- 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 (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Shakespearean scholars to Category:Shakespeare scholars
- Propose renaming Category:Shakespearean scholarship to Category:Shakespeare scholarship
- Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Literary scholars by writer ([edit:] except Category:Homeric scholars, though I'd make the same case about that one) use the bare name of the author, not an adjective based on that name. "Shakespearean" is not in widespread use in academia and has a bit of an old-fashioned, pretentious feel. All of this also applies to Category:Shakespearean scholarship. blameless 19:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. "Shakespeare scholars" sounds wrong to my ears - "Shakespearean" is definitely the more widely used and known adjectival form - but more importantly the only reason it seems out of place is that with most of the other scholars there is no recognised adjectival form - there's no such word as "Dostoyevskian", "Ibsenic", "Iqbali" or "Poevian" (and before you mention in, both Lovecraftian and Kafkaesque have completely different connotations). Grutness... wha? 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London
14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Wikipedia community templates to Category:Wikipedia templates
- Nominator's rationale: Unclear (e.g. the category text says "aa") and unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support, lacking a definition of "community" templates as opposed to other templates. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
23:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I found 6 more articles which have been added to the category, so keep. However, the parent category, Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation, has only one sub-category and should be deleted.-- TM 13:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist ( talk) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist ( talk) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Upmerge Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation to Category:People from Oroville, California, per TM. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - seven is enough for a category IMO, especially given that it's one that could expand later. There's now a second occupation category for the town's eight politicians with articles. Rename the occupation parent to Category:People from Oroville, California, by occupation (with second comma) which seems to be the US standard naming system. Grutness... wha? 03:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - per Namiba, the target category (Sportspeople from Oroville, California) has been adequately populated, the parent cateogry (People from Oroville, California, by occupation) has already been upmerged and deleted. Inter&anthro ( talk) 19:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- The latter is not correct: Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation is still active. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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: discussion merged into
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_28#Category:Victorian-era_naval_ships_by_country (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Victorian-era ships of Canada (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Propose deleting Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Propose merging Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Canada to Category:Merchant ships of Canada- Propose deleting
Category:Victorian-era ships of Australia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Propose deleting Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Propose merging Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Australia to Category:Merchant ships of Australia
- Propose deleting
Category:Victorian-era ships of Canada (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, same rationale as in the discussion below, the Victorian era is unrelated to the history of other countries but the United Kingdom. However, this is a separate nomination because Canada and Australia are Commonwealth countries so the outcome may be less obvious.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: "the discussion below" is (I think)
this.
DexDor
(talk)
19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- That is correct. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: "the discussion below" is (I think)
this.
DexDor
(talk)
19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist ( talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist ( talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Upmerge (e.g. Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Canada to Category:Merchant ships of Canada). Splitting by century might be ok. DexDor (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agree and updated nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ DexDor: are you okay with merging this discussion into the main discussion? I no longer expect that anyone will use the Commonwealth argument to treat these two countries differently. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I don't believe that simply having the virus is WP:DEFINING to the individual. The vast majority of people who catch it will recover, just like any cold or flu. Now, if they die from the virus, that's a different matter, and there's this category. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support The disease is extremely short-lived, and besides being a maintenance nightmare, as nominator states, in no way is this Wikipedia:Defining. Greenman ( talk) 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support It is against
WP:BLP. (When one dead (with verifed source) for COVID, this shall not apply.) Also 'SARS-CoV-2 positive' row of
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak should be cut off. --
Kyuri1449 (
talk)
18:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- BLP applkies to recently dead people. This is because even though they are dead the privacy of living relatives can still be impacted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not defining. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- support per nominators rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support cetrainly fails WP:DEFINING, the disease is spreading rapidly and it is probable when this is all done millions of people will have contracted it when this is empidemic. The seperate entry Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak should be kept though. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment see also Category:People with Ebola, should we also delete it?-- El caballero de los Leones ( talk) 04:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nominator rationale.
5225C ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC) - Support per nom.
