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. There's agreement from multiple participants that the current categories are unsatisfactory, but near-universal consensus against the proposed solution. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming

Category:French troubadours to Category:Troubadours from France

Category:11th-century French troubadours to Category:11th-century troubadours from France

Category:12th-century French troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from France

Category:13th-century French troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from France

Category:14th-century French troubadours to Category:14th-century troubadours from France

Category:Spanish troubadours to Category:Troubadours from Spain

Category:12th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from Spain

Category:13th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from Spain

Category:14th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:14th-century troubadours from Spain

Category:15th-century Spanish troubadours to Category:15th-century troubadours from Spain

Category:Italian troubadours to Category:Troubadours from Italy

Category:12th-century Italian troubadours to Category:12th-century troubadours from Italy

Category:13th-century Italian troubadours to Category:13th-century troubadours from Italy

Nominator's rationale: The troubadours wrote in Occitan, not French (or Spanish or Italian). They are defined by the language they used. The current category names are confusing. The equivalent of a troubadour writing in French is a trouvère. Srnec (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, in the category tree "French" means "from France", so the proposed rename will only create confusion and inconsistency without actually solving anything. If it would be better to categorize troubadours based on language instead of based on nationality (which I am not sure of) then it should become Category:Occitan-language troubadours. Note by the way that troubadour is an English-language and international term, not necessarily to be used for Occitan-language troubadours only. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely it is "necessarily to be used for Occitan-language troubadours only". That is how the term is used in scholarship. The way in which the category tree privileges nationality over language in literature is itself a problem. It is only magnified when you go back to the Middle Ages and nationality as we know doesn't exist. Srnec (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The parent categories already categorize people by nationality, so actual ethnicity is irrelevant here. Dimadick (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick and Marcocapelle: "Spanish" is not a nationality that existed during the time of the troubadours. Whatever "12th-century Spanish" means in any context, it cannot refer to a "nationality". Srnec (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree on that, it should be Aragonese or Castilian. But changing "Spanish" to "from Spain", again, does not solve anything because it means the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as nom. I agree that there is a problem, as there was no "Spain" before the Catholic monarchs in c.1490s. France existed as a theoretical overlordship for much of this time. Many of the "Spanish" troubadours were actually Catalan. I would suggest that someone who knows about this should create a rival language based tree, while this CFD is open, with a view to the present one being deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dimadick. The parent categories already categorize people by nationality, so actual ethnicity is irrelevant here. --Just N. (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we put the Spanish ones into Catalan categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

• Yes, or in Category:Troubadours from the Kingdom of Aragon, cf Category:People from the Kingdom of Aragon, depending on what is most applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "from the Kingdom of Aragon" okay, but "from Spain" not? Srnec (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no country called Spain then.Rathfelder (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: You created the Spanish categories! Srnec (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True and we are still working out the best way to handle categorisation for these situations. We assume that our categories are mostly about nationality, but ethnicity, language and location all impinge. Italy didnt exist in the 12th century either. I dont see "from Italy" as an improvement. Rathfelder (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2022 (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: keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Field (mathematics) to Category:Fields (mathematics)

Nominator's rationale: There are about 30 entries that are about specific fields or classes of fields, such as Euclidean field and Rational number. Several of the other subcategories in the Category:Ring theory tree use the plural form as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a topic category, with 102 articles. A rational number is not a field; a theorem is not a field; a theory is not a field. By all means create a set subcat Category:Fields (mathematics) and put the (30 or so) actual fields in it (as well as Category:Finite fields). Oculi (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like Category:Finite fields is a topic category rather than a set category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • True; so it is. That should be renamed, maybe to 'Finite field', per Finite field. One would expect mathematicians to know the difference between a set and a topic category. Oculi (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but diffuse per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2021 (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. ✗plicit 01:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Formally real field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Barely used category for a highly technical definition. Both entries are already in the parent category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is some serious theory involved here with the concept of real closed field, and the solution of Hilbert's seventeenth problem. See for example [1]. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (which is in this case equivalent to delete) per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the two member articles Formally real field and Superreal number do not currently make reference to each other. – Fayenatic London

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. ✗plicit 01:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator, or (as a distant second choice), rename back to Category:Baronies of Fingal.
  The Dexember 9 CFD was a bad decision, which created an inconsistently-named category: every other by-county subcat of Category:Baronies of Ireland by county is named "Baronies of Foo". The closure by @Bibliomaniac15 was surprising, because two of the three participants queried whether the category should exist at all. Yes, they did not make formal !votes ... but when nobody supported the nominator, I cannot see a positive consensus for change.

