W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Marcocapelle

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Archives|search=yes}}

People of secondary Indian diaspora descent



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

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 15 § Category:History of Czechoslovakia by topic ↗



<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 15 §&nbsp;Category:History of Czechoslovakia by topic ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notice--> Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Cambridge schools



Hi!

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

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

Expatriates



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

Badgering to force incorrect placement



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

Eunuchs in Vietnam



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

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

Category:Military personnel from the Savoyard State



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

Sailors from Louisiana



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

:Category:Radio stations of the University of Southern California ↗ has been nominated for merging



<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Radio stations of the University of Southern California ↗ has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. <span style="color:#ba4168">Sammi Brie</span> (she/her · t · c ↗) 03:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Bulgarian people in Ottoman Macedonia



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

User making a lot of categories.



Hey, hope you are well!

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

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

Bandhalgoti



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

The speed with which some editors move to try and add more topic bans on me is very frustrating



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

Songwriters from Hawaii



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

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 10 §&nbsp;"Somalian" to "Somali" across the board ↗



<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 10 §&nbsp;"Somalian" to "Somali" across the board ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notice--> Thank you. '''<span style="color: darkgreen">~Malvoliox</span>''' ''(talk &#124; contribs ↗)'' 17:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Segregation activists



I see that Segregationists has been renamed to Sehregation Activists. A review indicates that this has been tagged on people who A. Expressed a view of disagreeing with the methods and associations of Martin Luther King while not actually expressing support for segregation let alone being activists for it. B. People who expressed views on racial intellectual diffwrwnce, which is not on its face (or as indicated by the article) a support of segregation let alone activism for it. 3. People who voted against a peace of legislation. This is not a sign of activism. The category has been massively applied to a huge number of people who I do not think were activists. I really do not want to get in editing fights, but it really needs to be reduced in scope to only be on articles where the subject was an activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:* {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} I will have a look. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
:** {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} I have cleaned out letter A. This may take some time. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:**:Thank you. You are right. It will take some time. Thank you. It is appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

:Category:West Iberian languages of Spain ↗ has been nominated for merging



<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:West Iberian languages of Spain ↗ has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Colonial people in Angol



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

:Category:Films about women ↗ has been nominated for deletion



<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Films about women ↗ has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. Gray eyes (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Category:1630 in Brazil ↗


48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">'''''L'''''iz</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">'''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!'''''</sup> 23:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Category with closed rename CfD that hasn't been renamed



Hey @Marcocapelle, this category closed as a rename for CfD but it hasn't been moved yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-PresentlySuraye3-20260627003500-Rename_category_that_closed_for_rename ↗. Anyway that the name change can officially take place that you know of? PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

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