Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Hi, it was previously agreed by consensus that Category:Prostitution by region was to be used in preference to Category:Prostitution by continent as Oceania and the Americas are not continents. It was also agreed that Category:Prostitution in the Americas was not going to be sub-divided as the main article for the category is Prostitution in the Americas. Please revert the changes you have made against consensus. --John B123 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @John B123: that was apparently a matter of local consensus. It goes against the common classification by continent, see Category:Categories by continent. Oceania counts as a continent, as well as North America and South America. If you prefer to pursue on this, you should turn to WP:CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where is this policy? --John B123 (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @John B123: consistency is one of the five main criteria for page titles, WP:CONSISTENT. For categories that is not any different than for articles, e.g. speedy renaming criteria for categories WP:C2C and WP:C2D are rooted in the consistency criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although Oceania is not a continent, it is being treated as one in other similar situations, so yes I can understand changes there as per WP:CONSISTENT. Looking at the graphics at the head of Category:Categories by continent, "America" is also considered a continent in this context, so the moves to North & South America are unnecessary, and as Prostitution in the Americas is the main article, this is inconsistent with WP:C2D. --John B123 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @John B123: it is not inconsistent with WP:C2D because Category:Prostitution in the Americas still exists. And the split between North and South America is consistent with the vast majority of categories in Category:Categories by continent. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Protestant churches in the Republic of Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear the atheist Premanand is a writer. I noticed you made some changes to his page, could you recommend any of his books?Streetlight401 (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gondor, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hog Farm (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can you close an RfC with a conclusion that wasn't proposed in the RfC? The RfC was not about whether "to keep consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article". It asked "Should the first mention of a position in the first sentence of the article about the position be de-capitalized?", referring to a long list of specific articles. A clear majority of respondents said that those articles should not be changed. There was no consensus of any form to answer an entirely different question from that proposed in the RfC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Drover's Wife: the large amount of comments was about capitalization of positions in general rather than specifically discussing whether the first sentence should be treated differently. By the way, effectively this closure leads to nothing being changed. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re this: You stopped by and made an AGF comment based on content, but it's been pretty clear since Day 1 that the problem was user conduct and had very little to do with article content. It's very difficult, unfortunately, to convince an admin to block for disruptive behaviour that looks like a content dispute. I opened an ANI report on the issue back in December and still no one's done anything about it, but I think you can probably see the problem with comments like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me another reason to recognize that Wikipedia is utterly onanistic fribble. I'm sorry you'll never realize that. Good luck with your endeavors. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you are very active in categorization of pages, I need your input. I have drafted RfC that I am thinking of posting on Village Pump (proposals) [can't think of any other space]. Do you think its a good idea? Were there other CfD discussions? Would appreciate any thoughts. Renata (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Renata3: it is certainly a good idea. It is advisable to advertise the RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and you might also ping all discussants in the four discussions that you found. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you think of any other related/relevant CfD discussions? Renata (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Renata3: unfortunately I can't remember any. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, BrownHairedGirl, and Fayenatic london: I am willing to close Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_29#Television_task_forces as rename per option A but could one of you (not Gonnym) actually implement the closure? I expect that the use of admin tools will make the implementation much easier. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly I will. I believe this will be sufficient authority to rename all the siblings currently listed at CFDS. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marcocapelle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Dancing with the Stars participants".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CATV, categories must be accompanied by supporting text in the article body as well as verifiable to a reliable secondary source. Lacking one or both of these things, I'm reverting your category additions regarding burial sites at places of worship. Elizium23 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comfortable with any of the criminal categorisations - I simply followed from a new user creating a Tasmania criminal - a practising lawyer (i think) who is writing up about people in a very small community which makes me feel uncomfortable - when I lived in Tasmania a long time ago - to even have genuinely imprisoned persons, one had the feeling that it wasnt very kosher to even state the truth about people... anecdotes aside, I would support any re-arrangement that fixed or aligned better with established items from other states or countries... hope it is not too difficult to fix. JarrahTree 09:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditionalist Catholic newspapers, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gnu57 07:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditionalist Catholic magazines, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gnu57 07:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to change my vote as you are absolutely right and I agree with you. I do apologize for voting Keep and for the biased reasons I made. Looks like it's time we say goodbye to these categories after years of their usage. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

This discussion was recently closed, resulting in the renaming of Category:Areas of traditional spread of Ukrainians and Ukrainian language to Category:Ukrainian-speaking countries and territories (despite a previous discussion having resulted in the deletion of this now re-created category).