County Dublin is the oldest county in Ireland, having been created in the 1190s. The baronies were created at around the same time; e.g. Castleknock (barony) was created in 1177. The baronies' administrative role was abolished by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, so for all but the first 15 years of its 820-year administrative existence, that barony was part of County Dublin. The baronies have never an administrative part of the County of Fingal, and categorising them as such is an anachronism, just like "Radio in County Coleraine".

The creator of the nominated category (and also the nominator of the Dec9 CFD) has long pursued an agenda that "County Dublin" has been abolished, which is why they have created these absurd sub-categories. That notion of complete abolition is false: the administrative entity of Dublin County Council was abolished, but "County Dublin" remains in use as a defined geographical area for many other purposes, most visibly for vehicle registration plates: the "D" plate covers the whole of Dublin City and and the whole of the former County Dublin. A Google search for "County Dublin" site:gov.ie gives 263 hits, and if "County Dublin" is widely used by the Irish Govt, it should be usable by Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have added the five lead articles on the baronies to Category:History of Fingal, which probably suffices for coverage within the Fingal hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- That was my suggestion in the previous CFD. Baronies are (as I understand it) defunct administrative units, so that it is appropriate to parent them to a defunct county. Various Welsh categories have been messed up in a similar way by splitting the old counties into the present council areas, giving minute categories. Perhaps leave cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As BHG has outlined above, a number of Irish editors have been in long-term disagreement over the status of County Dublin. Most would admit, somewhat reluctantly in the case of a few editors, that the county was legally abolished as a layer of local government. Such editors have a romantic attachment to the former local government area and have been consistent in pursuing their nostalgic editing over the years. Their fallback conceit in pursuit of "Dublinia Irridenta" is that, while the administrative entity was abolished, the county remains, in some ghostly form, in the hearts and minds of all true Dubliners. This is, of course, complete tosh; a county serves no other function that to define the geographic operational remit of judicial or local government organs. Once that geograhic remit is legally altered or indeed abolished, the county too is abolished and exists only in old land deeds and history books. The fact that some social organisations may have have decided to arrange their organisational structures to mirror the county structures is irrelevant; neither tennis clubs nor even the mighty Dublin GAA has the power to magic County Dublin back into existence. The same is true for car name plates; if the "D" plate for the former county of Dublin was the arbiter, then how to explain the "W" and "WD" plates for Waterford or the "L" and "LK" plates for Limerick? As for the the GAA, it thinks that there is a county called Derry GAA, not County Londonderry and it continues to peddle the myth that Ballaghaderreen GAA is located in County Mayo, despite having been legally a part of County Roscommon since 1898. The modern existence of baronies in Ireland is that they continue to be officially defined units although they are no longer used for many administrative purposes. On a separate point, I'm coming around to the view that the entire tree structure of Category:Baronies of Ireland by county is incorrectly named and that Category:Baronies in Fingal is the only one that is correctly named. While in most cases, baronies do not straddle county bounds, in former times, they did in fact cover multiple counties. For example, Cross Tipperary was an enclave of a county within a county. The archbishops of Dublin had jurisdiction over counties that lay partly in the modern counties of Dublin, Wicklow and Kildare. Today, Leitrim (County Galway barony) is a barony that lies partly in county Galway and partly in county Clare. So "Leitrim" is not of County Clare (intrinsic to the county); rather it is in County Clare. For that reason, the category should be renamed to Category:Baronies in County Clare. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Supplementary verbose point I don't see this as being a question that turns on anachronism; I see it as turning on Things that are in a county. For example, the Ballyedmonduff Wedge Tomb is many thousands of years older than County Dublin, yet it is located in County Dublin. Thus it is not an anachronism to categorise it into County Dublin. Equally, it may also be categorised into the modern county of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown. Putting it into a category called, for example, Category:National Monuments in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown would be entirely appropriate as it is in the county, not of the county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objection to the alternative proposed by Laurel Lodged, and am prepared to tag all the baronies categories for renaming to "in" if anyone else indicates support for that. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fayenatic london: I oppose doing that as a modification of this nom, or as a replacement for this nom, because it doesn't resolve the anachronism.

