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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose upmerging Category:Hindu missionaries by nationality to Category:Hindu missionaries
• Propose upmerging Category:Fijian Hindu missionaries to Category:Hindu missionaries, Category:Fijian missionaries and Category:Fijian Hindus
• Propose upmerging Category:Ghanaian Hindu missionaries to Category:Hindu missionaries, Category:Ghanaian missionaries and Category:Ghanaian Hindus
• Propose upmerging Category:Indonesian Hindu missionaries to Category:Hindu missionaries, Category:Indonesian missionaries and Category:Indonesian Hindu religious leaders
• Propose upmerging Category:Sri Lankan Hindu missionaries to Category:Hindu missionaries, Category:Sri Lankan missionaries and Category:Sri Lankan Hindus

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one nationality with a significant amount of Hindu missionaries, namely the Indian nationality. So there is no need for other categories by nationality. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Upmerge per nom. Small categories with uncertain potential for expansion. Dimadick ( talk) 09:06, 2 September 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose upmerging Category:Prarthana Samaj religious leaders to its both parents Category:Hindu reformers and Category:Indian Hindu religious leaders

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (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, but as with the Russian category, ensure that the contents are appropriately placed in Category:Political parties in Ukraine OR Category:Political organisations in Ukraine OR Category:Politics of Ukraine (for those orgs which are not located in Ukraine but are involved in Ukrainian politics). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Poposed deletion: Category:Ukrainian opposition groups

Nominator's rationale: Per reasons of the deletion of Category:Russian opposition groups (see here). Plus, some of these groups are now in power, so they're no longer "opposition groups". Charles Essie ( talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Support rationale of nomination. Suggest a manual split similar to the closure of the Russian category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Political organisations in Ukraine for all non-party groups. Dimadick ( talk) 09:24, 2 September 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose upmerging Category:Star Wars Anthology films to Category:Star Wars spin-off films

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Side note: see also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: The Anthology film series are not categorized in the same regard as the spin-off films. Additionally, there are three of these films being simultaneously produced, so there will be new pages soon. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 20:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge WP:SMALLCAT There will only be 3 films, that is too small for a category. Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia, we do not need endless Star Wars categories. There is only 1 article right now and little expectation for more than 3 articles. Even then, there's no good reason why all officially made (as opposed to fan films) Star Wars films can't be housed in a single category. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

"Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia" is a rude and nonconstructive inclusion, so please avoid utilizing phrases like that in the future, 70.51.202.113. On the topic of content, some articles under the umbrella of the spin-off category include Lego Star Wars: Bombad Bounty, Lego Star Wars: Revenge of the Brick, Lego Star Wars: The Quest for R2-D2, The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards, Star Tours and Star Tours—The Adventures Continue... of which none bear the same context as the Anthology series. There has been nothing to support your claim that there will only be three, as what has been reported on is that three are currently in development. While splicing and dicing categories is unnecessary, we're dealing with the context of a series separate from the films in the spin-off category, much in the same way as the Marvel Cinematic Universe films require a category to encompass them. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 07:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: There seems to be a clear potential for expansion. Dimadick ( talk) 09:27, 2 September 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2016
• Propose deleting Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2017
• Propose deleting Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2018
• Propose deleting Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2019
• Propose deleting Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2020
• Propose deleting Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2024

Nominator's rationale:: follow-up on this discussion, for a railway station that is merely in the proposal phase (not under construction yet, or no construction required) one can't predict when it's going to open. Side note: the parent categories of these are of the form Category:Railway stations scheduled to open in 2016, for railway stations under construction; they are no part of this nomination, because the end of construction works can reasonably well be predicted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete When they open, these articles can be placed in the appropriate establishment categories. Wikipedia isn't a crystalball. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete A case of WP:CRYSTALBALL and non-defining as well. Dimadick ( talk) 09:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for reasons given above. Pointtwo ( talk) 10:42, 4 September 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Abaúj-Torna County ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Given the outcome here and here, I propose deleting the remainder of these, and for the same reasons: we don't categorize places by subdivisions defunct for nearly a century, and neither is the fact that people were born in said defunct units a defining characteristic. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Overcategorization. The towns in each Hungarian county can be made in lists, if needed. bogdan ( talk) 13:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support All These seem unlikely to aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, despite of that I understand why these categories are frustrating for the Romanian Wikipedians. Nevertheless, I am curious, who will fix the numerous red links after this mass deletion? Not to mention that User:Lekoren sometimes changed relevant categories to replace with his own categories. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as already stated. ( Rgvis ( talk) 15:34, 30 August 2015 (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. It sounds like there is a very rough consensus that making this distinction between the two types of organizations in this category scheme is probably not worth it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Academic journals published by learned societies to Category:Academic journals published by learned and professional societies