I think that the result involves a narrowing in scope and a purge, but I do not really know in which direction to go as I had advocated at first a different target, and then mere deletion. I am turning to you for advice.

I would think that being Ukrainian-speaking is probably not a defining category for regions within Ukraine, such as Donbass. Some of the regions outside Ukraine are not at first glance associated with the Ukrainian language, such as Kuban, as mentioned during the CfD discussion. There seems to be a large overlap with Category:Ukrainian diaspora, see Klyn, Ukrainians in Kuban or Ukrainians in Russia. Also, some of this content was recently added, see [1].

Current category content:

What do you think? Place Clichy (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Place Clichy: Sorry for not replying earlier, and I agree that this category is problematic, but for the time being I do not know how to solve it. Perhaps we can do a renomination after a few months. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! In the meantime I tried to look more closely at category content and removed or moved elsewhere articles for which Ukrainian-speaking territory is not defining. Place Clichy (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to know if these categories were missed in the latest media by period noms:

• Category:Media by day of the week
• Category:Saturday media
• Category:Sunday media
• Category:Media disestablished in 1973
• Category:Media disestablished in 2016
• Category:Media disestablished in 2017
• Category:Media disestablished in 2018
• Category:Media disestablished in 2019
• Category:Media disestablished in 2020
• Category:Media established in 1994

--Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose you confused some parameters in Category:College baseball media in the United States and some other categories you nominated for speedy renaming. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @1234qwer1234qwer4: confused in what sense? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, certainly, you don't want the categories to be renamed to Category:Change "media" to "mass media". 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Category:Spanish-language media in the United States by state tree also be changed to "mass media"? --Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind. I see that the whole Category:Mass media by language hasn't been done yet, not just this. --Gonnym (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: feel free to nominate them, it does not need to depend on me alone. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Hell, that's a giant list. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic mass media has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of missed the discussion there, and it's over now, and the result is OK with me. I just wanted to point out that the Triple Crown of Cycling is actually very much a thing which has its own article. Cheers! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You gave weak oppose at the move discussion without any rationale, but can you please revisit it? I left two messages for you there, but you did not respond. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting that Category:Newspapers published in Denmark should become a subcategory of Category:Danish-language newspapers. Do you think I should just implement that or would a CfD be helpful? Obviously I don't want to do a lot of edits and then revert them. The same logic would apply to a large number of mass media categories.

I have a related question: where would you draw the line between a website in several language categories and a website in the multilingual category. I think that a Swiss website in French, German, Italian and Romansch is reasonable but anything more is probably multilingual. TSventon (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of these. Are there instances of 'media' which you think should not be changed to 'mass media'? See user:Oculi/sandbox. Oculi (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Oculi: I am not fully sure about all 'media + occupation' categories, for example 'media executives'. It's not that I am convinced that they are inappropriate, it's just that I don't rule out the possibility that e.g. 'media executives' is a common term in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or 'media personalities'. It's very difficult to set up searches which catch everything. Oculi (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please come up with better arguments instead of "oppose inconsistent with X" when the category is already "x". It is smart alecky and rude. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with you opposing but your comment was extremely out of line. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: on the contrary, my reaction was entirely in line with WP:CONSISTENT. Moreover, making category names consistent with each other is a speedy renaming criterion (provided it's not controversial), see WP:C2C. Meanwhile you must have noticed that other editors supported my argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't support your argument. They might oppose the move but not your argument. It is baseless and barley an argument and was rude. cookie monster (2020) 755 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: then please read the reactions of User:DexDor and User:BrownHairedGirl once more. And breaking a naming convention is also disruptive leaves very little room for alternative interpretations. Besides, I understand that you are disappointed about my argument, but it is neither baseless (as I explained before) nor rude. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for showing me. I guess I misinterpreted your argument. I am sorry for being rude to you. I am out of line. Should I be blocked? :( cookie monster (2020) 755 19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, CookieMonster755, I entirely support Marcocapelle's argument, and wholly disagree with your characterisation of it as smart alecky and rude.

