The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories containing members of individual Roman gentes. All or almost all of these categories are named using the plural form of the nomen; in this case "Helvii".
P Aculeius (
talk)
23:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Marcocapelle. This is one of those rare cases where a naming conflict forces us to depart from a naming convention.
Nyttend (
talk)
12:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: this category was created at
Category:Helvii in 2013, and until yesterday consisted entirely of members of the Helvia gens, plus
Gaius Valerius Caburus, who was added to the category in 2015 by Marcocapelle because he belonged to the tribe of the Helvii. There were no other examples of members of this group in the category until it was moved yesterday, and five more entries added at the original title—including two modern communes of Switzerland and the main article about the tribe—so that the six current entries include only two actual persons. Given that the original category contained three people—one of them a Roman emperor—perhaps it would have made more sense to create a new category at "Helvii (Gallic tribe)" instead of moving the existing category to make way for it.
P Aculeius (
talk)
13:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I am withdrawing my initial agreement above in light of the tribal name seeming to be the more prevalent use. Suggest Helvia as the cat name, which I believe should be
the name of the article as well.
Erictalk15:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Scripts encoded in Unicode 1.0
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Updated proposal from discussion: last two, which are subcategories, now excluded from the proposal. I have edited: these two are not in these categories any more; their eponymous article now is (
Egyptian hieroglyphs,
Georgian scripts; same as all other script articles then). -
DePiep (
talk)
11:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support. It seems like each Unicode version adds a unique script and multiple versions of one script aren't encoded in two or more versions. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝)
22:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Overtouristed areas
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep Many reliable sources are talking about this. Multiple reliable sources are calling certain areas 'overtouristed.' May be subjective but it's not non-notable
--valereee (
talk)
19:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete; it's inherently a point of view, and inherently not neutral. Even if you can show that the majority of sources consider such-and-such place overtouristed, a majority isn't everyone.
Nyttend (
talk)
12:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This is a subjective issue. Conceivably, if some public authority were taking explicit measures to limit numbers, there might be scope for this. There is evidence for this in the case of
Mount Everest and
Hallstadt, but nothing of the matter is mentioned in the other articles that I checked.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of Middle-earth articles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Defunct Football clubs in Derbyshire
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Please could this be renamed to Defunct football clubs in Derbyshire. Same as current but this correct capitalisation
Red Jay (
talk)
17:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hospitals and medical institutions associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:rename and purge in the spirit of
WP:OCASSOC, just association is too vague but it is useful to keep hospitals that have specifically been established for the pandemic.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. If we decided to include hospitals and other medical institutions that helped treat COVID-19 the category would become bloated. --
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝)
16:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment while appealing and because it's newsy, would we want a whole category tree about hospitals by why they were founded? I think that those founded for TB? Sick pilgrims? cancer? a king's deathbed guilt? etc... would not be useful for a general hospital.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support the current name would include any hospital that treats a COVID-19 patient. The thing that distinguishes the category is being built specifically for COVID-19 patients.
