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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Science fiction by women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a useful category-if you put in everything which belongs here, th category would be too big to b useful. 93.172.20.223 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2020 (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 checking whether members belong in any of the mentioned categories while emptying. MER-C 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting / merging Category:People from Vistula Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: the category "statute" says:

Vistula Land is the unofficial name for the Congress Poland in the years 1867-1917. This page lists the notable figures who were born or worked or died in the Vistula Land.

Category:People from Congress Poland.

Therefore the subcategory is meaningless, because it is based on an informal Russian term, insulting for Polish people. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, we already have Category:People from Congress Poland and Category:19th-century Polish people. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:People from Congress Poland. WP appears to have taken the view that Russian Poland was Congress Poland from 1815 to 1917. This is at most a case of a change of name: the polity remained much the same, though under harsh Russian government as a governorate of Russia, rather than an archduchy in personal union with the Tsar. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Our WP article downplays the fact that Congress Poland was actually abolished in 1867, I doubt if this merge is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2020 (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. MER-C 19:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Industries in Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
  • Category:Industries in Laos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Does not appear to be part of any existing by-country categorisation scheme (except for another existing category for India). Unclear scope; not sure what the difference is supposed to be with Category:Industry in Thailand and Category:Economy of Thailand/Laos. Paul_012 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Industry in Thailand and Category:Industry in Laos resp. The only contents of the former are actually people rather than industries. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Oculi. However the target is quite confusing: it is both about industries in general and the manufacturing industry in particular. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2020 (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. MER-C 19:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of Satan to Category:Cultural depictions of the Devil
• Propose renaming Category:Portrayals of Satan in film to Category:The Devil in film
• Propose renaming Category:Satan in legend to Category:The Devil in legend

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:The Devil in fiction and its contents. – Fayenatic London 08:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: there is currently only one sub-cat in the first category, but if renamed then more can be added e.g. Category:The Devil in classical music, Category:Songs about the Devil. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For a related discussion in 2016, see Category talk:The Devil in fiction (no consensus for speedy rename from "the Devil" to "Devil" or "Satan"). – Fayenatic London 09:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Paid area disconnected railway stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:New York City Subway stations with disconnected paid areas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This seems like a trivial characteristic to categorize stations on, especially as Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It's a minor design characteristic - perhaps worth noting in the articles - but not a fundamental characteristic like opening year or location. See also this 2018 CfD for a similar trivial characteristic. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Some articles never added these characteristics but they have it anyway. Trivia or not, I think it's worth existing, I even want to create Category:Railway stations that has a toilet or Category:Railway stations that has disabled accessiblilty or something similar. Also, as you can see, there are lots of railway stations fall into this category, which proves the necessity of this category.--owennson（Meeting Room、Certificates) 05:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Pi.1415926535 the concept is trivial, and also potentially taking us into WP:NOTTRAVEL territory (as Owennson illustrates). There's a couple different concepts bundled here. One is a union station between operators who don't have a fare agreement. That's a mixture of a physical characteristic and a political one. The former happens all the time in Switzerland, but since they don't do fare gates it doesn't come up. Another would be an example like Beverley Road station, where there is no explanation for the category in the main text. I assume there's no mezzanine or the mezzanine doesn't permit access between the northbound and southbound platforms. That's a layout quirk, but not a fundamental characteristic, and one that immediately becomes even less interesting if MTA ever moves to proof-of-purchase (it won't, ever, but the point stands). Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Mackensen, the Beverley Road article is a fluke. I meant Beverly Road on the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line, which indeed does have an explanation in the main text. Beverley Road on the BMT Brighton Line has a free transfer between directions, not that it matters. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I intended the second category, NYCS stations with disconnected paid area, as a subcategory of Paid area disconnected railway stations. I would not be opposed to deletion, but thought it may be worthwhile to mention, at least in NYC Subway-related articles. I guess it's trivial, though, which is why I am not opposed to deletion. epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is way too trivial. As a railfan, sure, but for an encyclopedia, no.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment above. It is unencyclopedic and there are better ways to illustrate this minor fact, such as in the prose of the article. epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Its an important principle that the information should be in the article, and referenced, not in the categorisation, where it cant be referenced. Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I had to research to find out what the category was about and found the answer in a headnote to the subcat, as "stations where two (or more) platforms have separate paid areas, i.e. no free transfer is available between directions". I doubt this is worth having a category for. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2020 (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.