    Fingal contains only 4½ baronies, so it is a borderline WP:SMALLCAT. Given that and the lack of a any administrative connection between the baronies and the new county of Fingal, it makes much more sense for the baronies to to be categorised by the counties of which they were administrative units. So I still support the merge.

    If there was as a separate nomination to rename every "Category:Baronies of County Foo" to "Category:Baronies in County Foo", then I would support the renaming provided that all 32 traditional counties remained consistent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Trying to discuss these issues with Laurel Lodged is a tedious exercise in rebutting LL's snarky and fact-averse denialism.

  In this case, LL yet again starts with some bitchy snark whose only function is to smear and misrepresent other editors, raising the temperature of discussion while staying just below the threshold at which it would be clearly a personal attack: Such editors have a romantic attachment to the former local government area ... their nostalgic editing .. fallback conceit in pursuit of "Dublinia Irridenta".

  Those assertions are mendacious. As in other discussions of this issue, my objection is based solely on evidence of continued usage by public authorities and private bodies. At no point have I expressed a personal view, let alone any romantic attachment, and the claim that this is pursuit of "Dublinia Irridenta" is a malicious falsehood without foundation. It is well past time for LL to deist from their campaign to disrupt through a smear campaign of mendacious misrepresentation.

  If we skip past LL's bilious hot air and mendacity, then we get to the core falsehood of LL's stance: a county serves no other function that to define the geographic operational remit of judicial or local government organs.

  This is demonstrably false, as a point of fact. Counties are used as geographical units for many official purposes, including land registration and vehicle registration plates. Neither of those functions are either judicial functions or local government organs (the local authorities which issue D-plate vehicle registrations do not include an authority called "County Dublin").

  As I note above, a Google search for "County Dublin" site:gov.ie gives 263 hits, and none of the hits that I have sampled are either judicial or local government.

  It is long past time that action was taken to allow these issues to be discussed without disrupted by LL's mendacious smear campaigns. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That other private societies, club and administrative bodies choose to make use of areas demarkated for local government or judicial administration is just a convenient thing. They are in no way integral to what it is to be a county. The function of a county, as erected in law, is to demarcate such areas. Any other seconary usage is not germain to the functioning of the county. The county itself has no powers; only the Sheriff of the County, the Lord Lieutentant of the County, the Justice of the County, the Grand Jury of the County, the High Poobah of the the County has actual power. When the barony of Kilmanmangh was divided into Kilnamanagh Lower and Kilnamanagh Upper, it was to facilitate the division of the county of Tipperary. At that point, County Tipperary ceased to exist. Two centuries later, North Tipperary and South Tipperary were later re-united. So counties can come and go at the whim of the legislature. If @BrownHairedGirl: or anyone else can point to any law that says otherwise, let them show the citation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Laurel Lodged has now posted a second verbose reply in which they have chosen to ignore the fact that the Irish government continues to use County Dublin as a geographical unit. Instead, we have been subjected to yet another of LL's verbose tilts at straw men.

  Where have I said that the Irish government does not continue to use County Dublin as a geographical unit? For the purposes of elections etc, the government is free to combine as many counties or parts or counties into constituences or regions of the European Union as it wishes. Some things are not germain to the functioning of the county. County Dublin, a a county, was abolished. It says as much in the debates in the Dáil. Go ask Avril Doyle. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A Google search for "County Dublin" site:gov.ie gives 263 hits, and if "County Dublin" is widely used by the Irish Govt, it should be usable by Wikipedia.

  Newsflash: County Dublin is in Wikipedia. It will always be in Wiki. The proposal does not propose to abolish County Dublin in law (the Oireachtas already did that job) nor in Wiki. End of strawman. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And LL's disruptive obfuscation should cease. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a notification of this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Baronies of County Dublin, as this is anachronistic. A barony created in 1177 cannot be part of a county created in 1994. Spleodrach (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a barony created in 1177 cannot be part of a county created in 1994" - why not? The Barony of Ratoath was created some time after 1196 but the modern county of Meath was not erected until 1543. Most of the baronies of County Wickow were created long before Wicklow was shired. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct would be to use Dublin. In a possibly analogous edit, I recently removed a reference to UK constituencies from the South Dublin, given its creation in 1994. Fingal definitely has a long history prior to 1994, and it's quite a detailed page for that. But as a legal county, with any subdivisions, it existed only from 1994. While there can be baronies on the margins of counties that have moved from one to the other, we should roughly use the counties as they existed in 1898. They were administrative units, not buildings or landmarks. On the other hand, baronies do have a bare Modern existence, so grouping them by modern county isn't completely unreasonable.

