User talk:Marcocapelle/Archive 9

Category deletion on Jackson abuse allegations

Hi Marcocapelle - hope it is ok for me to post here. I was curious to hear more on why you think Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and the category Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations should be deleted? Also I didn't understand the "subcategory" comment. To me it seems so obvious we need these but maybe I am missing something! Thanks in advance! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Bhdshoes2: I do not have an opinion about the overview article, I just noticed there were many delete votes in the discussion. As for the categories, one category suffices, this one category may contain all the relevant content. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  hi there @Marcocapelle - I cannot help but notice that ever since you weighed in on the volume of pages inside the category as sufficient (4 or more), some editors in the space have been removing the category tag from pages like: Leaving Neverland, Safechuck v. MJJ Productions (which I edited again recently and is nder a redirect review but getting blanked), and FBI files on Michael Jackson (at least a suggested deletion), driving down the page total. I of course cannot know if this is coordinated. Is that something you would suggest I raise on the category deletion discussion? Thanks Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Short name

Hey Marcocapelle! While relisting CfD discussion, I need to type your name countless times (thanks to your never-ending contributions there!), so I was wondering if you would be comfortable with me just writing Marco instead of the full name? Used it once, seen others use it a couple of times, but thought would ask to see if you are okay with it. :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Bunnypranav: that is perfectly alright. Thanks for asking! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Cool, thanks for the quick reply! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Republic of Venice people

Category:Republic of Venice people has lots of sub-categories that use different forms. The sub-category Category:Republic of Venice people by century uses the form Category:18th-century Venetian people etc. I think that name creates too much confusion between the Republic of Venice and the city of Venice. Yes, the whole city was always in the Republic, and do to how the Republic ended in 1797 there is not realistically going to be any 18th-century people from Venice not connected to the City, but the name might cause people to not put people there who were from the Republic because people will think it means the city. So I think it would be better if we used another form. If we look under Category:Republic of Venice people by occupation we have an interesting assortment. 18 categories use the form "Republic of Venice foo", 17 use "foo from the Republic of Venice" 4 use "Venetian" and 3 use "of", that is Ambassadors, Doges and 1 other. We currently have both "Venetian engineers" and "Engineers from the Republic of Venice". A title like "Venetian engineers" would seem to tend towards having articles on post-1797 people from the city of Venice in it, so I think it is a very poor name. "Venetian governors" has the explanatory text "Governors of subdivisions of the Republic of Venice." That might actually be a much better name Category:Governors of subdivisions of the Republic of Venice. Republic of Venice diplomats probably would best be renamed Category:Diplomats for the Republic of Venice to match all the related categories under that tree, and I think it would be best to rename to Category:People from the Republic of Venice, and use the From the Republic of Venice form for basically everything else. The one other exception is the military personnel and maybe its sub-cats where I think for would be the best word so Category:Military personnel for the Republic of Venice. That is because there we do not really care where the people were from, but what military they were in. A person born in Venice but who served in the military of the Papal States, Spain, France, etc. would not belong. Conversely if someone served in the army or navy of the Republic of Venice we want him in this category, even if he did so entirely on ships outside the limits of the Republic or maybe in an army that spent its entire time in areas that were in the Ottoman Empire and not in the Republic of Venice. I think in general we should rename everything here to "People from the Republic of Venice", and other forms using from except a few rare exceptions where from is not what we want (governos, diplomats and military personnel come to mind, because in none of those cases do we want Nationals of the Rpeublic of Venice who did these things for other governments included, a sculptor who was clearly a national of the Republic of Venice but did sculpting in Rome, Paris, Madrid or anywhere outside the Republic of Venice we would want to include, with the exceptions of Republic of Venice nationals who left the Republic of Venice and became at least de facto nationals elsewhere before sculpting. So if a sculptor was born and raised in the Republic of Venice, and trained there, but ended up doing his significant work in say Paris, we want him in the category. If he was born in the Republic of Venice but moved to France as a small child, and then becomes a sculptor years later, he would be a French scultpor and the only Republic of Venice category he would go in would be Emigrants from the Republic of Venice. "From the Republic of Venice" mean what "Venician" would mean if it could be made clear that "Venician" was about the Republic and not the city, but since Venice is an article on the city not the Republic, I do not think we could make any argument at all that the primary meaning of Venician is "from the Republic of Venice" and not "from the city of Venice". Clearly the current irregular mess is not working. I think "People from the Republic of Venice" would be the best form, but some uniformity would be better than the current situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Military personnel

I really think we would be best off renaming the "Foo military personnel" categories to "Military personnel for foo" as we have essentially done with Category:Diplomats for France ; Category:Diplomats for Indonesia ; Category:Diplomats for South Africa etc. The question is, is it worth having a category for people who were nationals of a country who either A- were military personnel for another country while still being clearly nationals of a starting country, or people who were in military that was not the national military. The later tend to realistically belong in Category:Rebels and its sub-cats, and the former may often technically belong in Category:Mercentaries; or are cases where the starting country and military service might be a trivial intersection. Right now one of the sub-cats of Category:19th-century American military personnel is Category:American people in the khedivial Egyptian Army there is also Category:19th-century United States Army personnel and Category:19th-century American naval officers, the second refers to being in the United States Army, thus army is capitalized, the second might be meant to cover United States Navy personnel, but why is it not named Category:19th-century United States Navy personnel. We have Category:United States Navy personnel. In the case of France we have Category:French military personnel we also have Category:French Army personnel which refers to being in the French Army. The French Army was formed in 1445. The German Army per our article was formed in 1955. Which I guess means that Category:German Army personnel should only refer to people in that. However the sub-cat Category:German Army generals has a sub-cat Category:German Army generals of World War I which does not work when the German Army was created in 1955. In fact German Army personnel is a sub-cat of Category:German military personnel of the Bundeswehr, the Bundeswehr was also formed in 1955, so this is a bad tree formation. Germany may be a special case, but the nature of the military being formed anew in 1955 may mean we need to rethink the categories. Category:German generals says "This category includes generals from Germany since 1871, as well as from predecessor states (Prussia, Bavaria, etc.)." It has sub-categories Category:Bundeswehr generals (which looks like it is basically a duplicate of Category:German Army generals or should be a parent of the latter), Category:Reichswehr generals (the army of the Weimar Republic, although it lasts until 1935) and Category:Wehrmacht generals (1935-1945 military). It also has Category:National People's Army generals which is the military of East Germany, Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony and Category:Württemberg generals. What are Saxon generals one might ask, since there are multiple places that have been called Saxony (Duchy of Saxony; Electorate of Saxony; Category:Kingdom of Saxony; Province of Saxony, etc. The article Saxony is about the Free State of Saxony which was formed in 1920. On digging further it looks like we have an article we can link to. I will put that in a follow up comment. This is a huge issue, and we may want to fix obvious problems like the German mess before we try standardizing things internationally.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like there is a solution to the Saxony issue. We have an article Royal Saxon Army which is a miliary force that existed from 1682-1918. So we could rename Category:Saxon military personnel to Category:Royal Saxon Army personnel. We do have the issue that the second person in Category:Saxon Field Marshalls is Hans Georg von Arnim-Boitzenburg who died in 1641. We might want to split this up so we have Category:Military personnel of the Electorate of Saxony or even Category:Military personnel of the Electorate of Saxony (pre-1682) as 1 category and Category:Royal Saxon Army personnel as another. The Electorate of Saxony was formed in 1356. We actually already have Category:Military personnel of the Kingdom of Saxony which has 86 articles. It looks like we have only 4 pre-1682 articles (all under the Field Marshalls cat) and maybe a dozen from 1682 until the end of the electorate in 1805. The fact that the Royal Saxon Army continues across what is a state rename but not much of a change in the nature of the state itself means that it is tempting to have that be the central category. If we broke it into Category:Military personnel of the Kingdom of Saxony (possible rename to for) and Category:Military personnel for the Electorate of Saxony we would balance size the most but it is not clear that would be the most accurate. One possibility is to A-rename and repurpose to have Category:Royal Saxony Army personnel then place the people pre-1682 in Category:Military personnel for states under the Holy Roman Empire (or a similar title) which we could use to group those who served in various militaries states, and directly place those for militaries which have few members with articles. Either way I think the Field Marshalls and various general of Saxony would best be upmerged to a a Germany article, either Royal Saxon Army military personnel or a split Military personnel for the Electorate of Saxony and Military personnel for the Kingdom of Saxony and a general Field marshalls or generals category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Consuls