Joseph2302 (
talk)10:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per OCASSOC, there will be numerous hospitals associated with this (probably most in the world) in some way but hospitals in China and London have been built specifically for this. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename Per Nom and Purge Unfortunately, hospitals associated with COVID19 increasingly means hospitals that existed in 2020 which is undefining. Temporary hospitals set up for the crisis are definitely defined by it.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes indeed unfortunately by the end of this its likely that nearly every hospital or other medical institution will have has some association with the pandemic and for a similar reason for OCASSOC and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British towns with no railway station we don't want a category for those not associated with it since there will be some that only have a minor (unverifiable) association. Keeping those specifically buit for it makes sense though. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Religious organizations associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete -- We have a French Church whose article says nothing of COVID-19; and a Korean one, which was an epicentre of the spread of COVID-19 in South Korea, and might qualify, but the main objection concerns "associated with" which is too vague to form the basis for a category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose this rename, it is not a defining characteristic and most religious organizations will have to suspend (some of) their activities.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People by first language
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus about the top categories; merge the occupational categories. However, it will not be appropriate to merge them to the stated categories, as all member pages are already in these or their other sub-categories. Instead, it will be appropriate to merge to
Category:Germanophone Italian people, since that is not being deleted. –
FayenaticLondon16:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Strongly disagree with this suggestion. Language is so important to political and regional identities in multilingual countries such as Canada that limiting its significance to writers and actors is far too narrow.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk)
19:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The best solution with the Germanophone Italians will be to move them to a "from Trentino Alto Adige" category, as that is the main region of Italy where German is spoken. In the case of Canada, there is a similar issue. Quebec is mainly francophone and the rest anglophone: much better to categorise people as "from <province>.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Classification by province is fine, but not as a proxy for language. That's both underinclusive and overinclusive, (see [
[4]]) only 79% of Quebecois are Francophone, similarly many Francophone Canadians live outside Quebec (32% of New Brunswick people are Francophone), and ultimately of no value for most occupations or people generally.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
But now it's getting confusing, because the debate is starting to be about individual categories, yet the proposal is all these categories should be deleted. It's just not appropriate to propose deleting 20+ categories, and then start having sub-debates on individual categories. This proposal as drafted is simply too broad and should be closed. Deletions should be proposed specifically for each category, not for 20+ categories all at once.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk)
13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep and renominate some of them. Francophone Canadians is at least as significant as Germanophone Italians, since Südtirol is smaller and less significant in Italian politics/culture than Quebec is in Canadian politics/culture. Some of these need to go (who cares what language an Italian Nordic skiier first spoke?), but doing a single big batch like this will
just lead to confusion.
Nyttend (
talk)
12:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Not any particular ones; that's why I suggested renominating. The point is that getting rid of all of these categories would be destructive, since they cover a wide range of situations, and we mustn't be reckless in trashing everything just because some of them have problems.
Nyttend (
talk)
13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge per nom. I've been looking at these categories recently and found few (if any) articles that explicitly state what the person's first language was (the categorization appears to often be OR based e.g. on the person's name). In many cases the categorization is/was clearly incorrect. People should be categorized for what they are notable for (which in some cases is writing etc in a particular language) - not for what happened to them before they went to primary school. DexDor(talk)21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Category:Germanophone Italian people should be definitely renamed (subject to a separate discussion), not deleted. German-speaking population of South Tyrol in Italy has own organizations, sport clubs, political parties, media etc. The region is fully bilingual on all levels. Deleting this category would leave the distinct people of this national minority categorized only as "Italian fooians".--
Darwinek (
talk)
00:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
All that about sport clubs etc doesn't address the points made in the CFD nomination. At present the category doesn't work, because it says it's about people's
first language (being German), but few of the articles (e.g.
Anna Unterberger) have corresponding (referenced) text (let alone it being a defining characteristic). What would you rename it to?
Merge Germanophone Italian sportspeople There is a relevant connection between sports in general and Germanophone Italians, as the sports clubs in the region are organised in a Germanic fashion and the sports competed in are specific to the region and culture (mainly winter sports). As a distinguished part of the community's culture, a sport-level category is warranted. Otherwise, articles in this category could be merged into
Category:Sportspeople from South Tyrol as I believe the relevant linguistic community are limited to that area. In principle, I support the creation and maintenance of categories that cover a distinct and coherent linguistic community, such as Francophone Quebec people. I support the deletion of the main Anglophone, Francophone and Germanophone categories, as they cover many diverse communities and therefore are not useful or distinctive aspects to categorise people on. There are many different factors happening here, so would prefer to see the discussions split out into the three types I've outlined here.