On a side note, as to the use of Dublin officially, I'd also note this post-2014 example from the CSO, which defines regions by the traditional counties. But that's a side issue to whether historic divisions should be grouped by modern county. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iveagh Gardens (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 January 2022 (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:Nightlife in New York City. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:New York City nightlife to Category:Nightlife in New York City

Nominator's rationale: Standardization with other "Nightlife in X" categories Headphase (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support They seem to be duplicate categories. Dimadick (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or reverse merge -- no preference, but obviously identical. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2022 (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: keep. – Fayenatic London 18:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Logicians to Category:Philosophers of logic

Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell these are two ways of saying the same thing. Massive overlap between the categories. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logicians is the (substantially) older category, but I think the drier Philosophers of logic is a better merge title. No particular objection from me if consensus prefers to merge the other way. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the two categories have been parented slightly differently. I guess Category:Philosophy of logic is a better parent than Category:Logic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what about the science of logic vs the philosophy of logic? Logic now isn't the thought-field of yore, since it is a field of study for information science and mathematics, instead of philosophy -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fair point because there is already a subCategory:Mathematical logicians. Here is a potential solution: a) merge as nominated, b) purge Category:Mathematical logicians, c) re-create Category:Logicians as a dab page or a parent category for Category:Mathematical logicians and Category:Philosophers of logic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Computer scientists and other logic programmers are mostly NOT philosophers (except maybe as hobby). So keep! --Just N. (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is entirely out of scope. Computer scientists use logic but that does not mean they are logicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I do feel there is value in having a category for logicians as such. As logic is an interdisciplinary field between the three areas of philosophy, mathematics and computer science, there will those for whom the distinction is not clear cut and for whom it is better to have a category that is broader in scope (and even though many computer scientists that use logic would not consider themselves logicians, some certainly do). Felix QW (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2022 (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. The merge will be in the direction nominated; the article name adds weight in that direction. I will redirect the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jungian tradition to Category:Analytical psychology

Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping scope, since Analytical psychology has been founded by Carl Jung. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merging prefered as even if Jung himself chose the marketing name Analytical psychology the Jungian tradition wording is much more self-evident. --Just N. (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While I disagree on the "marketing" aspect (analytical psychology is just a commonly used term), reverse merging is preferable over the status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, seriously, if you are doing diagnostics (in psychology just as in medicine) almost all work you do is analytical. That was my basic reason to talk of "marketing" -> taking the name of a general proceeding as "flag name symbol" for my special branch of business is a "clever" marketing maneuver, isn't it? Nontheless I'm glad that you accept my proposal of Reverse merging as preferable. Thank you! --Just N. (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely diagnostics is analytical work but that it is not relevant here. Analytical psychology is the name of a school of thought in psychology. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to recap, your argument is "it's ridiculous that the field is even called that"? Because to my knowledge, we go off what people call it, not whether that's actually a reasonable name. Also, it is a reasonable name if you examine the historical context. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge in the direction suggested. The Jungian tradition (i.e. the practice of psychology that is in the tradition of Jung) is analytical psychology. The articles in the categories display the same scope. The common name and the article name is analytical psychology. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:28, 31 December 2021 (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. I made a list of the current member pages at Talk:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19, where there have been previous discussions about whether to have a list of notable examples. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anti-vaccination activist deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems similar to a category deleted in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Category:Anti-vaccination activists who died of COVID-19. While it seems interesting to me to see, perhaps it would be better as a list. Since the other category was deleted, for this one to persist, it should be the result of another CFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because circumstances have changed since the previous discussion (of which I was not aware). This is a category that is going to be recreated perennially under some variation of the name because it has become a defining aspect in news reporting. For example:

  Sicha, Choire (August 16, 2021). "How Mean Should We Be to Each Other?". Intelligencer. Retrieved September 5, 2021.

