< August 27 August 29 >

August 28

Hindu missionaries

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]
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.

Category:Prarthana Samaj religious leaders

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]
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.

Category:Ukrainian opposition groups

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]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Star Wars Anthology films

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]
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]
"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]
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.

Proposed railway stations by year of opening

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]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Abaúj-Torna County

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]
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]
Counties of the Kingdom of Hungary and associated "People from" categories
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Academic journals published by learned societies

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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 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.

Category:Academic literature

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]
Nominator's rationale: "academic" here means related to an academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 23:20, 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.

Category:Diseases with moribund eradication efforts

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 (edit | 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]
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)
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 28 August 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.

Category:Companies initially financed with venture capital

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]
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.
More