I will try to not bombard you with too much. This however seems very not quite right. The article Consul is about the office in the Roman Republic and in later states in the Italian peninsula and in the 1st French Republic. It has this as its second paragraph "This usage contrasts with modern terminology, where a consul is a type of diplomat." Category:Consuls is about the subject that is named in article form Consul (representative). This seems like it is needlessly confusing. I feel that Category:Consuls (diplomatic) or Category:Consuls (diplomats) or something like that might be a little clearer to editors. We have Category:Roman consuls which is a sub-category of Category:Political office-holders in ancient Rome. It is not clear that we have any articles on medieval consuls in various parts of the Italian Peninsula and in some parts of southern France. These were city level officials, in France basically like Aldermen, so we may not have any.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Paintings with unknown or disputed subjects

Hey Marcocapelle! Want to help make this list you suggested? S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Italian emigrants to the Kingdom of Great Britain

This seems a highly anachronistic category. For most of the time the Kingdom of Great Britain existed there was no clear Italy. The Republic of Venice, Savoyard state and Papal States all included areas both inside and outside modern Italy, as did the Republic of Genoa for some of that time. Are people from Savoy, Nice, Corsica, and various areas on the east side of the Agean Sea and the region in and around Avignon to be called "emigrants from Italy" because those areas were in states based within modern Italy, or are we going to use this category for emigrants from the modern boundaries of Italy and so only include people coming from parts of those 4 states in Italy, and also include those leaving South Tyrol, and thud fully ignore contemporary boundaries in this category and impose the modern boundaries of Italy as a normative construct without regard to actual history?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

None of the applicable x state (Republic of Venice, Grand Duchy of Saxony, Savoyard State, Papal States, Republic of Genoa, Papal States, etc.) emigrant categories need splitting because they are all under 50 articles. Where it is clear where these people came from I have added categories for the state thry emigrated from. 2 it is not clear what state thry left.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Adriaen van der Donck

Adriaen van der Donck is currently in Category:17th-century American lawyers, this seems to be inaccurate. He lived in New Netherland. New Netherland existed until 1667. Donck died in 1655. So he never lived as a resident of the English/British controlled areas of North America. By putting him in this category we are making it a category that ignored actual areas of control at the time, which is the very reason some have argued that we should not use American for people in the 17th-century. I do not believe he belongs in this category. I think that he should be upmerged to the general lawyers category unless we can find enough articles to create Category:Lawyers from New Netherland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

People from Awadh

The category Category:People from Awadh seems to be misnamed since it is for people from the place that our article calls Oudh State. I think we should rename this category to :Category:People from Oudh State to match the article name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

18th-century Engravers from Bohemia

Should this not be upmerged to all parents, 18th-century engravers from the Holy Roman Empire and 18th-century artists from Bohemia as well as Engravers from Bohemia?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Also the 19th-century category probably would be best renamed to 19th-century engravers from Bohemia (although since the two categories only have 5 articles, upmerging would probably be good for that one as well).John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• I did add Tavík František Šimon. He was creating art works by 1906, so clearly "from Bohemia", but he does not look to have done anything significant in the 19th-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Engravers are a sub-cat of printmakers evidently. So I created Category:Printmakers from Bohemia. I then put the various Engravers from Bohemia categories under that one. Between all the categories under Category:Printmakers from Bohemia we might have 11 categories. I think it would make the most sense to upmerge people to that category and then probably engravers by century categories or for other political entities as they apply. At least for the time being based on the actual number of articles we currently have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Also, should Category:Engravers from Bohemia really be a sub-cat of Category:Engravers from the Holy Roman Empire, when the HRE ended in 1806 but Bohemia continued to exist until 1918?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lower Saxon nobility

There is a category Category:Lower Saxon nobility. This category I think per definition should not have any articles. The German nobility was abolished with the formation of the Weimar Republic in 1918. Lower Saxony was created in 1946. There are multiple states with complex histories that existed in the area prior to that year. It is an extreme case of anachronism to refer to anything pre-1946 as "Lower Saxon". This is not the Freestate of Saxony that more or less continues the previous [[Kingdom of Saxony]] and Electorate of Saxony nor is this Bavaria where you have a rough continuiation of the old system. Lower Saxony is the melding of Oldenburg, Hanover (which had from 1866 been part of Prussia) and Brunswick with some other smaller areas as well. Each of these three states are large and important enough that having categories for people from them makes sense, so I really do not see any good reason to have a category that is essentially categorizing 19th century and earlier people by a polity that was not formed until the mid-20th-century. Contrary to what some articles say there was no "Lower Saxon nobility". I just created Category:Principality of Lüneburg to put some things in that state that existed from 1269 until 1706. The fact that the Electorate of Honover was called the Principality of Calenburg for much of the 17th-century makes the situation more complex, but imposing an identity created in the 20th-century on things much earlier makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin

I just placed Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin in the category Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to the Russian Empire he lived from 1744-1774. The category was returned to Category:German emigrants to the Russian Empire with the note "not helpful". This is very, very frustrating. Every year this person was alive the Holy Roman Empire existed. He was from Tübingen which is without dispute within the Holy Roman Empire. There is no reason at all to remove this category. The editor who did it has a long tendency to fight against any reference to the "Russian Empire" but since both categories use Russian Empire this edit just plain does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

"The editor who did it has a long tendency to fight against any reference to the "Russian Empire""???? I guess you can substantiate this? You removed Category:German emigrants to the Russian Empire, which I reverted. Note the "Russian Empire" in that cat? It's still there. Feel free to add a HRE cat next to the German one, but please stop removing German categories everywhere for no good reason. He is routinely described as being German and removing this from the categories is not helpful for our readers at all. Fram (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You have not at all explained why you object to the Holy Roman Empire in either that article (which I still do not think you were the one to remove) nor in Charlotte von Hezel. Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to the Russian Empire is a sub-cat of Category:German emigrants to the Holy Roman Empire. If you do not like the category, you are free to nominate it for merger or deletion, but you need to stop removing people who very clearly moved from the Holy Roman Empire to the German Empire from the category. Moving article to an existing sub-cat of a larger category is accpetable, removing them from the sub-cat because you do not like it is not. Charlotte von Hezel clearly belongs in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to readd Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to the Russian Empire to von Henzel, while leaving the other ones alone. And no, HRE is not a subcat of German, as the HRE is a lot larger. Fram (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• No HRE is not larger than Germany. In the 18th-century to the extent that anyone speaks of "Germany" they mean the Holy Roman Empire. There is not in the 18th-century any concept of a "Germany" that is not the same thing as the Holy Roman Empire. There is not in the 18th-cenutry any place that would be considered "not Germany" in the Holy Roman Empire. German nationalists look to unify everything that was in the Holy Roman Empire into Germany in the early 19th-century. They see Bohemia and Austria (as it existed priot to the formation of the Austrian Empire at least) as part of Germany. The Holy Roman Empire is not "larger" than Germany in the 19th-century. My above comment was based on misunderstanding who made the edit. I still do not think removing a category like Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire to Russian Empire is justified. I also for think we should scrap every single pre-1800 German category and replace them all with "From the Holy Roman Empire" category, because there is no easily definable and coherent definition of German nationality in that time period, but From the Holy Roman Empire is clear. We use "From the Ottoman Empire" not Turkish, even though pre-1922 "Turkey" was the common name in English of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Austrian Netherlands is the most obvious counterexample. Fram (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Austrian Netherlands was no more or no less part of the Holy Roman Empire than e.g. Hanover, Bavaria or Bohemia. It is not helpful to isolate some of the HRE principalities as "German" with the exclusion of others. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Ludwig Heinrich von Nicolay

As far as I can tell Ludwig Heinrich von Nicolay should not be said to be German. He was born and raised in Strasbourg at a time when it was under French control. It had been under French control at the time of his birth for over 50 years. He may in fact be ethnically German, but we do not generally put people in categories for an ethnicity when that does not relate to the country. I posted a note about this on the talk page of the article in June. There have been no reactions. So I have moved him from German to French categories in most cases because he appears to have been a French national who then emigrated to the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