Nominator's rationale: Counter-examples for current category naming: The Accounting Review is published the American Accounting Association, which is tagged as Category:Professional association stubs, not in Category:Learned societies. Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article on the American Accounting Association states that it "promotes worldwide excellence in accounting education, research and practice". Sounds like a "learned society" to me. Perhaps it should just be re-categorized (or, rather, be categorized more specifically, given that Category:Learned societies is a subcat of Category:Professional associations). -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Background: I was motivated by the name of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. Fgnievinski ( talk) 23:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Question: What about Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies? St Anselm ( talk) 08:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ StAnselm: It could be speedy-renamed, assuming the present nomination succeeds. fgnievinski ( talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• The nomination is really about "learned" and "professional", i.e. for academic disciplines and for occupations respectively. If any change is needed here, I would rather suggest to split the category between "learned" and "professional" instead of changing the category name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Marcocapelle: I don't agree with a split between Category:Academic journals published by learned societies and Category:Academic journals published by professional associations, but if you want it, then that's one more reason for the umbrella Category:Academic journals published by learned societies and professional associations, as originally proposed (in a slight different wording). Also please note that we already have Category:Academic journals by subject area. fgnievinski ( talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm not even sure yet if in Wikipedia there are enough journals published by professional societies requiring any action here at all. If there are enough and a category for them is meaningful, they can simply be parented to Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers as a sibling of the nominated category, there's no need to create an additional parent in between. However on the other hand if there aren't enough journals for a separate professional societies category, a rename isn't needed either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment if it possible to easily distinguish between between learned societies and professional associations I would favour having one category for each (Im sure there will be journals to fill them both) as Marcocapelle suggests. If division is blurry or would commonly require way to much research then I would favour the original proposal by Fgnievinski. I do not think this is a category size matter. — Lappspira ( talk) 11:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment As far as I see, learned societies are just a subset of professional societies. I doubt there is any clear distinction between the two. In my experience as an academic, all relevant societies are called "learned society" (or "scientific society" or something like that), except for organizations like trade unions, which may be called "professional societies" (but rarely if ever publish academic journals). -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:52, 2 September 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Academic literature to Category:Non-fiction literature by discipline

Nominator's rationale: "academic" here means related to an academic discipline. fgnievinski ( talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep original name. I don't see what it gained by enlarging academic to non-fiction. News magazines are non-fiction, but not academic. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak support, as the natural parent of Category:Non-fiction books by discipline. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep original name per Headbomb. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:02, 6 September 2015 (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'm not going with a "keep" conclusion because the nominator's responses to many of the arguments for "keep" were more compelling than the keep rationales. So a re-nomination either for combining some of the categories (or a future deletion nomination) should be permitted.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Diseases with moribund eradication efforts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Diseases with active eradication efforts
• Propose deleting Category:Eradicable diseases

Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING, non-permanent characteristic of a disease. DexDor ^(talk) 05:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. This is false. Eradicatibility is permanent characteristic of a disease. Ruslik_ Zero 20:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The text at Category:Eradicable diseases says "This is for diseases currently judged to be eradicable" (my emphasis) which indicates it's a non-permanent characteristic. If eradicted diseases were considered to be a subcategory of eradicable diseases (which isn't how the categories are currently arranged) and the "judged to be eradicable" is never wrong then that category would have permanent membership. The other two categories (e.g. "with active") are very clearly non-permanent. DexDor ^(talk)

• Keep the two former categories, eradication efforts are defining and objective, but preferably merge the two categories together to Category:Diseases with eradication efforts because the first category is too small to remain on its own. Support delete of the third category, this is too subjective. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

That would be an improvement on the current situation, but IMO it's still not a good characteristic to categorize diseases by - mainly because it's subjective - e.g. if someone tries to develop a treatment (or a method for killing the diseases vector) and that person says something like "If we develop a treatment it may be possible to eradicate this disease" then does that count as an eradication effort? Health authorities are always trying to reduce the prevelance of diseases and I'm not sure how you'd draw the line between that and attempting to eradicate diseases. A list (e.g. at Eradication of infectious diseases) gives more opportunity than a category to explain why a particular disease has been placed in the list. DexDor ^(talk) 05:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The eradication efforts should be notable and sourced as such, obviously. As long as that is the case, I do not see a big problem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep all three, just because something is a non-permanent characteristic does not mean it is not worthy of a category. Living people is a category, and being alive isn't permanent. The whole "non-permanent characteristic" is completely irrelevant as an argument. DN-boards1 ( talk) 17:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Category:Living_people (which currently contains over 700000 pages) is one of those categories that's more for administrative reasons (for bots concerned with BLP etc) than for navigation. We don't usually have "normal" categories for current status - and many such categories have been deleted in the past ( example). DexDor ^(talk) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Propose Deleting Category:Companies initially financed with venture capital

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING. Most technology startup companies receive VC money prior to their IPO when they usually cash out so they no longer influence the company. According to the sourced main article, Venture capital#United States, over 3,000 venture capital deals a year are made the US alone. Not all of those are for different companies, but it should give a sense of how many articles could be added to this category and why it's not defining. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: Notified Sodla as the apparent category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Companies. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Potentially giant scope with little indication of significance. Dimadick ( talk) 09:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree with Dimadick and RevelationDirect Alaynestone ( talk) 02:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Question why should a category be deleted for having scope to include many articles? Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reply @ Jonpatterns: My concern is less with the size per se than I think the size indicates it's not defining. Darn near every tech company in the US fits this category and those companies are already better grouped in Category:Technology companies of the United States. Also, we're categorizing something by what they used to be which tends to be less defining. (Of course, if you find my reasoning flawed, you won't be the first to disagree with me!) RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a too trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:37, 6 September 2015 (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.