And for that, you should not be blocked. Even you hadn't apologised unreservedly, this was nowhere near a blocking issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @CookieMonster755: apologies accepted. If you're interested in getting some sort of penalty then I would recommend you read WP:AGF aloud :-) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm intending to push for a second discussion on renaming the communities categories (this time all(?) of them), I'm wondering what's the fastest way to nominate all? The nomination would presumably include both ethnic communities but also religious ones, but I'm not sure if I must add the cfr template on the pages (since the number is easily going to pass over a hundred pages). I'm intending to propose a harmonization so from Category:Assyrian communities in Iraq to Category:Assyrian populated places in Iraq and from Category:Kurdish villages in Azerbaijan to Category:Kurdish populated places in Azerbaijan and so on. First discussion. --Semsûrî (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Semsûrî: if you tag one category, without specifying the rename target, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to copy the same tag to all other listed categories. When the rename target is not specified, the tag will display something like "proposed to be renamed to some other name" and that is good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the barnstar template categories you've edited are up for a rename discussion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all happy with these mass changes, which seem to be undiscussed. Most entries in the latter tree are just ruined piles of masonry, or indeed articles on buildings now completely destroyed, while those in the former for the most part collect those of actual architectural interest and significance. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see there was a cfd discussion on a completely different point, hijacked by User:Peterkingiron & dubiously closed by User:bibliomaniac15. What a disaster! Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnbod: if I understand you correctly, you want to make a split between ruined/destroyed Roman buildings versus well-preserved Roman buildings, is that right? Why are ruins less interesting for architectural history? I can fully imagine that ruins are less interesting for tourism, but that is not what you are after, are you? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What I'm saying is that that was more-or-less what existed before this unfortunate close. Most ruins that remain are of large "infrastructure" projects, that, once reduced by 60-80% to a rubble or masonry core are indeed much less interesting for architectural history, especially in an online encyclopaedia. But I thought this was your own initiative. I'm not at all happy with the way User:bibliomaniac15's close allowed the discussion to be diverted at a late stage, but I won't bother doing anything about it. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: If you feel that more discussion needs to take place, you're more than welcome to open a new discussion in a more public venue. I closed a 13-day old discussion that had remained untouched for 5 days according to the consensus that I read; if there was ongoing discussion that was diverted as a result of my close, I ask that you show me some proof that it was. If I misread the consensus or otherwise closed the discussion improperly, which is always possible, you could open up a move review. Otherwise, I'm not really thrilled that you've kept pinging me into this as a matter of personal complaint. bibliomaniac15 18:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I'm not going to do anything, but imo it was a bad close & complaining about people saying so doesn't cut much ice at all with me. You should have closed it as no consensus, with a suggestion the new idea be proposed in a different nom, rather than moving per a very late suggestion that by no means got majority support. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rathfelder has been on the go again, creating 16 regional sub-cats here (most on June 2nd). Do you think these can be speedied, on the precedent of "Architects from Dorset"? Perhaps not. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should German archaeologists not be categorised by state, just as other people are characterised by occupation and state?Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same reason as the architects - there aren't so many of them the cat becomes too large and nobody thinks or talks about archaeologists from Hesse etc. Many of these states didn't even exist when they lived, & the role is typically not a local one - a high proportion worked mainly abroad. It's very unhelpful to the reader & should be stopped. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: feel free to nominate these categories for merge back. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • For many of them Germany did not exist when they were alive. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Germany has been around for 2000 years, even if it moves around a bit. North Rhine-Westphalia was created after WW2. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this? It seems dubious to me - on most definitions this is too early to be Byzantine, and clearly in a Latin-speaking are. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnbod: I am assuming that the introduction of the article Early Christian art and architecture and the section Byzantine art#Period are correct. As for Latin versus Byzantine, in 553 the current area of Croatia was part of the Byzantine Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This bit "Early Christian art and architecture or Paleochristian art is the art produced by Christians or under Christian patronage from the earliest period of Christianity to, depending on the definition used, sometime between 260 and 525"? The UNESCO ref says: "Justification for Inscription