18th-century Indian singers

The category Category:18th-century Indian singers has 4 sub-cats. Between all 4 sub-cats there are at present only 2 articles, as in if we upmerged all 4 sub-cats 18th-century Indian singers would have 2 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

American city council members

I still think the category should be something like Category:City councils members of populated places in the United States. The counterpart is Category:Mayors of places in the United States not Category:Mayors in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: isn't it too obvious that they are "of places", do we really need to specify that? The same applies to mayors. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I would agree the places is obvious for these and for mayors. I think just dropping the "places" from mayors would work. I do not think the term is used for anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

People from the Electorate of Bavaria and People from the Duchy of Bavaria

Both the article on Duchy of Bavaria and the one on Electorate of Bavaria say they ended in 1806. Technically the Electorate of Bavaria exists from 1623-1806, while the Duchy of Bavaria exists before then. They are the same place, just a change in the exact status of the ruler but no significant changes of the state. The names are used interchangeably in articles for post-1623 people. The question is do you think we should A-merge the two categories, since evidently per our article Duchy of Bavaria is a useable name until 1805 or B-split the categories so the Duchy of Bavaria categories only have pre-1623 people and the Electorate of Bavaria categories have people from 1623-1806.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: technically you are absolutely right, but I am afraid a merge would merely lead to confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Do you think we could at least make it so all post-1623 people are in the Electorate category. Right now it is a true hodge podge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  •  Done - Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

    Thsnkyou. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:French slaves

Category:French slaves is a sub-cat of Category:Slavery in France plus in lots of other categories like this it is limited to where the people were slaves. I this removed an article on a guy who was a slave in Thailand. I think we should limit this to slaves in France and rename it to that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Betsimisaraka Kings

Category:Betsimisaraka Kings has only one article. It is not clear we actually know the names of any other kings who ruled over thd Betsimisaraka people. I think upmerging to the parents would be good. However I think Monarchs in Madagascar would be a better other parents than Malagasy monarchs. This person was a king over only a small part of what was Madagascar in the early 18th-century before the Marina Kingdom had imposed itself over the entire island.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Maharajas of Rajasthan

We have a category Category:Maharajas of Rajasthan the issue is that Rajasthan is formed at the same time as the actual power of the Maharajas is ended. Previously there was a region Rajputana that covered all of what is today Rajasthan and some more area. So I think we could just rename this to Category:Maharajas of Rajputana which would be a natural child of Category:People from Rajputana. This is basically along the lines of People from Al-Andalus and a few other such categories we have for people from not politically unified areas (People from Ancient Greece is another example). India between the disintegration of the Mughal Empire in the early 18th-century and the consolidation of British control in the early 19th-century is a truly complex mess of territories, and in a few places like Rajputana and Bundelkhand the British control by indirect rule leaving in place many pricely states (which for most of the 18th-century were fully indepdent countries, but we often have very few people per place). Arguably a category like Category:18th-century Italian people is doing the same thing. There is no Italian government, the borders of "Italy" in that time are hard to define, I think in 1705 it would include all of the Savoyard state (which has border adjustments in 1713, there is a small area today in Italy that was part of France in until 1713), I guess also anyone in the Republic of Venice would be Italian, as well as people in Corsica until the end of Republic of Genoa rule, and I would assume people in south Tyrol would not be Italian, but some editors try to make these by ethnicity categories, ignoring that the notion we can clearly define the boundary between Italianess and Frenchness is absurd in this period. It is sometimes frustrating how much some editors treat present geographic boundaries as if they express some eternal unchainging geographic truth. People from France pre-1790 are regularly categorized by departments formed in 1790, and even by regions formed in the 20th and even 21st century, huge numbers of English people who lived centuries earlier are categorized by districts formed in 1974, and in India and Germany we see states like Lower Saxony and Rajasthan created in the mid-20th century imposed on people who died before 1800. We also have people in pre-colonial Africa categorized according to states like Nigeria that was created in the colonial period and is often called "the mistake of 1908" for merging areas with unlike culture and history, or Ghana, which is not even used as a name for that area ever until 1956. We have people categorized by Pakistan who died in the 18th-century, including people in the People from Punjab, Pakistan, a place that does not exist until 1947 anymore than Pakistan itself does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Bison hunters

I do not think we want to Rensselaer this to Category:American bison hunters. That could be read as American nationals who are hunters who hunt bison. What we want is Hunters who hunt American bison. At least one person in the category was a subject of New Spain and then Mexico. So I think Category:Hunters of American bison would capture what we actually want the Category to cover. We want hunters regardless of their nationality who hunted American bison. Since we have Category:American hunters for hunters who are nationals of the United States this confusion is quite possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

History of the Mount Everest cat

Hi Marco, I see that you created this new cat. Could you please rename it? I'm not sure what to do if the discussion doesn't get anywhere. Thanks! Ericoides (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Ericoides: no worries, every discussion at CfD is closed after some time, and so it will be renamed (unless someone objects to your proposal). Just be patient. Personally I do not mind either way, that is why I have not commented in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  OK, cheers. Ericoides (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Swedish slaves

I think we should delete Category:Swedish slaves and manually upmerge the 3 articles as needed. As it is functioning now this is "people who were slaves who later became in some way Swedish", their status as slaves in at least 2 cases ended when they came to Sweden if not before, and the third case that is probably so as well. It is clearly not "Slaves in Sweden" and it is not "nationals of Sweden who were slaves" since these people stopped being slaves when they became Swedish nationals. Maria Aurora von Spiegel the article says "if not before, she would have been automatically free upon arrival within Swedish borders". She is already in a sub-cat of Category:Slaves in the Ottoman Empire. The other two people in this category are Johan Pehr Gustav Philander, a person held as a slave by the Dutch in an island that is now part of Indonesia, sold in a slave market in Canton, China, but who the article says became free on arriving in Sweden. The one other person in the category Gustav Badin was a slave in the Danish West Indies (he may have been born there or somewhere in Africa, no one knows for sure) and then brought to Denmark and later Sweden. Likewise I think Category:Danish slaves needs to be scrapped. Here is it merging two unlike groups. Group 1 consists of 3 people (2 bios and a redirect) born in or at least resident for a time in the Danish West Indies, later coming to Denmark, although 1 appears to have only been in the DWI, 1 may not have ever been effectively a slave in Denmark itself, and 1 may have been. From what I can see a category Slaves in the Danish West Indies would only cover 4 articles, so I do not think making it is worth while either. The 4th article in Danish slaves is on a Danish person who was captured and held as a slave in the Province of Algiers which was then under the Ottoman Empire. In general we categorize people by where they were held as slaves, not where they were from before they became slaves. If we did want to categorize by the later we should have that be a separate category tree. I think the Danish is just too small, and they should be in our slaves by century category. All the people here are right now in a slaves by century category or a sub-category of such. Category:17th-century slaves only has 44 direct articles and 18th-century slaves only has 69 direct articles. So I think direct placement of the articles that do not fit in a sub-category in the slaves by century category is justified at this time based on the articles we actually have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Haitian slaves

The category Category:Haitian slaves has this as its lead "This category contains slaves in present Haiti. As slavery never existed in present Haiti, it concerns slaves of the former French colony of Saint Domingue in present Haiti." So basically there were never any Haitian slaves, only Haitians who had been slaves (or possibly a few Haitians who were slaves elsewhere). Based on this I think we should rename the category to Category:Slaves in Saint Domingue (which I think is sometimes written with a hyphen, I do not care exactly how we form it, but I think the in form would be better).John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hans Hansen Bergen