SSSB ( talk) 23:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC) - Comment Just wanted to add that List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 currently exists which might be duplicating this category. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. If
Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019 should be delete, should
List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 also be deleted? --
Neo-Jay (
talk)
23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not on the authority of this discussion, see WP:CLT. If appropriate, take it to WP:AFD. – Fayenatic London 12:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support or at least rename as "People who were diagnosed with Covid-19" to make it a historical category. 84.43.93.98 ( talk) 10:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support as above, this is not a defining thing for which we will remember or identify Tom Hanks or Callum Hudson-Odoi in 20 years time, as for most cases it is a transient viral infection. The deaths category however is clearly something different. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:CD66:8E4:10BB:B558 ( talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is a non-defining characteristic, and if estimates turn out to be correct, we could see half the world's population meet this criteria. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Redundant given List of people with coronavirus disease 2019.-- Laun chba ller 15:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Abishe ( talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would note for those saying 'redundant to the list', that the list is also up for deletion. Personally, I think it's justifiable to keep it by parallel with the rest of Category:People with infectious diseases, but I recognise consensus seems to be against me here. Robofish ( talk) 23:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I also doubt we need this. A list might be acceptable. If kept, the scope should be people who have become ill, not people who are currently ill, so that we do not need to remove those who recover. Category:Deaths from COVID-19 would be an acceptable category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support please delete as soon as possible. This is an appalling category, whose sole purpose is stigmatizing living victims of a frightful disease. NedFausa ( talk) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The category of deaths from the disease is fine, but simply listing the people who caught the virus is unnecessary, as many of them will survive it. – numbermaniac 08:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Not only is it not defining, but because tests are still under development and may vary in accuracy, it's entirely possible that someone might have a false positive result. It's also possible that a positive result might be falsely reported, e.g. for political reasons. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 09:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Many people are asymptomatic, so having the disease is non-defining. For the same reason I think we should delete the list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per nom. - Premeditated ( talk) 18:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete category pertaining solely to diagnosis and not death per all others. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 19:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, neither Korean-American movement nor Asian-American movement is a defining characteristic of these articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete -- unless the scope of the category is more precisely defined (with a rename) and it is populated with at least 3 more articles (making 5). I suspect the scope is intended to be Category:Korean activists in America, but that may not quite define it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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 as
WP:SOFTDELETE and redirect, due to low participation. –
Fayenatic
London
16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Social security ministries to Category:Social affairs ministries
- Nominator's rationale: Large overlap in content. No real definition of either category, and the scope of these ministries varies considerably over time. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Query - isn't the former a subcat of the latter? Our article Social affairs is not impressive but https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/policies/policy-areas/social-affairs the EU states "Social affairs covers decent jobs, social security, protection and inclusion, poverty reduction, gender equality, people with disabilities, the needs of children and families, young people, older people and minorities such as Roma, access to health, justice, education, culture and sport, volunteering and active citizenship". Oculi ( talk) 08:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support, there are currently (apart from an overview article) articles with social security ministries of only three countries (China, Jamaica and Zambia). Insofar social affairs ministries should be split, Category:Labour ministries makes a better subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- I dont much mind which way it goes. And if I ever get my act together I might try to populate Social security ministries, but at the moment the social affairs category has a wider scope. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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 to
Category:Foremost disciples of Gautama Buddha. –
Fayenatic
London
16:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Foremost disciples to Category:Foremost disciples of the Buddha
- Nominator's rationale: New name is more clear to the average reader who is not expert. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, the most suitable article I could find to back this up is Ten Principal Disciples. So why not having Category:Ten Principal Disciples (Buddhism) instead? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Foremost disciples are different from the ten principal disciples. Different list. The foremost are discussed at Śrāvaka#Foremost_disciples.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then alt rename to Category:Foremost disciples of Gautama Buddha, aligned with the format of parent Category:Disciples of Gautama Buddha. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed -- Ten Principal Disciples seems to be the main article, but itself indicates that other traditions name 8 or 11 of them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Too narrow. Smyrna is a city of less than 60,000 in Cobb County, which currently has a total of 6 requests—hardly enough to warrant splitting the category. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:Mr. Guye) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge sounds reasonable enough. Follows convention, too. Thanks for the ping. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Stub categories for a non- defining intersection of two otherwise unrelated occupations. There are already stub templates for country-actor-stubs and country-model-stubs, which most people here are already templated for (and anybody who isn't should be) -- but there's no need to also have a stub category in place for the intersection of actor with model. Bearcat ( talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete - yeah... there's no permanent Category:Actor-models either. Ideally I'd like to see the templates go as well, to be replaced by the standard actor-stub or model-stub, or national subtypes of either/both. Grutness... wha? 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. We certainly shouldn't have a stubcat without a corresponding permcat. Stubcats have got out of control - it would be better (e.g. to discourage busywork) to roll them all up into just one category for stubs; editors would still be able to find stubs on a particular topic by using category intersection or by using wikiproject (talk page) categorization.