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv), considering that the Episcopal complex of the Euphrasian Basilica in the historic centre of Porec is an outstanding example of an early Christian episcopal ensemble that is exceptional by virtue of its completeness and its unique Basilican cathedral." There is a case for both categories, but if there is only one, it should probably be P-C. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnbod: I'll add PC too. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reverse your deletions of this category from about 50 articles. The category is long standing and well cultivated, yet you seem to have edited without discussion, and in most cases the replacement Anglo-Irish category is entirely inaccurate. Shtove (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Professional wrestling jobbers is up for deletion again. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind, not all sculptures are statues. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Another Believer: fair point that it does not always coincide, but then I suppose there is an inconsistency in category naming, as the parent category is called "statues" and the subcategory "sculptures". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Marcocapelle, I removed Category:Statues in New Zealand as a parent of Category:Sculptures of men in New Zealand, which is not accurate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

I enjoyed having the TFA yesterday, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk)

Would you have a look at the move history of this page please? The move seems to be more POV motivated than historical accuracy motivated. For the period in question, the old name was probably better do you think? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gender identity in the military has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1st-millennium lists of lunar eclipses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd-millennium BC lists of lunar eclipses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me[2] to bring Burmese sport by year to a full CFD. I had thought of doing so a few times, but needed a poke. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, following your own comment on Talk:Department of Social Protection#Requested move 9 October 2020, which I ultimately agreed with, I have proposed a this as best practice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Best practice on moving government department names and would welcome your support, in the hope that it might be added as a line in the MOS:IRELAND, or elsewhere that it could be referred back to next time they're moved around. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in the Gilbert Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd-millennium lists of lunar eclipses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments in Hamburg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bullying victims has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversies in Christian theology has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Daask (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that this merge was completed a little lazily, and didn't take up your suggestion of adding pages to Category:African-American academics as needed. I'm not sure how to go about that now, but it might be a good thing to make happen if it could be figured out. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bibliomaniac15: can you help us here? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Thanks for the tip, Sdkb. I went back and combed the old category, manually merging a bunch of them into Category:African-American academics and Category:African-American women academics as needed. The majority were already in those two categories already. I didn't add Kwame Anthony Appiah or Benjamin Akande, because it wasn't clear to me whether they would identify as African-American (one's British-Ghanaian but teaches in the states, the other is of Nigerian descent). bibliomaniac15 19:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish concentration camp survivors has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should go ahead and add the others to the nomination, or would you just wait to see if it gets support?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I think you'd better add the others right away. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Category:People of Armenian descent vs. Category:Ethnic Armenian people by country of citizenship? Somehow I don't think this is a noteworthy difference and the wording of the first category seems preferable to the latter one (eg Category:British people of Armenian descent‎ vs. Category:British Armenians). Oddly many of the articles in the latter category use phrases such as "Armenian descent" and "Armenian origin". (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: in theory a distinction could be made between descendants of ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and descendants of Armenians in Russian / Soviet / independent Armenia, but I do not have the impression that there is any practical difference between the categories, i.e. I think both trees contain descendants of Armenians in Russian / Soviet / independent Armenia. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that for much of history there has been no politically distinct Armenia. We have Armenians in Lebanon who were displaced by the genocide 100 years ago. Many of them then migrated elsewhere during Lebanon's civil war. However other Armenians had been in Lebanon for centuries. In many ways historically Armenians are an ethno-religious group by the Jews. We would have the same nightmare if in 1947 the founders of the new state in the Middle East had named it Judea, and had chosen to designate nationals of that state as Jews. That is the type of nightmare we run into with the multiple uses of Armenian. With Armenian being integral in the Soviet Union, huge numbers of Armenians lived outside the limits of Armenia, but they did not see themselves as outside their homeland all the time, at least not till the pograms in Baku.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I believe that the difference between the two parallel category trees is not Ottoman Armenia vs. Russian/Soviet Armenia, or Armenian ethnicity vs. Armenian nationality, but "full" vs. "partial" Armenian ethnicity or ancestry. The header of pretty much each of these categories says something like that (emphasis added by me, example taken at Category:French Armenians): "This page lists French citizens of full Armenian ancestry or national origin. For those of partial descent see Category:French people of Armenian descent. These hatnotes are present pretty much since the creation of most of these categories ca. 2008 ([3] [4] [5] [6] etc.). I'm not really sure how Wikipedia can be the judge of someone's ethnic purity, and I am therefore pretty sure that this criteria is applied very inconsistently by our numerous uncoordinated editors. The rationale between this departing from our usual and repeated convention that Booian Fooian categories should be renamed to Fooian people of Booian descent seems to be relying on this this 2008 CfD attended by 4 editors. Note that, out of the set, Category:Armenian Americans was itself merged to Category:American people of Armenian descent in this 2018 CfD, also also poorly attended. Place Clichy (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buidhe: above are some further comments after your question. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