I am very frustrated with how some editors ignore why I remove articles from categories. It feels like a just insisting that categories are right no matter the anachronism of them. Hans Hansen Bergen is in 2 very anachronistic categories. He is in Norwegian Immigrants yo the Netherlands. He died 111 years before the Netherlands was created. He is also in Category:Farmers from New York (state). To the extent farmer is the right term for someone who seems to have been a tobacco Plantation overseer, when he died he lived in New Netherland. The issue here is more complex than the editor who forced the return to the category is willingly to acknowledge. The issue boils down to which of 3 choices is best. However there is a refusal to acknowledge there are 3 choices and just rudeness about it. Option 1 is we categorize people by occupation + polity in all cases. So we would create Category:Farmers from New Netherland. Option 3 is we treat current political units as normative abd use them to categorize people for all time. We thus would have people placed according to modern political divisions back indefinitely ignoring political reality if their time. Option 2 which I was trying to do was placing people in reasonably sized people from x categories, this Category:People from New Netherland, and then placing them directly in Category:Farmers if we do not have appropriate sub-cats. I really do not think we should be placing people in Category:Farmers from New York (state) who died before the name New York was put in place in the 1660s. This seems too much of anachronistic imposition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I gave up and formed the category Farmers from New Netherland. A few of the entries might better go in a planters from New Netherland Category. However it is too small to justify a split. What I did learn is that Category:Plantation owners is the parent to various planer categories. We should either rename the parent to Category:Planters, which I think would go better with common name, or rename the child categories to Plantation owners. I think using planters would be best. Although we have to avoid misapplying it to founders of settlements who are sometimes called planters. I Aldo found that Category:Pakistani planters has 1 article as does its parent Category:Farmers. There are several other small or 1 article categories under the farmers tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Black French people

Someone on the discussion of politicians by descent said that "Black French people often trace their descent to the Caribbean or New Caledonia". If Black French people includes those from New Caledonia than Black is not being used as a synonym for African descent. As far as is know the people of New Caledonia are not of African descent, but are a dark skinned people with origins outside of Africa (at least as much as any people have origins outside Africa). If Black French includes those from New Caledonia it is not a descent category. I suspect this is a misunderstanding. Normally black only refers to those of African descent, and the dark skilled people of South India, Melenesia and some groups in the Philippines are not considered to be black, no matter how dark they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: which discussion are you referring to? Please include links whenever appropriate. Thank you! Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • It is under the heading of Category:Politicians of European descent, if you go to that category page it will take you to the discussion where the person made the comment about Black French including people of New Caledonian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Prussian Physicians

Category:Prussian physicians is a sub-cat of Category:People from the Kingdom of Prussia. It is also a parent category of Category:Physicians from the Province of Prussia. I am thinking its scope and purpose would be much clearer if it were renamed to be Category:Physicians from the Kingdom of Prussia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Women poets

There are at least 5 women poets by nationality cats with only 1 article. There are at least than many with 2 and with 3. However pretty much all women poets by nationality cats not sib-divided by century are in violation of the ERGS no last rung rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

There are 122 20th-century poets by nationality lcategories. 3 if these Czechslovak, Yugoslav and Soviet are there because they are 20th-centurJy only countries. In theory we could diffuse both Yugoslav and Soviet poets by which first level national sub-unit they were from. I am not sure we have much in the way of stuff under say Category:People from the Ukrsine SSR etc. I am not sure people would be OK with actually upmerging according to the last rung rule, but it begs why we have it. I regret having in the past pushed the implementation of Category:American women novelists. I think we have created far too many sub-cats under Category:Women writers and Category:Male writers. However I think Chadian, Nigerien, Sheyelles, Marshallese and the one other 1 article cat of women poets can probably be upmerged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Technically Category:Seychellois women poets could be expanded to 3 articles. However those are the only 3 articles in Category:Seychellois poets, so I do not know that expanding it makes sense. Also, I am not convinced thst is a widely used word in English. I think From the Seychelles would be clearer. The Frech Guinana poets cat only has 1 article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Bahamian women writers

So I think Category:Bahamian women poets and Category:Bahamian women historians need to be upmerged for now. Bahamian poets has 5 articles, 4 women and 1 man. Bahamian historians has 2 articles, the same 2 in Bahamian women historians. 1 of these articles is on a woman who was a poet and a historian. Upmerging will give us the results, 15 articles in Bahamian women writers, 2 in Bahamian historians and 5 in Bahamian poets. The only question is do we really need to keep the 2 in Bahamian historians. Possibly upmerge to just historians or maybe diffuse by century. Diffusing into so small categories hinders navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Carniolan people

We have an article Duchy of Carniola. I think the whole organization of things would be better is we renamed all categories using Carniolan to People from the Duchy of Carniola and similar categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

For example Francesco Robba was a sculptor who had his workshop in the Duchy of Carniola and married a woman with familial roots there. I put him in Category:Carniolan sculptors but think he would much better fit in a category named Category:Sculptors from the Duchy of Carniola. I think the scope of the Category would be clearer with that name as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Our articles are as likely to call the people from the Duchy of Carniola "Slovenian" or to say they are "from Carniola" or "from the Duchy of Carniola" as to say they are Carniolan. I also fear that the current name causes some people from the Duchy of Cariola who are sometimes called Austrian or German to be excluded from the category. The sane sort of thing causes people sometimes called Germany to be excluded from 19th-century and earlier Czech categories which is why we have gone to having the From Bohemia categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Scipio Kennedy

Scipio Kennedy is in Category:Guinean emigrants to Scotland. He is the whole contents. However he cane from Guinea (region) not the modern country of Guinea. The region is a larger area. So this is at best a mis-naned Category. I have started Category:People from Guinea (region) to place pre-colonisl people from the region in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The region of Guinea consisted of what is today Senegal, the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, Benin, and the southern half of modern Nigeria. This is so much bigger than modern Guinea that it makes the size difference between Austria and the Austrian Empire seem almost inconsequential.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Can people be expatriates from a country that does not exist

Domenico Scarlatti is categorized as an Italian expatriate in Spain and in Italy. He was from the Kingdom of Naples and so I think that is what he should be categorized as. However I have this feeling some editors will yell at me for taking him out of the Italian expatriates tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Prussian politicians

I think Category:Prussian politicians would best be renamed to Category:Politicians from the Kingdom of Prussia to make its scope more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Regents of India

I think Category:Regents of India would best be renamed to Category:Regents in India since these were not people who were regents over India and thus "of India", they were rejects of various states within the larger region called India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research

Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:

1 What does the editor think and feel:

2 What does the editor say and do:

3 What does the editor hear and see:

4 What are is pains:

5 What are is gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):

thanks to whoever will participate in this survey :) ~2025-32564-81 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Puerto Rican Army personnel

This is a category that at best is misnamed, but I am not sure that we need it at all. The category lead says this "This category contains the names of notable people who were born in Puerto Rico, people who are of full or partial Puerto Rican ancestry, and many long-term residents and/or immigrants of other ethnic heritages who have made Puerto Rico their home who served in the Army of Spain, Cuba, Venezuela, United States or of that of any other country." The name would suggest that these are people who served in the "Puerto Rican Army" Every other X army personnel category means that. But these is no Puerto Rican Army. The inclusion of "people who are of full or partial Puerto Rican ancestry" while also including "long-term residents and/or immigrants of other ethnic heritages" makes this a hodge podge mix of an ethnic category, an ancestry category and a by location category all rolled into one. I really think blowing this up would be best, but there might be a way to rename and maybe split it to a useable level. "Military personnel from Puerto Rico", where we remove anyone who was never a resident of Puerto Rico I think would be the most workable solution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• The fact that I first came across this category because Antonio de los Reyes Correa was in it, makes me almost wonder if we should split this between Category:People from Puerto Rico in the Spanish military; and Category:People from Puerto Rico in the United States military. Those are the two most likely categories to go in, since people in a colony most often serve in the military of the country that controls them. I think we should exclude people actually born and fully raised in New York City, Florida, Texas, Chicago or anywhere in the incorporated United States. However people who were born in Puerto Rico but raised on the mainland, or those who were born on the mainland but partially raised in Puerto Rico should count. If we have enough Puerto Ricans who went to Cuba or Venezuela and served in the military there we could form categories for that as well, however I think it would be best to split first and see what else we have left.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

15th-century Venetian businesspeople and 16th-century Venietian businesspeople

We still have Category:15th-century Venetian businesspeople and Category:16th-century Venetian businesspeople despite them being sub-cats of both Category:Businesspeople from the Republic of Venice and Category:15th-century people from the Republic of Venice and the related 17th-century category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Peter von Pennavaire