DexDor
(talk)
12:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having arrived on the scene when they were in just that, I'd definitely disagree. The category was already so big it was causing problems for everyone... and by now it would be an order of magnitude greater. The current system is sprawling, but it works very well thanks.
Grutness...
wha?
02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- What problems was it causing? Everyone?! Was that before category intersection (and stub-class talk page categorization) existed?
DexDor
(talk)
06:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was slowing the servers down. Also, if you think that the Stub-Class talk page categorisation is equivalent to the stub system, then you need to read up on both. But in any case, this isn't really the forum to discuss it.
Grutness...
wha?
03:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Category:American actor-model stubs is an additional stub category, next to Category:American screen actor stubs / Category:American theatre actor stubs / Category:American voice actor stubs. So if server speed is an issue then adding this intersection category will make it only worse. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was slowing the servers down. Also, if you think that the Stub-Class talk page categorisation is equivalent to the stub system, then you need to read up on both. But in any case, this isn't really the forum to discuss it.
Grutness...
wha?
03:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- What problems was it causing? Everyone?! Was that before category intersection (and stub-class talk page categorization) existed?
DexDor
(talk)
06:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having arrived on the scene when they were in just that, I'd definitely disagree. The category was already so big it was causing problems for everyone... and by now it would be an order of magnitude greater. The current system is sprawling, but it works very well thanks.
Grutness...
wha?
02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. (Also, trying to use category intersection to find a stub only works if there are categories assigned to an article - let alone inaccurate categories. Just saying.) Her Pegship ( I'm listening) 15:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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 (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Shakespearean scholars to Category:Shakespeare scholars
- Propose renaming Category:Shakespearean scholarship to Category:Shakespeare scholarship
- Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Literary scholars by writer ([edit:] except Category:Homeric scholars, though I'd make the same case about that one) use the bare name of the author, not an adjective based on that name. "Shakespearean" is not in widespread use in academia and has a bit of an old-fashioned, pretentious feel. All of this also applies to Category:Shakespearean scholarship. blameless 19:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. "Shakespeare scholars" sounds wrong to my ears - "Shakespearean" is definitely the more widely used and known adjectival form - but more importantly the only reason it seems out of place is that with most of the other scholars there is no recognised adjectival form - there's no such word as "Dostoyevskian", "Ibsenic", "Iqbali" or "Poevian" (and before you mention in, both Lovecraftian and Kafkaesque have completely different connotations). Grutness... wha? 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London
14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Wikipedia community templates to Category:Wikipedia templates
- Nominator's rationale: Unclear (e.g. the category text says "aa") and unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support, lacking a definition of "community" templates as opposed to other templates. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
23:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I found 6 more articles which have been added to the category, so keep. However, the parent category, Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation, has only one sub-category and should be deleted.-- TM 13:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist ( talk) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist ( talk) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Upmerge Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation to Category:People from Oroville, California, per TM. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - seven is enough for a category IMO, especially given that it's one that could expand later. There's now a second occupation category for the town's eight politicians with articles. Rename the occupation parent to Category:People from Oroville, California, by occupation (with second comma) which seems to be the US standard naming system. Grutness... wha? 03:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - per Namiba, the target category (Sportspeople from Oroville, California) has been adequately populated, the parent cateogry (People from Oroville, California, by occupation) has already been upmerged and deleted. Inter&anthro ( talk) 19:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- The latter is not correct: Category:People from Oroville, California by occupation is still active. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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: discussion merged into
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_28#Category:Victorian-era_naval_ships_by_country (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Victorian-era ships of Canada (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Propose deleting Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Propose merging Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Canada to Category:Merchant ships of Canada- Propose deleting
Category:Victorian-era ships of Australia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Propose deleting Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Propose merging Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Australia to Category:Merchant ships of Australia
- Propose deleting
Category:Victorian-era ships of Canada (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, same rationale as in the discussion below, the Victorian era is unrelated to the history of other countries but the United Kingdom. However, this is a separate nomination because Canada and Australia are Commonwealth countries so the outcome may be less obvious.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: "the discussion below" is (I think)
this.