You did an exemplary job on Suicides, I'm thinking this would be a good day to do Murders as well. How did you tag so many categories? Is there a script available?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @William Allen Simpson: Thanks! There is no script, it's just HotCat that makes it relatively easy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Guess I'll have to learn about HotCat. But in the meantime, I've started looking at diffusing the decades as you recommended, in reverse chronology. We seem to actually have years, no idea why somebody did decades instead.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just added HotCat (and XfDcloser), I'm used to doing everything the old-fashioned way, and don't see any option to add CfR tags. How do you do it?
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @William Allen Simpson: wait, I thought you meant how to populate the categories so easily, that's due to Hotcat. With tagging the categories, that's different. I did not specify the proposed rename in the tag, which allowed me to copy ((subst:cfr||Suicide by period)) all over, without editing individual tags. So the tag now displays: "This category is being considered for renaming to some other name" instead of mentioning a specific name. That saves quite a lot of time. But the copying itself still is manual work. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. There's also something called cat-a-lot, so I'll look at it. And I'll look at the scripting itself, so see whether it is possible to add at the top of the category instead of the bottom. I'd also like to be able to sort the categories on an article, so the yyyy birth/death/murder/suicide tags rise to the top.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's fair amount of new insanity: HMains just added Murder by continent and year (also year and continent). It's so much harder to remove things than easily adding these mass categories.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a well-developed history of adding "by continent", in addition to "by country"?
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @William Allen Simpson: I can only tell that on CfD there are hardly ever proposals to delete/merge the continent layer. The only succesful instance I remember has been in year categories: up to the year 1000 the continents have been upmerged as anachronistic constructs. A similar attempt to upmerge them for the years 1000-1500 failed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the consensus that Category:YEAR deaths should be diffused? GiantSnowman 16:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman: diffusion is default, per WP:SUBCAT, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are a large number of non-diffusing categories, see ((Non-diffusing parent category)) which is added to parent categories for that purpose. GiantSnowman 16:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman: so it's default unless there is consensus for non-diffusion. I haven't seen the latter in this case. What is the advantage of non-diffusion in this case? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself why nobody has attempted to diffuse the death categories before? Because they serve a navigation/organisation process as non-diffusing. If you're looking to change the status quo then you need to seek consensus. GiantSnowman 16:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman: what is this navigation/organisation process exactly? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For people using WP:PETSCAN etc. GiantSnowman 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman: Petscan can be used for all sorts of categories. What I mean to ask is, what special process is in place for deaths categories that does not apply to categories where WP:SUBCAT is applied as usual? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PetScan will search subcategories, so does not require non-diffusing categories. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if I've really seen where we discuss whether categories should be non-diffusing in general. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: may I ask you for advice on how to proceed after the above discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Following recent edits of Dermot Drummy [7][8][9][10], I also suggest that sub-categories are diffusing by default, per WP:SUBCAT. If the intent is that (for example) Category:2017 suicides be non-diffusing, then it should be explicitly tagged as such with ((Non-diffusing subcategory)) - as should all 100 such subcats. The status quo is, in fact, that "year suicides" is a diffusing sub-category. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a 'YEAR deaths' category diffused before, and I edit almost exclusively in biographies and have done for nearly 15 years. Diffusing those categories by manner of death etc. is OVERCAT. GiantSnowman 09:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is not clear to me. OVERCAT means that articles are in too many categories. By diffusing we reduce the number of categories that articles are in. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Category:2017 deaths (for example) is diffused by Category:2017 suicides - that's what sub-categories are for, according to WP:DIFFUSE. Unless "... suicides" is explicitly marked as non-diffusing, with ((non-diffusing subcategory)), then WP:SUBCAT clearly says "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy [eg suicides] as possible, without duplication in parent categories [eg deaths] above". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a subcategory but the parent category is non-diffusing. Like I said, I have never seen any attempt to diffuse this type of category before. GiantSnowman 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the parent is non-diffusing, because it is the child that diffuses, not the parent (the parent is, or is not, diffused). Did you mean that the parent is all inclusive? In any case, there is no ((non-diffusing)) and/or ((all included)) tag? Mitch Ames (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle, sorry for the slow reply to your ping on 30 Dec. (I haven't been able to give much time to Wikipedia lately).