Peter von Pennavaire is in 3 different emigration categories. All for moving from Toulouse to Berlin. He is in French emigrants to Germany, French emigrants to the Holy Roman Empire and Immigrants to the Kingdom of Prussia. What we need is a ruling that Kingdom of Prussia is an overlap with both the HRE and Germany in ways that pre-1871 we default to Immigrants to the Kingdom of Prussia and no other categories. I have my fears that certain editors would be hard headed enough to oppose it. I am also not sure I have ever seen a request to define exclusive overlapping categories and order what categories get precedence in CfD, but I think that would be a logical place to hold such a discussion, unless you can identify a better place to do so. I really think we should have a rule that moving for place A to place B should only ever be in A- Fooian emigrants to Boo or B- Fooian emigrants and Immigrants to Boo cats if there are not enough cases of this specific country to country movement to justify a seperate category, or if the whole life movement of the person is complex and best in multiple one point immigrantion/emigration categories. I think Immigrants to the HRE should be treated as non-overlap categories with Immigrants to Germany, sort of like how we do not put Category:German writers in Category:German-language writers. I think the Immigrants to the Kingdom of Prussia should be non-overlap with German or HRE, but that is should only have emigrants through 1871, and post-1871 should be in Category:Immigrants to Germany. Further I think immigration and emigration categorization can and in some cases should be formulated differently than other categories, because this is about legal change of residence and so absolutely must involved countries. Whereas in other cases people have their national allegiance changed not just by movement but by state changes. It does not matter if you leave Germany 1 year after where you are leaving is annexed into Germany you are a German national, and if you left 2 years earlier you would be a national of what ever other category. However if you only live in Germany 1 year before emigrating, you might not be a German writer, actor, scientist, farmer etc. because it is possible that whatever occupation you did not pursue in a significant manner if at all during that year. I think we do have many people currently in Fooian booers categories for a Fooian thing (writers, scientists, politicians, etc.) that they did only after they stopped being Fooian and became a booer. A person who left Germany for the US, Mexico, UK, Argentina, Samoa, etc. at age 15 and stayed in that country the rest of his life if very unlikely to count as a German writer, scientist, politician etc. I know we have many cases where this guideline has not been well followed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Military personnel by populated place

I strongly suspect that we should not have anything in the tree Category:Military personnel by populated place, with the possible exemptions of a few people connected with militaries of city states, in which cases those are probably better parented in another way. Military personnel in almost all cases operate on the scale of the country, and often travel beyond the country. Military personnel are defined by what military they are serving in, not by the city they were born or raised (or partially raised) in, or where they lived part of their adult lives, possibly after military service. I know this is actually a problem in a lot of categories, mixing people by the city they lived part of their lives in, and something that they did largely not in that city, but military personnel seems to be one of the clearest cases of this not being a defining intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Ernst Gottlieb Baron

Ernst Gottlieb Baron I think illustrates why we should use "From the Holy Roman Empire" categories more. He was born in Silesia when he was part of Bohemia under Habsburg rule, then studied in the more central part of Bohemia, then in Leipzeig in the Electorate of Saxony, and then moved between multiple courts within the Holy Roman Empire. I really think he should be moved from 18th-century German categories to 18th-century from the Holy Roman Empire categories but I know if I do that two editors will attack me for emptying people from German categories. I think in this case it makes no sense to leave him in German categories at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Johann Wolfgang Baumgartner is another such example. He lived the early years of his life in Tyron and the Prince-Bishopric of Salzburg.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

China cats v People Republic of China cats

At present Wikipedia does not have an article on the People Republic of China. People Republic of China redirects to China. Russian Federation also redirects to Russia. This would suggest that in both cases we should not use the names at all, and should instead if we have something that needs to be separated from a category on the current Russian or China use a different name for that category, and for things that are clearly connected to the government (soldies, diplomats, office holders, politicians etc.) we should probably only use Russian and Chinese for people from the Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China. These might well be reasons we would want to change the names and scopes of some articles, and actually create articles titled Peoples Republic of China and Russian Federation, but until we do so I do not think we should be using either of those names to name a category. I would say if people do want to use those names in category space they should first create the articles. We should really avoid having categories for polities before we have an article on it. Which is the main reason why I separated out the Province of Brittany and Province of Normandy articles so that we could have separate category articles for them. The reverse is not true, although we maybe could we do not need to create a category Kingdom of France just because we have an article on the Kingdom of France. Not all changes in boundaries, government, government form and such require a new category for anything. Alternately it would seem that when a country ceases to exist, and then is formed several years later it would be best to not merge people from the old and new regimes into one category. Which is why I think we should rename pre-1800 Austrian categories in a lot of cases to People from the Archduchy of Austria. We do have Category:People from the Archduchy of Austria. One thing that is unclear to me is if the County of Tyrol and the Duchy of Carniola were part of the Archduchy of Austria or if they were seperate units within the Hapsburg domains at least from 1500 on with the same ruler but technically not within the bounds of the Archduchy of Austria. Do you know or can you tell from the article?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• • The Archduchy of Austria article is not very clear at all. However it says this

"Charles' younger brother Ferdinand I claimed his rights and became Archduke of Austria according to an estate distribution at the 1521 Diet of Worms, whereby he became regent over the Austrian archduchy and the adjacent Inner Austrian lands of Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and Gorizia (Görz)." Although the map it gives seems to suggest the Archduchy of Austria included Tyrol, Carinthia, Carniola and Gorizia, the text implies they were jointly held but technically distinct lands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• On further review under the County of Gorizia we get this "While the Lienz area was administered with the Tyrolean crown land, the "inner county" of Gorizia remained an Imperial State of the Holy Roman Empire ruled by the Inner Austrian Archdukes as part of the Austrian Circle, governed by a capitano. Its territory included the Isonzo Valley down to Aquileia, the area of Cormons and Duino, and the former Venetian fortress of Gradisca, which was conquered by Imperial troops in 1511. Monfalcone formed a Venetian exclave in the county from 1420 to 1797. In 1647 Emperor Ferdinand III separated the "Principality of Gradisca" from Gorizia for his courtier Johann Anton von Eggenberg, until in 1747 both were again merged to form the Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca, a crown land of the Habsburg monarchy." So it seems that the various domains of the Habsburgs were seperate states under the Holy Roman Empire. We might want to further review the various 18th-century Austrian categories before proposing a rename to make sure that everyone in them was actually from the Archduchy of Austria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• The biggest factor seems to be that the city of Graz was in the Duchy of Styria not in the Archduchy of Austria. There is also the fact that Salzburg was in the Prince-Bishopric of the same name and the innsbrooke was in the County of Tyrol. I am going to review if we have many people from Graz.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

  Johann Joseph Neidl is the first person I found from Graz who was not part of the habsburg family and pre-1800. However he had moved to Vienna by 1799, so he would still fall under any category for the Archduchy of Austria we could put him in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_13#Category:Maltese_biologists

You forgot to sign your post. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

18th-century members of the Connecticut General Assembly

The category. Category:18th-century members of the Connecticut General Assembly is part of an odd system that is placing Category:18th-century Connecticut politicians as a sub-cat of Category:Politicians from colonial Connecticut which I think is just wrong. Those who served in political office from 1701-1776 when Connecticut is under the British colonial system are fundamentally different from those who serve from the declaration of independence in 1776 on. In some colonies/states we have overlapping competing government officials. Connecticut not quite so much, and we have people serve across the line. This is such a huge line I think that we should have 18th-century Connecticut politicians as a seperate Category from Politicians from colonial Connecticut where we could have Category:17th-century politicians from colonial Connecticut and Category:18th-century politicians from colonial Connecticut if we have enough articles for both, but the divide at the declaration of Independence is so fundamental I do not think we should have categories that mix across that line. Especially since the current situation is placing people who were children and in some cases not yet born in 1776 under the Politicians from colonial Connecticut tree when they certainly not politicians from colonial Connecticut because the most certainly were not politicians when colonial Connecticut creased to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

we even have Category:Members of the Connecticut General Assembly Council of Assistants (1662–1818) which I think is a slightly too long name. I think we could just call it the Connecticut Council. My reading of the Connecticut State Senate article suggests the council does not exist per se until 1698. I also think we can dplut at 1776. 1818 is when it is renamed to the state senate. However I think we could have Category:Members of the council of colonial Connecticut for pre-1776 and then Category:Members of the Connecticut council gor those from 1776-1818.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Armenian generals

