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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.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]

• Propose renaming Category:Helvia (gens) to Category:Helvii

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.

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]

• 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]
• Question, is encoded in Unicode defining at all? If not, we should delete the categories instead of merging them. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:27, 21 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]

• The articles are already elsewhere in the tree of Category:Writing systems so an upmerge is no longer needed, in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the Unicode issue here, isn't there a difference between writing system and script? It's just too subtle for me to point out. If true, a (sub)category "Scripts" may be correct. -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for now and let us have a look at the parent category in a later discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial oppose. I don't care about the main issue, but there's absolutely no way that we should be merging Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs and Category:Georgian scripts into the Unicode category. Either the current setup is good, or we should make exceptions for those two scripts; it would be absurd for Category:Georgian calligraphy, Alphabetic Tower, Category:Wadjet, and List of portraiture offerings with Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs to end up directly inside Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 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]

• I agree with Nyttend that Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs and Category:Georgian scripts should certainly not be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No view on Unicode, but exclude the Georgian and Egyptian items from merger. Any action on them needs to be considered separately. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated proposal wrt those two subcategories. See my note in top. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin, technical. A check I just ran says this (listings by WP:AWB):

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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Overtouristed areas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category seems entirely subjective.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 entirely subjective. When I wait in line as a tourist, my view is the place is over-touristed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Carlossuarez46, well, sure, but when a dozen reliable sources agree with you, is it still not a reasonable category? --valereee (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Valereee no; its just their opinion - similarly we don't have a category Category:Great songs for songs on a dozen lists of great songs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Carlossuarez46, thinking happening :) --valereee (talk) 02:33, 21 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]

  And Isle of Skye[1][2] which is how I noticed this but I don't see how this is defining, other Scottish islands might have this problem to[3] but its not anything like Skye's. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Peterkingiron....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Overtouristed areas. Although sources might address places being overtoured, its a subjective criteria since different sources will have different views on how much "overtouristed" is. I had been meaning to nominate this myself but someone else has now done so! Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Lists of Middle-earth articles to Category:Middle-earth lists

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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Defunct Football clubs in Derbyshire to Category:Defunct football clubs in Derbyshire

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]

• Rename per nom and per Category:Defunct association football clubs. Oculi (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename C2A. Grutness...wha? 02:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Category:Defunct football clubs in Derbyshire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per C2A and C2E (Red Jay is the author and only created it a few hours before nominating it). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Hospitals and medical institutions associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to Category:Hospitals established for the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

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]
• REname to Category:Hospitals established for the COVID-19 pandemic and purge of those not fitting the narrower name. We cannot afford to categorise every hospital which has been involved with treatment of COVID-19 patients. That would offend WP:OC#PERF or at least the category clutter issue that underlines it. Several of the articles that I checked have no mention of their role in the pandemic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 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]
• We do have Category:Hospitals by medical condition. They are mostly historical but do include Category:Health facilities that treated Ebola patients. I dont think Hospitals associated with a pandemic is helpful, but Category:Hospitals established for the COVID-19 pandemic might be. Rathfelder (talk) 21:31, 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]
• Keep but rename and purge. Addressing Carlossuarez — we already have Category:Cancer hospitals and Category:Tuberculosis sanatoria. If hospitals exists to focus on a medical specialty, it's a good idea to have a category or categories for them. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not all medical institutions in this category were established for the outbreak of CV-19. Some were already in existence, such as USNS Comfort and USNS Mercy. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 1 April 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:Religious organizations associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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]

• 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]
• Delete but an interesting category Category:Religious organizations suspending activities because their religion was weaker than the coronavirus might be more useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteParadise Chronicle (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the creator for the category, and I'm possibly and actually on agree for Renaming it (but could try to make the wording sense) as much. Chad The Goatman (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Renamed as the Category:Religious organizations who suspending activities during the 2019–20 Coronavirus Pandemic, as part of supporting of likely renamed the category that I created it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 01:52, 21 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]
• Oppose this rename; it would fit the Catholic Church quite well, and this incident is a blink of the eye for a 2,000-year-old religious organization. We wouldn't want Category:Religious organizations who suspending activities during the Black Death, even though the Black Death (which went on for several years and killed maybe 20% of the entire human population) was a far longer and far worse epidemic than this is or will be. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this rename as per MarcopelleParadise Chronicle (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose this rename for tense problems. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 06:25, 24 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:People by first language
• Propose deleting Category:Anglophone people
• Propose deleting Category:Anglophone Canadian people
• Propose deleting Category:Anglophone Quebec people
• Propose deleting Category:Francophone people
• Propose deleting Category:Francophone Canadians
• Propose deleting Category:Francophone Quebec people
• Propose deleting Category:Germanophone people
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian alpine skiers to Category:Italian alpine skiers
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian biathletes to Category:Italian biathletes
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian cross-country skiers to Category:Italian cross-country skiers
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian figure skaters to Category:Italian figure skaters
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian footballers to Category:Italian footballers
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian freestyle skiers to Category:Italian freestyle skiers
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian ice hockey players to Category:Italian ice hockey players
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian journalists to Category:Italian journalists
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian mountain climbers to Category:Italian mountain climbers
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian Nordic combined skiers to Category:Italian Nordic combined skiers
• Propose deleting Category:Germanophone Italian people
• Propose deleting Category:Germanophone Italian politicians
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian ski mountaineers to Category:Italian ski mountaineers
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian skiers to Category:Italian skiers
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian snowboarders to Category:Italian snowboarders
• Propose deleting Category:Germanophone Italian sportspeople
• Propose merging Category:Germanophone Italian tennis players to Category:Italian tennis players