DexDor
(talk)
19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- That is correct. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: "the discussion below" is (I think)
this.
DexDor
(talk)
19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist ( talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist ( talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Upmerge (e.g. Category:Victorian-era merchant ships of Canada to Category:Merchant ships of Canada). Splitting by century might be ok. DexDor (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agree and updated nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ DexDor: are you okay with merging this discussion into the main discussion? I no longer expect that anyone will use the Commonwealth argument to treat these two countries differently. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I don't believe that simply having the virus is WP:DEFINING to the individual. The vast majority of people who catch it will recover, just like any cold or flu. Now, if they die from the virus, that's a different matter, and there's this category. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support The disease is extremely short-lived, and besides being a maintenance nightmare, as nominator states, in no way is this Wikipedia:Defining. Greenman ( talk) 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support It is against
WP:BLP. (When one dead (with verifed source) for COVID, this shall not apply.) Also 'SARS-CoV-2 positive' row of
Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak should be cut off. --
Kyuri1449 (
talk)
18:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- BLP applkies to recently dead people. This is because even though they are dead the privacy of living relatives can still be impacted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not defining. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- support per nominators rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support cetrainly fails WP:DEFINING, the disease is spreading rapidly and it is probable when this is all done millions of people will have contracted it when this is empidemic. The seperate entry Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak should be kept though. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment see also Category:People with Ebola, should we also delete it?-- El caballero de los Leones ( talk) 04:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nominator rationale.
5225C ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC) - Support per nom.
SSSB ( talk) 23:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC) - Comment Just wanted to add that List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 currently exists which might be duplicating this category. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. If
Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019 should be delete, should
List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 also be deleted? --
Neo-Jay (
talk)
23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not on the authority of this discussion, see WP:CLT. If appropriate, take it to WP:AFD. – Fayenatic London 12:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support or at least rename as "People who were diagnosed with Covid-19" to make it a historical category. 84.43.93.98 ( talk) 10:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support as above, this is not a defining thing for which we will remember or identify Tom Hanks or Callum Hudson-Odoi in 20 years time, as for most cases it is a transient viral infection. The deaths category however is clearly something different. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:CD66:8E4:10BB:B558 ( talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is a non-defining characteristic, and if estimates turn out to be correct, we could see half the world's population meet this criteria. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Redundant given List of people with coronavirus disease 2019.-- Laun chba ller 15:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Abishe ( talk) 19:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would note for those saying 'redundant to the list', that the list is also up for deletion. Personally, I think it's justifiable to keep it by parallel with the rest of Category:People with infectious diseases, but I recognise consensus seems to be against me here. Robofish ( talk) 23:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I also doubt we need this. A list might be acceptable. If kept, the scope should be people who have become ill, not people who are currently ill, so that we do not need to remove those who recover. Category:Deaths from COVID-19 would be an acceptable category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support please delete as soon as possible. This is an appalling category, whose sole purpose is stigmatizing living victims of a frightful disease. NedFausa ( talk) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The category of deaths from the disease is fine, but simply listing the people who caught the virus is unnecessary, as many of them will survive it. – numbermaniac 08:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Not only is it not defining, but because tests are still under development and may vary in accuracy, it's entirely possible that someone might have a false positive result. It's also possible that a positive result might be falsely reported, e.g. for political reasons. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 09:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Many people are asymptomatic, so having the disease is non-defining. For the same reason I think we should delete the list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per nom. - Premeditated ( talk) 18:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete category pertaining solely to diagnosis and not death per all others. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 19:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, neither Korean-American movement nor Asian-American movement is a defining characteristic of these articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete -- unless the scope of the category is more precisely defined (with a rename) and it is populated with at least 3 more articles (making 5). I suspect the scope is intended to be Category:Korean activists in America, but that may not quite define it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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 as