The category Category:Armenian generals is a Hoge podge. About 40% are generals who served in the armed formed of Armenia, a nation formed in 1990 and with its army formed from a part of the old Army of the Soviet Union. Another about 40% are generals who were involved in trying to form an Armenia state at thd time of the end of World War I. The remaining 5 are 2 generals who fought as rebels against at least the Ottoman Empure and maybe the Safavid Empire as well. 1 Syrian general who was an ethnic Armrnian, 1 ethnic Armenian from what is now Syria who left the Ottoman Empire and noted to Mexico where he served as a general during the Mexican Revolution that began in 1910. The last who is how I began this was an ethnic Amernian in the Bengal Subah who served as a general in the service if the Nawab of Bengal. This illustrates the problem with out Armenian categories. In the name of following sources we are merging unlike things by shared name. Armenian refers to nationals of Armenia, a country formed in 1990. It also refers to nationals of various parts countries named Armenia. It was also one of the Millets under the Ottoman Empire. Because of that in Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine Armenian is an ethnic designation for people who in theory had ancestors leave the Armenian area close to a 1000 years ago, but in reality this may reflect later group associations so these people may not have any actual ancestors from the area. It also refers to groups that at times get labeled "of Armenian descent" in Russia, Western Europe, Latina America and the US. In Latina America, the US and Western Europe some Armenians are not coming from either modern Armenia nor areas in Turkey, but are residents from Syria or Lenanon whose ancestors left Armenia if thry ever were there many centuries ago. The Armenians in India largely come there are part of the general wave of Iranians moving there. In Russia you have a lot of ethnic Armenians forced there by programs in Baku and anti-Armenian violence in Azerbajan. To make things more fun there are Armenians in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia whose ancestors moved there from west is now Armenia when it was all one country. At one point I created categories like Category:Ethnic Armenian writers and Category:Ethnic Armenian actresses. It seems though some editors do not like such categories. The issue is that the problems we have hear are almost what we would have if the nation formed in the 1940s in south-west Asia had chosen the name Judea and named its nationals Jews. The problem is that for most of the 20th-century and all the 19th-century there were people who thought of themselves as Armrnians but there was no nation of Armenia. We are trying to use this category both for people who are nationals of Armenia, the country formed in 1990, and people who were Armenian, by being nationals of other different countries or by seeing their identity as Armenian. I have to admit I am less than sure we want to categorize generals by ethnicity at all. Generals are primarily categorized by the country otlr military thry served with. The Armenia that existed around 1920 is not at all the same Armenia that was created in 1990, and so we should not group them together. I have not even gotten into the Ancirent Armenian generals abd the Medieval Armenian generals. The Greek categories sometimes approach this messiness but not quite as much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Kingdom of Armenia is a disambiguation page that covers a lot of topics. These range over quite a bit of Area, some of them were separated by other past kingdoms from where modern Armenia is. Although if that was the only issue this would be an easier to solve problem. A large number of thse Armenias are Armeniabs in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians in Iran, Armenians in the Soviet Uniom, Armenians in the Mughal Empire, Armenians in Syria, etc. Where thry live in states not named Armenia and not under Armenian control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 16 § Fictional characters by mental disorder categories

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/2025 November 16 § Fictional characters by mental disorder categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Issue with a recent category change

Hello Marcocapelle. I am writing to bring your attention to a recent category change that you were involved with. Changing Category:Provinces of Prussia to Category:Provinces of the Kingdom of Prussia has resulted in many of the articles in the category being incorrect. It also resulted in problems within Category:Free State of Prussia. I regret that I did not see the discussion to comment on it before it was closed. I placed a comment on the category talk page, as instructed in the archived discussion, that describes the issue in more detail. Perhaps a return to the status quo is the best solution (to avoid creating another category on Provinces of the Free State of Prussia and re-categorizing between one and two dozen articles), but I leave the best course of action to you. I hope that this is the correct procedure, and that it is something you can address and remedy. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. Historybuff0105 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Historybuff0105: let me think about it. I have provisionally solved it with redirects now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for your speedy response to this issue. In addition to the five provinces I mentioned that were never provinces of the kingdom, Nassau and Posen-West Prussia should also have been included and the Greater Berlin Act (of 1937) also certainly doesn't belong here. I believe there were 13 provinces that were included in both the kingdom and the free state. Hope you find this helpful in your search for a fix. Thanks again for your quick attention to restoring accuracy to the category. If I can be of further assistance, please reach out. Historybuff0105 (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Autonomous arreas

Per this edit: Do you think it will make sense to establish Category:Former autonomous administrative divisions, akin to Category:Former countries? --Altenmann >talk 09:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Altenmann: I have not encountered any former ones except in the Soviet subcategory. If there aren't any other articles than those it would not be worthwhile. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, to name right away. --Altenmann >talk 10:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am sure All pages with titles beginning with Autonomous will give you more, such as Autonomous Region of Catalonia (1931–1939). --Altenmann >talk 10:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  • @Altenmann: ok then it is definitely worthwhile. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Done: Category:Former autonomous administrative divisions. --Altenmann >talk 11:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Prussian people by century template

Can you please tell me what you want the category tree to look like for the Prussian people by century. I'm happy to adjust the template. In the future, rather than removing templates that don't exactly match, can you please let me know what the problem is instead of just removing them? ^SMason_Garrison 04:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Smasongarrison: there are three situations for five categories: in the 16th and 17th century they should have a Duchy of Prussia parent, in the 18th and 19th century they should have a Kingdom of Prussia and a German people parent, in the 20th century they should have a German people parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, that's a straightforward fix if its divided by century. Is Category:18th-century people from Prussia (region) a child of 18th-century Prussian people ? ^SMason_Garrison 13:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  • @Smasongarrison: that is correct. In the 19th and 20th century they become Category:People from East Prussia. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks! I'll add that final piece for the 20th century. Would people in the 19th century be in both Category:People from East Prussia and Kingdom of Prussia ^SMason_Garrison 14:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

    • @Smasongarrison: definitely not, East Prussia was merely one single province of the Kingdom, just like formerly Prussia (region) was one single region of the Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

      Ok thanks from what you wrote before I wasn't sure. ^SMason_Garrison 14:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Louis Haghe

Louis Haghe embassy born in 1806. The article had said he was born in Belgium. There was no Belgium until 1830. So I edited the article to reflect he was born in the First French Empire which is the most historically accurate statement possible. We should not impose later Geography on past event. This edit was reverted without explanation. This is very frustrating thst my attempts to be historically accurate are destroyed in favor of historical anachronism imposing a country 24 years before it was formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Really frustrating removals

On the article on Louis-François Roubiliac I edited the article to make it clear he was born in the Lyonnais. This was removed with just an explanation this is unneccesary, but no attempt to explain why the Province of France someone lived in when such provinces existed should not be mentioned in the article. The same was done to the article on Jean Rousset de Missy. It is very frustrating when I depend all this effort to clearly ground these articles in the Geography of the time these people lived just to have such efforts dismissed and removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Small college football team redirects

I just realized that Logan Navy football; Fort Douglas GIs football and Kearns Field Eagles football are all articles that exist as redirect. Do you think that it would be worth putting those redirects in the categories for those 3 football teams. The categories have right now 1 article in the Logan Navy football case, 3 articles in the Fort Douglas GIs football case, and 1 article in the Kearns Eagles football case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: sports is a topic you'd better discuss with someone else, it is not one of my favorite areas. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tatar topics has been nominated for merging to Category:Tatar peoples

Category:Tatar topics has been nominated for merging to Category:Tatar peoples. 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. Place Clichy (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Ludvig Sandoe Ipsen

Ludvig Sandöe Ipsen should only be in the American type designed cat because the article makes it very clear he only did type design after he emigrated from Denmark to the United States. Another editor is insisting that we place him in the Danish category. I do not think this makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

. Fram (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Zuzana Licko

I removed Zuzana Licko from Slovak categories because she emigrated to the US at age 7. Fram is insisting if we have any reliable source that calls her Slovak he can place her in any Slovak Category he wants. I think he is just refusing to listen to reason in this case. Just because someone was at one point Slovak does not make this a good way to describe occupation. I do not think people who immigrate as children should be placed in categories that intersect the country they left as children and an occupation they only took up as adults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Beyond the above I think she goes in Czechoslovak Immigrants to the United States. She cane to the US by 1970. We categorize immigrants by the recognized country they move from. So she should be in the Czechoslovak Immigrants category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Božidar Adžija