Per WP:SUBCAT, the default situation is that any category is diffusing, unless specifically tagged otherwise.

In this case, I can see good arguments both ways.

In general, I think we should be wary of creating non-diffusing categories, because as exceptions to the norm, they create a maintenance task which is often neglected due to lack of awareness and/or lack of time.

However, I think that in this case there is a good argument for making these categories non-diffusing, because year of death is an item of fundamental biographical data, and similarly fundamental biographical categories are not diffused: e.g. Category:Living people and Category:1970 births.

So I would support making these suicide-by-year cats non-diffusing subcats of the relevant death-by-year cats ... or better still, we coud avoid the non-diffusion issue merging the by-year suicide categories up to their parents in suicide-by-decade and death-by-year. The numbers are small enough to make this viable.

A CFD nomination with both options set out would be the best way to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1970 births is currently tagged with ((Overpopulated category)) - "It is suggested that the contents of the category be subcategorized." I'm say that it should or should not be subcategorized, only that it's not a good example in this context. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames, I have reverted[11] that tagging. It was done on the basis of a very poorly-attended, and apparently un-notified discussion at WT:People by year#Proposed_subcategorisation. If someone wants to make a huge change like that, they should open an RFC and list it at WP:CENT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See fuller explanation at WT:People by year#Removing_tags. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman Catholic churches completed in 1457 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Category:Murdered explorers, I've carefully moved over only those that appear to have been assassinated. Please prune any that you don't think belong.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @William Allen Simpson: I do not agree with purging Collet Barker, he is a perfect example of an explorer who was killed during and because of his explorations. Whether or not it can be considered an act of self defense does not matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-defense is never murder. In this case, against whalers and sealers who had killed and enslaved them. Also, he was military at the time. Deaths of military during recognizance are not murder. In fact, nothing he did meets the usual meaning of explorer. He was a long-time fort commander, using a ship to map inlets. The explorers would have been the whalers and sealers who came before him. His crew was merely mapping, a standard military exercize. Sometimes our article sources are puff pieces, and that POV gets sucked into the articles.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At most he may be purged for not being an explorer in the strictest meaning of the word, but that is pretty far-fetched. Self-defense is definitely not a good reason to purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Good Olfactory, LaundryPizza03, RevelationDirect, Namiba, Dimadick, Carlossuarez46, and Peterkingiron: feel free to contribute, I've pinged you because you were involved in previous discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion continues at Talk:Collet_Barker#Categorisation_-_Category:Murdered_explorers. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Category:Murdered lawyers

