User talk:Marcocapelle

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)

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 § Category:History of Czechoslovakia by topic on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

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 Category: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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. Thank you. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

• @Johnpacklambert: let's check what happens in Todor Aleksandrov. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)