I just do not feel like getting yelled at. Božidar Adžija is in Category:Serbs of Croatia. However he was actually a national of Yugoslavia. He lived in Croatia, is called Croatian in the lead, and later the article says he was of Croatian and Serbian descent. I am pretty sure Category:Serbs of Croatia is not a good fit for him. I am trying to populate Category:Serbs in Yugoslavia and Category:Croatian people in Yugoslsvia. I do not think he fits in either as well. I know the category names do not match. I am not sure which is better. I know we need to scrap double demonyms like Category:Yugoslav Albanians. I am trying to not assume ethnicity and place are the same. Lots of people in Yugoslavia did not identify as the ethnicity of the place they lived. We probably need Category:Romanians in Yugoslavia and Category:Hungarians in Yugoslavia and Category:Germans in Yugoslavia as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Booksellers (people)

I just realized Category:Booksellers (people) has as sub-categories Category:Booksellers by nationality which then has as sub-categories Category:American booksellers ; Category:British booksellers ; Category:French booksellers etc. Do you think we should drop (people) from the parent category or add it to the child categories? I figure we should be consistent. I think adding it to the child categories would probably be best to keep people and company articles clearly sorted at all level. I want to workshop it before making a nomination, especially since it feels like some editors oppose my nominations almost as a knee jerk reaction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy holidays and a prosperous 2026!

Marco, you know you've been editing for more than a thousand days straight, right? That is impressive by any metric, and is a great testament to your deep dedication to helping Wikipedia thrive. You are a great editor with clever ideas for how to categorize Wikipedia articles, and your constant input at WP:CFD is greatly appreciated by many. All the best to you and yours in 2026!

Marco Island, Florida!

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Clarify !vote at CFD

You may have inadvertently !voted twice at this discussion. (Maybe that second entry would work as a reply.)

Happy editing! - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Slovaks verses Slovakians

I am thinking we should create Category:Slovakian people to be for nationals of Slovakis. The article only Slovaks identifies thrm as an ethnic group and says they only constitute 88% of the inhabitants of Slovakia. We do not use Croat people for nationsls of Croatia or Serb people for nationsls of Serbia. I think in the case of Slovakia the nationals category would best be naned Slovakians. This is an intimadatingly large potential nomination. Just nominating Category:Slovak people for a renane would probably not be enough. On the other hand I have no idea how many of these categories would need to be nominated. It is a potentially huge amount.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		Thanks for all your categorization work this year! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

Hello, are you interested in commenting at Category talk:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan per your earlier involvement in the discussion? --woodensuperman 18:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 10 § Republic of China at the Olympics

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 January 10 § Republic of China at the Olympics on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Merlin's madness

is extremely important, but its from the time when the only mental disorder was just that, "madness" (besides perhaps memory loss, and demon posession for that matter).

Also Lancelot's problem was violent madness (frenzy) besides general madness (wandering mad in forests, alike Merlin).

We shouldn't try to ascribe modern medical terms to any medieval or classical character described only as "mad", so don't delete it and don't try to reclassify it too.

But something like "Fictional madmen" would do. ~2026-23518-9 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Zxcvbnm: do you want to have a look at this? It is about four articles that have been re-added to Category:Fictional characters with mental disorders. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

  The result of CfD was to purge to only in-universe diagnoses of mental disorders by a doctor, or a diagnosis that had happened in the past in the fictional universe's lore. King Arthur was clearly before that was even a thing, so it would not belong. A "Fictional madmen" category being created as far as Category:Fictional characters by behavior would make more sense, but it would have to be populated and preferably notable per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

  On second thought, "madmen" would probably run afoul of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. It's probably a bad idea also. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen

Do you think based on Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen that it would be worth creating a category Category:People from the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen? This would be a category that would cover people from a defined area for a defined period of time. It would also be an actual sub-cat of the People from Austria-Hungary category. Do you think it would be a viable category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: this is an article about an official name, which is alright, the subject of the article is really about the name rather than about a country. But as it is not the common name of a country, I would not use it in a category name like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Former Russian Orthodox Christians has been nominated for renaming

Category:Former Russian Orthodox Christians has been nominated for renaming. 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. ^SMason_Garrison 23:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Misuse of terms

My understanding is that the intent of Wikipedia's "by nationality" categories, is that we group together people who are citizens or permanent residents of a given country. Do you think that is a fair assessment of what the intended purpose of by nationality categories is?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• • For this reason I think the claim that there were people with the nationality of "Slovak" in the 19th-century is using "nationality" in a way we do not use it. All the by nationality categories connect to countries that at one point or another were independent. We do not have a "Kurdish" category because there has never been an independent Kurdish country. When people say the Austrian Empire was a "multi-national" state they are saying that it was according to how we use terms in Wikipedia a "multi-ethnic state". Essentially what people are trying to do is having a category that currently is based on being a resident or citizen of a specific country be merged into a category that before a certain year includes only people based on ethnicity, who were nationals of other countries because there was no country where their ethnicity was the majority. It feels like if in the next week Kurdistan became an indepdent country, people would create Kurdish categories for its citizens, and then retriactively fill Kirdish scientists, Kirdish writers etc. with Kurds who were actually Iraqi scientists, Turkish scientists, Iranian scientists and Syrian scientists. And then they would tell me I was being difficult if I insisted this approach was merging unlike things because they were called by the same name. We have a problem because a scientist who is ethnically Slovak and a national of the Austrian Empire is not the same think at all as a scientist who is ethnically Hungarian and a national of Slovakia, but it seems people are unwilling to accept this and will just ignore me saying it. It is very frustrating that the rule against classifying things as a group just because they share the same name is so regularly ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    • @Johnpacklambert: 19th-century Slovaks were an ethnicity of their own and they were Austro-Hungarian nationals. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
      • That is essentially what I was arguing. Some editors insist that 19th-century people were citizens of Austria-Hungary but Slovak nationals. Also if they were an ethnic group, then the 19th-century Slovak sub-cats would need to go not under by nationality but by ethnicity categories, and inclusion and even creation would need to proceed according to the rules of ethnic categorization. Do we even have a clear guideline on when to split ethnic categories by century? I think it is more than 3 articles in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• So it seems you are saying that neither Czech nor Slovak 19th-century categories should be under the by nationality tree? I know there are some editors who would viciously attack me for even trying to implement such a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Death from pneumonia

I am currently nominating every sub-cat of this article for deletion. I might get done today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• • The nomination is done. It only was about 2.5 hours from start to finish. To be fair I got distracted with some other thoughts, and had some other non-Wikipedia interruptions while doing it. The number of the categories in there with 1 article is staggering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 17 § Category:Historical events in the Federates States of Micronesia

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 January 17 § Category:Historical events in the Federates States of Micronesia on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Macedonian Bulgarians

My moving of Anastas Lozanchev to the category Category:Bulgarian people in Ottoman Macedonia was reverted with the claim the previous Category was "more appropriate". The subject was born in 1870 in what would be part if the Ottoman Empire until 1912 when the area was annexed by Serbia. I do not understand this object at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Generals and field marshals

Why are generals categorized "by nat8onality" while field marshals are "by country"? Also why do we have say Category:Field marshals of Austria but Category:Austrian generals. I believe we want to rename the generals categories on the field marshals pattern. If someone was by some measures an Austrian national but only held the rank of grneral in the French, Spanish, Indians, Zimbabwean or some other non-Austrian army we want them in the generals category for thst country not Austria. I am thinking that this needs to be changed but do not feel up to creating the large nomination at this moment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: I agree in principle. But the nomination is the smaller part of the work. The articles should also be checked to see if perhaps country and nationality do not match. That is an even bigger task. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  Do you think it is best to check the categories and then nominate or to nominate first?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have started reviewing these. The American one in its gmheading says this includes USA, British colonies and Confederate generals. I am not going to review that monstrosity before nomination. I did review Albanian and removed 2 artivles. Algerian had no misplaced articles. That leaves me 104 countries to go through. I will also not pre-review the British cat. So once I get through the other 103 cats we will be ready to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