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]

• Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merging the categories with occupational denominator.
• Strong Oppose deletion of Category:Germanophone Italian people. I realize the category name is not the best, but that's Wikipedia for you. German-speaking population of South Tyrol is a distinct group of people in terms of culture, identity, language, history etc. Based on that they have distinct rights granted by the European Union and the national government, much like other traditional autochtonic minorities in Europe, e.g. Swedish-speaking Finns, Hungarians in Slovakia, Danes in Germany or Poles in the Czech Republic.--Darwinek (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) Ok, this category contains an actress, a writer, an activist, etc. So in (some of) these cases language is relevant and verifiable. I am okay with withdrawing this one. Preferably it should become a container category by occupation, with subcats like Category:Italian writers in German and Category:South Tyrolean People's Party politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't withdraw that one. There may be a case for creating categories such as Category:Italian German-language activists, but that doesn't mean any "Germanophone" categories should be kept. DexDor ^(talk) 09:38, 25 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.

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]

• Propose renaming Category:Book series based on Dune to Category:Dune (franchise) novel series

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]

• Comment: well, they are "based on", as they are prequel series and short stories, all spinoffs from the main novels, which in turn were based on the original Dune (novel). Perhaps the prequels could be upmerged to Category:Dune (franchise) novels, and the short stories to Category:Works based on Dune (franchise). – Fayenatic London 22:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read Category:Works based on Dune (franchise) (based on the content that's currently inside it) as "(third-party) works based on Dune (franchise)", which means a book like The Dune Encyclopedia, a game like Dune (board game) or a film like Dune (1984 film). I'm not sure what short stories you mean, but if they are an official part of the novel franchise, I don't think they fit that category. --Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 13 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]

• Split to Category:Dune (franchise) novels and to Category:Dune (franchise), see above. – Fayenatic London 00:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Split, per Fayenatic London. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:20, 29 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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Greyhawk deities to Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities

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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Greyhawk locations to Category:Dungeons & Dragons locations

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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Forgotten Realms locations to Category:Dungeons & Dragons locations

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.

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]

• Propose merging Category:Talk namespace categories to Category:Namespace-specific categories

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]

• Merge Category:Wikipedia talk page categories into Category:Talk namespace categories. As creator of this category, I'm not sure what I was thinking; it clearly duplicates the other category. Regardless, I suggest that the final category be named Category:Talk namespace categories for consistency with other subcategories of Category:Namespace-specific categories. Daask (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment, I have also tagged Category:Wikipedia talk page categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Wikipedia talk page categories but into Category:Article namespace categories, because it currently contains only Date of birth missing etc, which are used on articles, not talk pages. Keep Category:Talk namespace categories; I have just populated it with some relevant content. By all means move the older merged category page over it. – Fayenatic London 00:32, 29 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.

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]

• Propose deleting Category:People associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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 per nom, and it is largely a recreation of Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019 that has been deleted earlier per this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Marcopelle Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:26, 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 per BlackcurrantTea. If we must have this category it should be more specified than just "association". --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:40, 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 I have to stay indoors according to our government, so am I now associated with the pandemic? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could definitely see medical experts emerging in this field in the near term but this category is way to vague and generic. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Three phrases within my vote Super strong delete, Speedy delete and Closing discussion per everyone voted Delete unanimously. 2001:569:74D2:A800:9514:1D74:AEDD:C8B7 (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 19. I've contributed to both discussions, so I'll do no more than post those links. Narky Blert (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above.
  SSSB (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Premeditated (talk) 16:12, 24 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but make it a diffusing category. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Delete per nom and Carlossuarez46 ----βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 01:12, 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.