You did not express a preference, and this is languishing. Originally, it was to be deleted. There was a proposal for renaming, so I've tried that in the interest of comity. Hardly anybody wants to rename. So I'm perfectly willing to delete.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, did you have time to look over the article (Shanghainese people in Hong Kong) now that there's more information? It could be more abundantly what makes this cross section of people a defining trait for categorization. Also, while WP:CFD is not cleanup, I have been going through the articles formerly contained the category and adding sources to claim of Shanghainese descent. --Prisencolin (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This referred to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_20#People_of_Shanghainese_descent, which has meanwhile been closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay in what world does a category like this even exist? I've tried my hardest, reading articles and books and improving the article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong, not having a full time job at the moment means I literally spent working hours in this past week trying to please the powers that be, but somehow it didn't pay off.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This referred to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you are preparing to mass nominate Chinese sub group categories. While I do agree that one or more of those categories which you have listed in your sandbox page may not be suitable for inclusion, I advise against the specific action of mass nomination, as this rarely leads to clean discussions (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_20#People_of_X_descent) Specifically to this example, the historiography of these various countries and the diaspora communities with them vary so widely that it would be impossible to discuss them all in the same place.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Prisencolin: Thanks for the advice, I agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’d like to ask that you remove or strike the words “(some articles do even not mention Fujian descent) and trivial intersection” from the discussion: Category:Hong Kong people of Fujianese descent because I have fixed the issue relating to the non-citation and calling it “trivial” is a value judgement which is discouraged at WP:ATA. I’m also debating whether the Washington people of Carolina descent analogy is even an acceptable for a discussion due to how misleading and potentially incorrect it is .—Prisencolin (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Prisencolin: that is something to add in the CfD discussion itself, insofar it does not overlap with your earlier comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to add it to the page because I don't think it's really necessarily to be seen as part of the discussion and I might be commenting too much as to be seen as WP:BLUDGEONing the situation.--Prisencolin (talk)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suicide of Ash Haffner, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Ash Haffner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Destroyed individual trees has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish Anglican priests has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that you recently edited that page. I wondering if you could add something for me. On the top of the 17th century page, it mentions the largest wars of that century. And I noticed that it was missing the bloodiest war from that century. Transition From Ming to Qing (1618-1683). TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @TaipingRebellion1850: so why do you not add it yourself? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noted that you left the Early Modern changes at speedy as capitalised. However, your late modern nominations are not capitalised. Should be one or the other please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to figure out a way to recruit more people to join in stopping the miscategorization of birds as dinosaurs. Do we need to take this to administrator notice. No one except maybe that crazy editor goes down the road and sees some geese and says "I see a bunch of dinosaurs". This is not how the term dinosaur is used, this is not how people think about the meaning of the term. This is incredibly bizarre and we need to stop allowing people to impose such non-standard word usage. This is the type of one issue pushing mis use of Wikipedia that we need to nip in the bud.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bishops in Aosta Valley has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review:

• Wikipedia talk:Category names#Heritage and residence by city or region
• Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Parents, grandparents, relatives

I've used some wording that you wrote in CfD. Sometimes it helps to have a concrete proposal for discussion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have accidentally included Category:People from Karditsa in your nomination, despite saying you wanted to keep it in your rationale. I didn't notice it at the time, and it seems no other discussant did, but now it was deleted. It is the capital of the prefecture and I believe it had more than 20 members. --Antondimak (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Antondimak: It is fixed now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by nationality has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcocapelle,

on an unrelated question, because I have now spent 15 minutes reading up on categories without finding the information: Is it admissible in the en-WP to create categories that don't have a main article corresponding to them? In the German Wikipedia these would be candidates for a quick delete, based on the rule that no category should be created unless there exists an article that plausibly corresponds to it – especially when people and their works are concerned. So I put a quick delete on Category:Films directed by Aaron Blaise and Category:Films directed by Abdul Razak Mohaideen, which both had only one film in them, and no existing article on the director. Nor were they created recently, but three and four years ago. But now that I keep finding more examples like these, I should ask you if en-WP regulations correspond to that. --Sprachraum (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sprachraum: it is not usual to create categories that don't have a main article corresponding to them, but there aren't any written guidelines about it. Also, so far, the Speedy C2 process has limited itself to renaming and merging. So a speedy deletion proposal is likely to become opposed, while in full discussion these categories are probably going to be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]