  • @Johnpacklambert: definitely start with the nomination first. This requires full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

    OK. I still will review to at least remove clear bad cases. Like Kosovo generals in the Albanian cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• I have posted the nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

An unsolvable dilemma

When I make lone nominations people get on my case for not bundling them. Then when I make nomination like those of all the Slaves categories or all the generals categories, people object to them based on specific issues with just 1 category and ignore the large picture. It feels like no matter what I do people gripe that I am doing it wrong in incompatible ways. It is very frustrating. It seems like no matter what I do people do not like it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: it is an unsolvable dilemma indeed. Generally I still prefer mass nominations and if people have objections to one or two subcategories only then I just let those go for the time being. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

3 things in one category structure

I am coming to realize we have overused the "by nationslity" format. Right now it is teying to keep together 3 things. 1. The main use is people by the country they were cutizens, nationals or permanent residents of. 2. In some cases people have used "by nationslity" to refer to people as members of a "nation" that at the time lacked a clear country, or to at least refer to peiple as part of the nation that lived far beyomd its biundaries. The reason some groups like Cherokees, Kurds and Balochs are wthnic groups according to our structure but Greeks, Armenians, Slovaks, Czechs and Itakians are nationslities is 100% only because the later have a currebt indeoendent country and the firmer do not. There is no other reason. 3. We also are using by nationslity for some occupations/positioms where sorting by country makes way more sense. Military is the one that is most obvious. My massive attempt to realign generals mainly broke down because people who like using system 2 wanted to keep that going. We do have Category:Generals by ethnicity. Realistically I suspect once we sort out Category:Generals by country to be the main way generals are sorted we will find that most of what is left under generals by nationality really should go under generals by ethnicity. For military personnel/army personnel/soldiers I think it might be a little different. It is a little hard to tell because the generals by nationality categories were really mainly built as generals by country categories, with the main exemptions bring in Yugoslavia; the Soviet Union and a few multi-ethnic states the generals were often categorized by the successor state they were perceived to be connected to and not the state they actually served. For example the only article I have found yet in Category:French generals that does not belong in Category:Generals of France is one I put there a few days ago on a French national who went to Mexico and was made a general. There are articles on Generals of France who were from states in modern Germany, some of whom were made Generals in the French military before they ever set foot in France, plus some from the Principality of Sedan, the Duchy of Lorraine, the Savoyard State and other similar small states that existed along the edges of France in the early modern period. Thr catch is with the US you have a lot of immigrants who became Generals. However I have doubts that we really want to mass categorize them as x nationality Generals, especially if thry immigrated significantly before they reached the rank of general.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: in principle I agree but I also have a feeling that it is too late to change it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Generals of Spain

A lot of the people at Category:Generals of Spain primarily served in the Spain military in areas under Spainish control outside Spain either in Europe, Africa, the Americas or Asia. Most of these people were born in Spain, but some were born in areas now in Italy; or the Spanish Netherlands; or various places in the Anericas. Do you think sorting them by the entity where they were born or raised such would make sense? We do have Category:Military personnel from New Spain and Category:Soldiers from New Spain. However they both currently include many people born in Spain who only came to those areas after entering the military so their scope in closer to Category:Military personnel who served in Nrmew Spain or maybe more accurately Category:Military personnel of Spain who served in New Spain which either way I think would be able to be populated to a significant extent and might actually be defining. The biggest problem is A. Would people be OK with dieting by the Viceroyalty, or would they want to sort out Cuba, Puerto Rico and other sub-units, which eould make it less defining. B. Many military personnel of Spain were moved around the empire. Do we want to categorize people by a half dozen categories based on where they were posted?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: A. Better boldly start with a viceroyalty and see what happens. B. If this happened quite a lot (which I am not sure of) we might create a Spanish Empire parent category and have people who moved around in the empire directly in the parent. I can't really imagine anyone having served in half a dozen viceroyalties though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Not half a dozen viceroyaltiea. I think there were only 4. However if we had Cuba; Puerto Rico etc. I will consider this. I think I will start with New Spain both because that is the one we have the most articles connected with it and also because it was the longest lasting and most stable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Attempt to ban me again from Category discussions

There is an attempt to ban me again from Category discussions. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: please leave a link to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  there is a discussion at the Administratior's noticeboard called WP:Categories for discussion needs more closers. is where it is at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Military personnel categories

It really feels like my military personnel proposals are being opposed because people are mad at my attempt to organize other categories by what country a person was a citizen of. In the case of military I think by far the most defining thing is what military the person served in. Hopefully the ones I have not withdrawn are non-controversial enough that they will stand. It really feels like people are ignoring what I am actually saying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Generals

I just added Piers Butler, 3rd Viscount Galmoye to both Category:Generals of France and Category:Generals of Spain. Despite his article clearly saying he served as a general in the military of both these countries he was not in any general Category. It is frustrating peiple claim the issue is people from the border territories of France. We have a whole category Category:Irish soldiers in the French Army. These people were Irish to the core.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Now someone has attacked me for doing the exact split that people were supporting in the CfD. The refusal to accept that the military people served in is the primary defining thing for military personnel is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: please (always) leave a link. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• It is the last discussion on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: it is really not a smart move to undertake action before the discussion is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• OK. This whole process is very frustrating. It feels like no one listens to what I have to say. It feels like no matter how well I explain the situation, and no matter how many examples I give people just ignore what I have to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: that may be the case, but by ignoring the rules of the process you just make it worse for yourself. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• I am trying to work with others. It feels like I am always the one making compromises and other people just stick to their position and ignore what I have to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• I understand your feeling. Note that it is also related to your ambition level to improve Wikipedia. The bigger the change you propose, the more opposition is to be expected. As you will probably have noticed I mostly stick to smaller improvements that are more likely to gain consensus. Changing all military from nationality to country is a massive undertaking that I would never have started myself despite I certainly agree with it. I am not saying you should change your ambition level, that is entirely your own choice, but by going after big changes you may end up making small or no changes after all, that is simply the risk you are taking. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 2 § Category:Social history by former country

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 February 2 § Category:Social history by former country on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Eponymous category for Óscar Romero

Hey Marcocapelle, How are you? Also do these articles justify the eponymous category of Óscar Romero?

These articles include Liberation theology in El Salvador, Rutilio Grande, School of the Americas Watch, Statue of Óscar Romero, Roberto D'Aubuisson, Ciudad Barrios, Anamorós, Truth Commission for El Salvador, and María Julia Hernández.

Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Inajd0101: no, as far as I can see, only Statue of Óscar Romero is about Óscar Romero, the other articles are only tangentially related. The "what links here" feature suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: Since there is a category Category:Cultural depictions of Óscar Romero, shouldn't it hurt to create an eponymous category with Statue of Óscar Romero on it? Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Nevermind. Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle: Plus, since there are few articles of cultural depictions of Óscar Romero, should I request the speedy renaming of the category I mentioned to just "Óscar Romero" instead? Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  • @Inajd0101: the category name exactly reflects what it is about, no need to rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

    @Marcocapelle: Wait, I'm confused, just curious but why didn't you remove the eponymous category of Óscar Romero 4 years ago but instead it was roughly a year ago? Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

    • @Inajd0101: 1 or 4 years ago, what does it matter? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

      Just answer my question, why didn't you request to remove the category immediately? Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

      Also, no need to be passive aggressive, I'm just asking nicely. I'm not here to cause any problems, just trying to understand. Inajd0101 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

      • @Inajd0101: I do not know, it is obviously too long ago for me to remember. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

        I appreciate you for answering my question. Also, it's not hard to answer, and next time, try your best not to be passive-aggressive. I'm just asking nicely. I'm not here to cause any trouble.

        Plus, you have a good day! Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

        • @Inajd0101: I honestly do not understand why it would matter. That has nothing to do with passive-agressive. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Request

Hello, thank you for your help in organising articles in proper category. If possible, please create Category:Moirang kingdom and Category:People from Moirang kingdom. Candidates will be articles linked to Moirang Kangleirol and Moirang kingdom. Haoreima (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Haoreima: I created Category:Keke Moirang after the title of the main article Keke Moirang. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		I have seen your tireless effort adding categories to pages that are in desperate need for further categorization. Keep up the good work! Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)