WP:SOFTDELETE and redirect, due to low participation. –
Fayenatic
London
16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Social security ministries to Category:Social affairs ministries
- Nominator's rationale: Large overlap in content. No real definition of either category, and the scope of these ministries varies considerably over time. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Query - isn't the former a subcat of the latter? Our article Social affairs is not impressive but https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/policies/policy-areas/social-affairs the EU states "Social affairs covers decent jobs, social security, protection and inclusion, poverty reduction, gender equality, people with disabilities, the needs of children and families, young people, older people and minorities such as Roma, access to health, justice, education, culture and sport, volunteering and active citizenship". Oculi ( talk) 08:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support, there are currently (apart from an overview article) articles with social security ministries of only three countries (China, Jamaica and Zambia). Insofar social affairs ministries should be split, Category:Labour ministries makes a better subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- I dont much mind which way it goes. And if I ever get my act together I might try to populate Social security ministries, but at the moment the social affairs category has a wider scope. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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 to
Category:Foremost disciples of Gautama Buddha. –
Fayenatic
London
16:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Foremost disciples to Category:Foremost disciples of the Buddha
- Nominator's rationale: New name is more clear to the average reader who is not expert. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, the most suitable article I could find to back this up is Ten Principal Disciples. So why not having Category:Ten Principal Disciples (Buddhism) instead? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Foremost disciples are different from the ten principal disciples. Different list. The foremost are discussed at Śrāvaka#Foremost_disciples.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then alt rename to Category:Foremost disciples of Gautama Buddha, aligned with the format of parent Category:Disciples of Gautama Buddha. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed -- Ten Principal Disciples seems to be the main article, but itself indicates that other traditions name 8 or 11 of them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Too narrow. Smyrna is a city of less than 60,000 in Cobb County, which currently has a total of 6 requests—hardly enough to warrant splitting the category. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:Mr. Guye) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge sounds reasonable enough. Follows convention, too. Thanks for the ping. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Stub categories for a non- defining intersection of two otherwise unrelated occupations. There are already stub templates for country-actor-stubs and country-model-stubs, which most people here are already templated for (and anybody who isn't should be) -- but there's no need to also have a stub category in place for the intersection of actor with model. Bearcat ( talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete - yeah... there's no permanent Category:Actor-models either. Ideally I'd like to see the templates go as well, to be replaced by the standard actor-stub or model-stub, or national subtypes of either/both. Grutness... wha? 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. We certainly shouldn't have a stubcat without a corresponding permcat. Stubcats have got out of control - it would be better (e.g. to discourage busywork) to roll them all up into just one category for stubs; editors would still be able to find stubs on a particular topic by using category intersection or by using wikiproject (talk page) categorization.
DexDor
(talk)
12:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having arrived on the scene when they were in just that, I'd definitely disagree. The category was already so big it was causing problems for everyone... and by now it would be an order of magnitude greater. The current system is sprawling, but it works very well thanks.
Grutness...
wha?
02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- What problems was it causing? Everyone?! Was that before category intersection (and stub-class talk page categorization) existed?
DexDor
(talk)
06:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was slowing the servers down. Also, if you think that the Stub-Class talk page categorisation is equivalent to the stub system, then you need to read up on both. But in any case, this isn't really the forum to discuss it.
Grutness...
wha?
03:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Category:American actor-model stubs is an additional stub category, next to Category:American screen actor stubs / Category:American theatre actor stubs / Category:American voice actor stubs. So if server speed is an issue then adding this intersection category will make it only worse. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was slowing the servers down. Also, if you think that the Stub-Class talk page categorisation is equivalent to the stub system, then you need to read up on both. But in any case, this isn't really the forum to discuss it.
Grutness...
wha?
03:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- What problems was it causing? Everyone?! Was that before category intersection (and stub-class talk page categorization) existed?
DexDor
(talk)
06:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having arrived on the scene when they were in just that, I'd definitely disagree. The category was already so big it was causing problems for everyone... and by now it would be an order of magnitude greater. The current system is sprawling, but it works very well thanks.
Grutness...
wha?
02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. (Also, trying to use category intersection to find a stub only works if there are categories assigned to an article - let alone inaccurate categories. Just saying.) Her Pegship ( I'm listening) 15:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- 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.