to see beyond their possible prejudices, and remain true to Jimmy Wales' Statement of Principles by re-instating this category without further delay please as many useful links have been lost with the current deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haul~cywiki (talkcontribs) 19:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: this comment—there is a problem which has developed. The discussion was closed as "containerize". Now, presumably in an attempt to get around the result, participants in the discussion have created subcategories such as Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople and Category:Welsh-speaking musicians. I would strongly recommend that you, Marcocapelle (talk · contribs), go through those subcategories and nominate the problematic ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I note that this process has already started here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

it occurred to me[edit]

Have you ever thought about applying for adminship? If you were an admin you'd have more of a free hand to close CFDs. If you are not interested or prefer to participate in the discussions rather than close them, I understand. I agree that participating is usually more fun. But if you were interested, I would be willing to nominate you and/or vouch for your expertise in categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @Good Olfactory: Thanks for the offer, but actually I rather prefer to participate in the discussions. The reason I did quite a few "riskless" closures in the past few months was just that it was less fun discussing while observing at the same time that all these discussions might lead to nowhere since there were not enough administrators to close them. It was quite scary to see that the backlog grew bigger every day. Fortunately that problem is solved now :-) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, no problem; I totally understand. Keep it mind for the future, though. If you ever feel the urge, I could nominate/support. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dry places in New Jersey[edit]

Following the "keep" closure for the CFD of Category:Dry places in New Jersey, I've followed the closer's recommendation and submitted a new CFD to rename it to Category:Dry municipalities in New Jersey. Please offer your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 16 if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jan Rudolph Slotemaker de Bruïne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minister (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) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople DRV[edit]

Hello; I recently closed a discussion for the above category CFD here. A deletion review of the decision has been opened DRV here. I'm notifying you because you participated in the CFD. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:People from Brunswick[edit]

You removed the category "People from Brunswick" from a lot of articles. May I ask why? A nationwide German citizenship was not established until the 1930s, so all those people held the citizenship of Brunswick for decades. I had added he category to all biographies from people who were born prior to the abolishment of the citizenship in Brunswick in 1934 to make this a list of former citizens of Brunswick. Alexpostfacto (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Categorization is done by defining characteristics. People living after, say, 1870, are generally considered to be Germans rather than Brunswickers. By the way, it's perfectly okay to develop a list instead of a category, that would also allow you to bring some nuance to the nationality issue, for each person in the list. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. This seems to be handled somewhat inconsistently - not only are there categories that categorize by modern state (e.g. Sportspeople by German state), but there are also categories for states that where only founded shortly before or even after the German Empire was already established - e.g. Category:People from the Province of Hanover or Category:People from the Province of Lower Silesia. Either way, I might do a list - I've actually working on a list of people from Braunschweig already (still a work in progess), though, and it might take a while before I'll do such a large list again ;). Alexpostfacto (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
And btw: due to the artificial disjunction between Braunschweig and Brunswick on wikipedia the categories are a bit of a mess (the German wikipedia does it better by making no distinction between the two). Most of what is in the History of Brunswick category is also highly relevant to the history of the city, and nothing post-1946 should be put into the Brunswick categories (since Brunswick has been the common English name for the city and the state historically, but today the city is also often called Braunschweig in English while the state doesn't exist anymore, there's a lot of confusion on this issue, doesn't make it any easier that the city article has been moved from Brunswick to Braunschweig and back in the past). Articles like Brunonids are really highly relevant to the history of the city of Braunschweig, for example.Alexpostfacto (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually I thought the same thing about this. Shall I try to get them merged via CfD? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that - I would prefer History of Braunschweig as the title, since that's the established name for the modern day city on the English wikipedia. Category:Duchy of Brunswick could stay as sub-category then. The city was so dominant in the history of the state that you can't really seperate the two (partially that's my fault, since I created the History of Braunschweig category for the city - but back then I didn't want to rename the other category, as this was clearly stated to be about the state in the description). And thanks for your thoughts on this.Alexpostfacto (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)