  Judkis, Maura (October 7, 2021). "What do all these stories of vaccine denial deaths do to our sense of empathy?". The Washington Post., profiling the phenomenon of people being categorized as anti-vaccination activists who have died of COVID-19, including "[a] website called Sorry Antivaxxer, which catalogues the covid-19 deaths of people who had publicly posted their rejection of the vaccine", as well as "the Twitter account Covidiot Deaths, [and] the Reddit forum called the Herman Cain Award", and the criticisms these outlets have faced.

In short, reliable sources are both categorizing anti-vaccination activists who have died of COVID-19, and covering the phenomenon of people being categorized as anti-vaccination activists who have died of COVID-19. BD2412 T 01:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In an AFD for the analogous "list of..." article, I proposed using these sorts of refs to write an article on the phenomenon (you and I each found a ref the other didn't:) DMacks (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, by the way, that I have also created Draft:List of anti-vaccine advocates who died from COVID-19, but have been informed that previous lists of COVID-19 deniers and opponents of other COVID-19 safety measures have been deleted (again, prior to the more recent coverage of the phenomenon of sources categorizing such deaths), so I want to be sure that it is on solid footing before proposing to move it to mainspace. The list and the category would serve different purposes, in my opinion. BD2412 T 01:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BD2412, I hope this information is retained in some form. But I thought without a "Keep" or "No consensus" decision here in a new CFD discussion, then this page would at some point get tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G4. The only way to overturn a CFD decision, unfortunately, is a subsequent CFD decision. We'll see if opinion here has changed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and perhaps listify, per nom. Also, it seems non-defining and petty even to make such a distinction, imho. But if folks think it's necessary, a list would be far more appropriate. Her Pegship (?) 02:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I typically like and regularly use categories by cause of death. But we don't typically categorize people who died due to their own stupidity. Wikipedia is not following the spirit of the Darwin Awards. Dimadick (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or listify - I consider that this information should be retained in some form. It is important that those stupid enough to be anti-vaxers should have the stupidity of their views exposed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Sources treat this as defining: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].--Mvqr (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or listify Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at most listify, this is typical case of recentism. Nobody will care about this in two years time. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a substantial number of categories applicable to people notable for their relationship to a limited-time movement. I don't think recentism is an applicable concept here. BD2412 T 19:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely notability for a relationship to a limited-time movement is possible. But passing away while part of a movement will eventually (when covid is no longer hot news) become a triviality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to think that the question of whether it is or is not is a matter of the measure of coverage of that relationship in reliable sources. BD2412 T 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or listify - Is, and will be, objectively notable, long after the situation concludes. - Headphase (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: we do have List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19 that is at AFD. As I said in that discussion, I wouldn't want to see a cat or list unless we have an article on the topic, which we don't but I think we could. If we have an article on the topic, that demonstrates the phenomenon is notable, not just OR curration or of mere recentism. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and perhaps listify, per nom. --Just N. (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, can be both (list and category) for different kinds of searches. Sources do report on this intersection, both newswise and academically. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is now a significant defining factor in the history of each subject's biography, as this is a significant global concern and often brings the subject to wider public attention. It was previously argued that this category was influenced by Recentism, but WP:Recentism is really concerned with article bloat, not category definition. In any case, the COVID topic area is now 2 years old. Category:COVID-19 pandemic contains a large number of subcategories related to the pandemic, none of which is considered an example of Recentism. Cnbrb (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't listify. Listing people by this intersection is fundamentally contrary to our policy against WP:Attack pages. TompaDompa (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An "Attack page" is one that "exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced". This is not that. The policy you are looking for is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and the wrongdoers you have in mind are the media outlets who are reporting on the notability of this specific intersection. BD2412 T 22:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listing people by this intersection inevitably comes across as an attempt to mock them by juxtaposing their cause of death with their previously held beliefs. That's disparaging them, and that's true regardless of whether mocking them is wrong or not. Notability is a red herring; it's possible to write about this intersection without naming and shaming. TompaDompa (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is literally only one degree different from the fact that all of these subjects would already be categorized in Category:Anti-vaccination activists (for which there is a robust category tree), and as deaths from COVID-19. The aspect that would be "shameful" in this formulation would be their anti-vaccination activism, which is going to be categorized either way. The intersection with their historically interesting cause of death is ripe to be categorized because it is an intersection that is now noted and examined in numerous high-level sources. BD2412 T 06:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely you understand that pointing out two things in conjunction can be used to make a point that would not be made if they were noted separately? TompaDompa (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • These people are now in the news to make a point indeed. But that point is going to become trivial when Covid19 fades away. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • It won't evaporate from having been the subject of coverage, though. In fact, there may be studies for years or decades on the effect that reporting such deaths had on vaccination rates. BD2412 T 19:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            @Marcocapelle, I kind of feel like arguing it'll fade away along with COVID is Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. If in 10 years no one is discussing what it meant that there were so many people arguing against the vaccines -- and so many RS commenting on the ones who died of COVID as part of the culture of the day -- we can always adjust our coverage. Personally I think it's likely to pass the 10 year test as something that was very much commented on during the pandemic. There are conspiracy theories about antivax activists dying from COVID. There are are social influencers calling for violence against medical professionals because antivaxxers have been "murdered" in hospitals. There are lawsuits because hospitals wouldn't give ivermectin and insisted on giving remdesivir. I'm not sure how we can assume this isn't going to be commented on at length in the scholarship of 2030. valereee (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The very wording of this category is inherently meant to be an attack on those people categorized. Wikipedia should not have categorized worded in a way to attack people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with salt if necessary. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with a list, but "hey, look, irony got them in the end!" isn't the basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe the similar lists have already been deleted several times. This does come across as grave dancing. BLP may also apply since these people are recently departed. Springee (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Using a category instead of a bare list is a much better option. It is good to be able to find the various people who became a victim of their own foolishness. Their deaths should not be in vain, but serve as a warning to others. The category is not for ordinary people, but for activists, so their notoriety was of their own doing. They did not act in a private manner. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, and we do not support fringe views, but support RS when they expose them, and anti-vax positions are fringe views. Keeping this hidden by not covering it helps to advance fringe views. -- Valjean (talk)