SFB21:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose Language used by an individual is a strong identifier in political issues in multi-linguistic countries such as Canada. Province cannot be used as a proxy, as there are large numbers of anglophones in Quebec, and considerable numbers of francophones in the other provinces, particularly New Brunswick, where French is an official language. Nor can the individual's name be used as a proxy for language. The three Premiers Johnson of Quebec were francophones. These categories are important identifiers and should be maintained.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk)
16:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose — Linguistic identity and language politics are significant and notable in Canada, and these categories are necessary to capture the full scope that cannot be fully covered just with provincial or national groupings: not all francophones are Quebecers, nor are all Quebecers francophone. As it stands, the "Canadian francophones" category currently includes both Quebecers andAcadians (a very significant group indeed), and could easily be expanded to include other
French Canadian groups like
Métis and
Franco-Ontarians. Similarly,
English-speaking Quebecers are a notable minority (and notable enough to merit an article), so a category is reasonable. —
Kawnhr (
talk)
16:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment — I think this nomination is casting its net far too wide; the athletics categories are one thing, but Germanophone Italians (aka people from
South Tyrol) is likely notable, and I just went over the Canuck ones above. These are different situations, and should be considered and debated separately rather than all kept or all thrown out at once. —
Kawnhr (
talk)
16:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree with Kawnhr. This discussion should be closed, as simply too broad. Do it category by category, or groups of categories, such as the Canadian language groups. I don’t have a position on most of the categories covered by the proposal, but am Strong oppose to the proposal as framed, because of its implications for the Canadian categories.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk)
19:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Neutral on 4 Canada & Quebec Categories/Support Rest of Nomination Clicking through this category tree is rough and this nomination goes a long way toward cleaning confusing groupings. I do not think the current Canadian/Quebec categories are well formed but they may need a more nuanced fix than the straight delete proposed here.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Book series based on Dune
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The category header text says the category is for books set in the Dune universe (franchise). So these aren't "based on" (as in 3rd party books), but actual book series. The category name can also be
Dune (franchise) book series. One parent category uses "novels" the other "book series", so wasn't sure which to follow.
Gonnym (
talk)
21:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Greyhawk deities
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Mostly redirects, soon to be even less articles. The character articles should all go to only "Dungeons & Dragons deities" as being in the campaign setting doesn't seem to be a defining trait. This was mostly used for organization when there were hundreds of articles. The three articles with "Greyhawk" in the title should go to both that and "Greyhawk."
TTN (
talk)
13:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Greyhawk locations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Only six articles, future expansion is quite unlikely. The parent category is currently capable of handling all existing location articles without it being overbearing. Also upmerge to "Greyhawk."
TTN (
talk)
18:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Forgotten Realms locations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Previous nomination resulted in another category being merged into this one, but there are now only seven articles left. The parent category is sufficient to hold all location articles in the entire category structure without issue at this point. Also upmerge to "Forgotten Realms." "Fictional regions" seems to have come from the other merged category, but it doesn't seem like it inherently applies to all articles, so it should be skipped for now.
TTN (
talk)
18:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Talk namespace categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a vaguely-named category with no clear inclusion criteria. It fails
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#People associated with. Maybe someone can think of a better name, but any category that includes people infected with this virus is rapidly going to become just as pointless as "people associated with influenza" or "people associated with cancer".
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
07:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The category is too vague to be of any use. 'Associated with' might include almost anyone: people who test positive for the virus, people who don't test positive for it but spent time with someone who did, public officials who declare quarantines, people on YouTube who have opinions about the virus, people who are ignoring quarantines, owners of shops who are resisting hoarding, people who live in areas with quarantines, and so on. Eventually one might as well add it to every BLP.
BlackcurrantTea (
talk)
14:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- much to vague. There will probably in due course be some people who are notable for a particular role in relation to the disease, but TOOSOON to identify them.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - not as important as the ones who died of the virus. A similarly named category was deleted six minutes into today in UTC time.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs)
21:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I was ambivalent about this category when I thought it would be used for doctors, researchers and medical organizations. But now I see that it's being used for individuals who test positive and we've previously deleted categories that were used for that purpose. LizRead!Talk!15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.