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: triple merge to Category:Jesuit development centres, Category:Organisations based in Chile, Category:Catholic Church in Chile. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Social development centres in Chile to Category:Jesuit development centres in Chile

Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about Jesuit organisations Rathfelder (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I had hoped that more development centres in Chile would come forth, but then they are more likely interested in Wikipedia in Spanish. There's no need for the new category of Jesuit development centres in Chile, they can just be in the Category:Jesuit development centres. Jzsj (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy with that.Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK but they need a category linking the articles to Chile (Organisations in Chile, Catholic Church in Chile?) Hugo999 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Social development centers to Category:Jesuit development centres‎

Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. All the articles are also in the Jesuit development centres‎ category. No article to explain how either category is defined, but it seems a bit clearer to call them Jesuit development centres‎ Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I instituted the category because the denomination "charities" implies handouts in the United States, and I hoped that others would redirect their organizations to this more accurate description. But it's not worth arguing, and these can simply be listed in other categories (like Jesuit development centres) without the added denomination of "social development". Jzsj (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Echinostomida to Category:Plagiorchiida

Nominator's rationale: Echinostomida is now synonymised to Plagiorchiida, and the category contains only the one re-direction page. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed, 17:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• WikiProject Animals has notified[1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural question. I know nothing about the topic, but I see that Echinostomida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a substantive article for 10 years until the nominator @HNdlROdU redirected it today. (It's better not use the passive voice when describing one own's actions).
  I see no sign of discussion about this. Have I missed something? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, WoRMS agrees that Echinostomida is a synonym of Plagiorchiida. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Computer-related organizations to Category:Information technology organisations

Nominator's rationale: Enormous and ill-defined overlap Rathfelder (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As the editor who created the former, I agree that the latter has a better name. — Sebastian 11:28, 17 February 2018 (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: Upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Charities established in 1946 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Charities established in 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: two pages Charities established in ....

On their own they are not very helpful. Do we want a whole category tree like this? Rathfelder (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge rather than delete. Six members in the 1946 cat would be enough to keep. Perhaps Category:Charities established in 1940s might be a target. Note that the redirect item perhaps needs to be replaced by its target (the result of a rename of the charity). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Organizations established in 1946 / Category:Organizations established in 2005 and offer a friendly WP:TROUT to the nominator for suggesting that they be removed from the establishments hierarchy. I assume that the contents are all otherwise categorised within Category:Charitable organizations, so we don't need a double merge. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 19 February 2018 (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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Cup of Russia to Category:Rostelecom Cup
• Propose renaming Category:Cup of Russia templates to Category:Rostelecom Cup templates
• Propose renaming Category:Cup of Russia navigational boxes to Category:Rostelecom Cup navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with common name of the competition since being renamed the Rostelecom Cup in 2009. Rostelecom Cup is used as the name for the competition by both the ISU (see [2]) and third party news organizations (i.e [3] [4] [5]). RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:31, 16 February 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Leninsky Komsomol class of cargo ships to Category:Leninsky Komsomol-class cargo ships

Nominator's rationale: As per usual category conventions for ship categories, one example among thousands being Category:Iowa-class battleships. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match sister cats and parent article --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 27#Category:Manufacturing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Manufacturing to Category:Production and manufacturing

Nominator's rationale: Production and manufacturing are closely related so it makes sense to have a common Category:Production and manufacturing. It is not clear how subcategory Category:Manufacturing differentiates itself from Category:Production and manufacturing. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One can produce goods and services and one can manufacture goods, but one doesn't manufacture services. For instance, I produce software and put it into production as a service to others, but calling this manufacturing would be stilted. At least from an economics POV, Category:Manufacturing should be a subcat of Category:Production and Category:Production and manufacturing as synonyms really only makes sense in a goods/industrial context. --Mark viking (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In common language, services are neither manufactured nor produced, they are offered or provided. The content of both categories seem to be equally skewed towards a goods/industrial context. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are common counterexamples to that assertion. Software goes into production and developers speak of development and production environments. Movies are produced, not manufactured. A Broadway show goes into production and is not manufactured. This terminology seems common, see for instance, Production (economics). Manufacturing creates goods, production creates utility. --Mark viking (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- As a historical author writing about the iron industry, I use the two words as antonyms, but frequently have trouble with those who regard them as synonyms. In the iron industry, iron was produced in furnaces and forges (using artificial power), it was then manufactured into nails, locks, hinges, knives, scythes and a host of other goods in a manual process (manufacture). However, I always have to explain they are antonyms, when doing so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Production is one function of manufacturing. They are not the same thing at all. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, we now have 3 different oppose arguments: manufacturing is a subset of production, production and manufacturing are subsequent processes, and production is a subset of manufacturing. That pretty much confirms that it is difficult to distinguish the two concepts. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename WP:C2D. I had missed that it was already listed at WP:CFDS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Weather beacon to Category:Weather beacons