A category like this is a big BLP red flag because it puts the claim in Wiki voice vs the voice of others. It also means we have applied the "anti-vax" label in Wiki-voice vs with attribution. Springee (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, wouldn't the issue would be with Category:Anti-vaccination activists? BD2412 T 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That has been a problem with specific examples on that list. It does help that AVA list isn't grave dancing while this one certainly smells like grave dancing. Springee (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no BLP problem if the relevant bio article includes RS which document it. It is "unsourced" "negative" content that would be a BLP issue. "Negative" on its own is not an issue. UNCENSORED covers this. We do not protect people beyond our PAG, just because we feel it's not nice to mention them. "Not nice" and "grave dancing" are not policies. Those are personal editorial opinions that often violate NPOV and NOTCENSORED. We often should do what isn't "nice" because RS have done it, and our job is to stay out of the way and document what the RS say, including their bias and "not nice"ness. Neutering the RS is a violation of NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep useful cross-categorization; these people have generally received a significant amount of coverage on this topic so it's not OR. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for grave dancing and BLP concerns. Not in favor of listifying. CutePeach (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CutePeach, you should actually read the article. There is no grave dancing, and any BLP concerns have already been fixed. -- Valjean (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful cross-categorization; these people have generally received a significant amount of coverage on this topic so it's not OR. The sam reason ar Elli I dont have better words. --Nolanus (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BD2412 and Mvqr. - 87.58.119.240 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm a little split on this topic, on one hand it has received a good amount of coverage, but on the other hand it does feel a bit like an attack category. If the category is kept, however, there needs to be a clear definition of what constitutes an "anti-vaccination activists". Fore examples, would politicians who opposed vaccine mandates and who died from COVID-19 such as Bernd Grimmer and Arolde de Oliveira really fit this category? Inter&anthro (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Inter&anthro: Note that this is a subcategory of the long-existing Category:Anti-vaccination activists, so we have been categorizing people as falling into that structure for some time. I would say that it applies to anyone known for being an anti-vaccination activist prior to and separate from the event of their death. The Bernd Grimmer article is a stub, and frankly I'd like to know more about the extent of their advocacy in this area, and whether it extended to denying the utility of the vaccines, or seeking to persuade people not to be vaccinated even outside of the context of vaccination mandates. BD2412 T 07:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and listify) per (among others) BD2412 and Mvqr. - Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2022 (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.