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/merge to Category:Basic income activists Can some of the editors in the discussion carry out the purge please?Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Basic income proponents to Category:Basic income advocates (or vice versa)

Nominator's rationale: Possible category merge due to meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Merging (overlap and possibly duplicate). There currently exists the categories Category:Basic income advocates and Category:Basic income proponents. One definition of a proponent is 'One who argues in support of something; an advocate.' These categories seem to significantly overlap and there are some of the same people listed in both categories. The definition of advocate and proponent are very similar and many people listed in one category could be listed in the other or both. It is very difficult to see why many of the people should be listed in one category and not the other. They seem like they could all, or at least mostly, be listed in either both categories or one category. Therefore I think something should be changed. Perhaps delete one of these categories and merge those from the deleted category into the remaining one? Helper201 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, rename to Category:Basic income activists and purge per WP:OPINIONCAT. For example, for Dieter Althaus this is not a defining characteristic and he should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, rename to Category:Basic income activists and purge per Marcocapelle. Oculi (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, rename to Category:Basic income activists and purge per Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the comments, Marcocapelle, Oculi and BrownHairedGirl. I think this seems like a good idea and that we have a consensus. Would any of you mind doing this please, as I have no experience of merging and don't want to mess anything up? If not I can look into it and attempt it myself. Helper201 (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Helper201: please wait until this discussion is formally closed by an uninvolved editor. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Marcocapelle: OK, cheers. Helper201 (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note: "Proponents" is the older page, and should therefore be moved in order to retain the page history. – Fayenatic London 11:43, 27 March 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, but only to Category:Illinois General Assembly. MER-C 18:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Caucuses of the Illinois General Assembly to Category:Illinois General Assembly - and/or Category:Politics of Illinois

Nominator's rationale: only 2 articles in this unclassified category Rathfelder (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Illinois General Assembly per nom. No need to merge to Category:Politics of Illinois since that is a higher category in the same tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 3 April 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Recipients of "Ninth five-year shock worker" badge to Category:Recipients of Soviet Union civil awards and decorations

Nominator's rationale: only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. We don't even have an article about five-year shock worker. DexDor ^(talk)
• Delete. For reference, it seems to be "Drummer of the Ninth Five-year Plan", see ru: Ударник пятилетки. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:OCAWARD. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 29 March 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: has already been speedily deleted per WP:G4 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People with COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Similar category, Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019, was deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4
  SSSB (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per SSSB. Same thing under a different hat. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete* - too much work to add this category to everyone. Starzoner (talk) 23:59, 23 March 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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hypothetical environmental disasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Both pages are already in appropriate categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, small cat and feels arbitrary in its content Ribbet32 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:2020 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament participants, Category:2020 National Invitation Tournament participants, Category:2020 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament participants, and Category:2020 Women's National Invitation Tournament participants

• Propose deletion – the NCAA canceled all 2020 winter and spring championships. None of the teams categorized in the above actually played in any of those tournaments since those tournaments never occurred. As such, it was impossible to have "participated." SportsGuy789 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:07, 23 March 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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hypothetical events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history' are inappropriate". While this policy allows "Individual scheduled or expected future events ... only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", hypothetical events like 2021 Summer Olympics (the only item in this WP:SMALLCAT) are not "scheduled or expected". The one subcategory, Category:Hypothetical impact events is a few years old and already has appropriate scientific parent categories. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and speedy delete the 2021 Olympics article. If, or more likely, when, the IOC comes to its senses and postpones the Olympics to next year, the 2020 page can simply be moved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are other, acceptable articles that belong here, such as:
  • Some members of Category:Doomsday scenarios, such as AI takeover and Near-Earth supernova
  • Dissolution of the United States
  • Future of Earth
  • Category:Possible future wars
  • Timeline of the far future
  • Ultimate fate of the universe
    • Big Crunch
    • Big Rip
    • Future of an expanding universe
    • Heat death of the universe

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AI takeover, Dissolution of the United States, Heat death of the universe may all be hypothetical events, but they are not similar topics (they are about technology, politics/society and cosmology respectively). It is unlikely that any reader/editor would find the grouping useful. DexDor ^(talk) 19:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as unnecessary. Note: All the articles I checked were in other suitable categories (e.g. Category:Existential risk). DexDor ^(talk) 19:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete mostly agree with DexDor. Most of the examples already belong in Category:Futurology which already groups articles of interest to a certain "futurology" cluster of readers; Dissolution of the United States and 2021 Summer Olympics aren't in this cluster. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest narrowing the scope to Category:Hypothetical future events and remove the articles Kaigas and Proton decay as well as Category:Hypothetical impact events from the category, in order to improve the coherence of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in fact Category:Doomsday scenarios already covers what I said in my stricken comment. Dissolution of the United States is the only article that is about the future but does not really fit there, this might be moved to Category:Futurology instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of the United States doesn't belong in Futurology, which generally involves future technological developments. I'll see what I can do to fix the current unhelpful definition on the Future studies page. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not sure; I added an article as one that seems ripe for these speculations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps my stricken comment was not so bad after all. A re-scoped Category:Hypothetical scenarios would now contain two subcategories and two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As User:DexDor said, I still see too many dissimilar topics. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even after purging the articles Kaigas and Proton decay as well as Category:Hypothetical impact events from the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per LaundryPizza03; not everything is a doomsday scenario, such as proton decay, so that category doesn't fit. And futurology only expects things in the future, a proton decay event can have happened anytime in the universe already, so that doesn't fit. We have encyclopedic articles on hypothetical events, thus the category is capable of storing them. If the hypothetical event is not notable, then they should be deleted first, before bringing up the category for deletion. Kaigas is a hypothetical past event, and not a doomsday scenario (that would be the greater topic "Snowball Earth"). -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 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.