Nominator's rationale: set categories use the plural form, per WP:Category names#General_conventions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This looks like an uncontroversial move, as there are multiple exemplars of beacons in the cat. --Mark viking (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 06:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. It is a set category. Oculi (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - having a weather beacon (for a period) is not a defining characteristic of a corporation, building etc. The eponymous article (which may need to be upmerged) contains a list. DexDor ^(talk) 07:08, 17 February 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:UAE Arabian Gulf Cup seasons to Category:UAE League Cup seasons

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. In January this category was tagged for speedy renaming by @Bijanii after a slow move-war between Bijanii and @UA3.

I have no idea which title is better, but WP:CFDS is inapplicable because the title is clearly controversial, so I list it here without recommendation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – we have UAE Arabian Gulf Cup which redirects to UAE League Cup; this redirect is supported by the move review of Jan 2018 which resulted in UAE Arabian Gulf League being redirected to UAE Pro-League. So there is precedence for dropping 'Arabian Gulf'. Oculi (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy suppport per C2D, to match parent article name. GiantSnowman 11:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman: WP:C2D is inapplicable because the title is clearly controversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support When the related article is having a WP:RM, they are having a large argument. But WP:CFDS is improper. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match parent article --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 21 February 2018 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Valentine's Day food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining inclusion criteria, for a category that just contains a few red sweets. Ibadibam (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not just a random collection of red or pink food; current included articles do have some real world association with the holiday. Has potential for expansion. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 12:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I was a bit hesitant on this one but, per Andros, the articles in here seem to have a concrete connection and one can imagine additional pages like boxed chocolates being added. Chetsford (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, in article Valentine's Day there is no section about food and the articles in this category don't mention any sources related to Valentine's Day either, which makes it rather questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Valentine's Day is mentioned in all three current articles. Read the articles for yourself. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but I was referring to sources, not to the article texts. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I read the sources in the three articles, and found them unconvincing. They are not like a box of chocolates. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the current category as the inclusion criteria and the current contents are inappropriate (per NONDEF). No objection to creating a category in the future with tighter inclusion criteria IFF there are sufficient articles that do belong in it. DexDor ^(talk)

---

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Pseudoconvex functions
• Propose deleting Category:Pseudoconvex minimization
• Propose deleting Category:Pseudolinear minimization

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the three categories jointly. No need to upmerge, the article is already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Mathematics has been notified[6].
• Delete and upmerge the one article Linear-fractional programming to Category:Generalized convexity. The smallcat guide is pretty convincing here, and at least in the near future, I cannot see these cats being expanded much. --Mark viking (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2018 (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:Songs from Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Songs from Carousel (musical) to Category:Songs from musicals

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories: I'm pretty sure this one is doomed to never break beyond being a WP:SMALLCAT. Only three entries at present. DonIago (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete - I'm actually quite surprised there's no article for a couple of the other songs in the musical (notably June Is Bustin' Out All Over, currently a redirect). If merged, articles will also need to be added to the appropriate Rodgers and Hammerstein parents. I note that fully a quarter of the categories in the "by musical" tree have three or fewer articles. Are you regarding this as a test case? Grutness...wha? 01:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I've created a category Category:Songs from Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals which would make a more appropriate merge target. Grutness...wha? 06:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The purpose of a category is to collate and connect articles which wouldn't be otherwise collated, Obvious example are year births, or musicals, architects, albums by artist or label, but this category is (or at least should be) contained in the content of the relevant article. If you wanted a list of all the songs in Carousel, you'd look at Carousel and the existing articles with be blue-linked. Superfluous to requirements. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2018 (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.