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. – Fayenatic London 07:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Securities companies of Vietnam to Category:Investment companies of Vietnam‎

Nominator's rationale: There are no other categories like Securities companies of Foo Rathfelder (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom, and also to avoid confusion with security company. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2019 (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: do not merge. MER-C 10:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Italian Athletics Outdoor Championships to Category:Italian Athletics Championships

Nominator's rationale: To match title of contents and main article Italian Athletics Championships SFB 19:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep To distinguish it from the other Category:Italian Athletics Indoor Championships --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasper2006: On that basis, do you advocate a reverse merge, and rename of the articles to "Italian Athletics Outdoor Championships"? Note that the two nominated categories have the same scope. Thanks SFB 17:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are two necessary sub-categories of Italian Championships, as they contain each of the two different editions of the outdoor (summer) and indoor (winter) championships. So I think everything is fine as it is now. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the indoor and outdoor categories should stay but Category:Italian Athletics Championships should be nominated for upmerge, as it only contains one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2019 (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. MER-C 09:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Puerto Rican emigrants to the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth. I don't think they are usually referred to as emigrants in the United States. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What would you call them? Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• American people, perhaps? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marcocapelle. Legally, it's similar to if people moving within states. It's comparable to saying Floridian emigrants to the United States. I'm not sure the category is necessary. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Puerto Rica is a bit more separate than Florida. We do have Category:Manx emigrants to the United Kingdom. That seems similar - though it only has one article. Rathfelder (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Both are rather odd categories, but while Category:Manx emigrants to the United Kingdom may be technically correct, Category:Puerto Rican emigrants to the United States is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These are not emigrants. It is an ethnic category in the disguise of a citizenship category. Place Clichy (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Should we rename it? There is a category American people of Puerto Rican descent‎ - should that be deleted too? Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you mean Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent. The validity of this category is not discussed here. It has a hatnote saying: This category page lists notable people of Puerto Rican national origin or descent who were born or reside in the United States. Individuals who were born or reside in Puerto Rico are listed at Category:Puerto Rican people. By this account, the two articles currently in Puerto Rican emigrants to the United States should be in... Category:Puerto Rican people, or a subcategory, as they do not qualify as emigrants. If you also consider them to be American, then they can also be in an American people category. For instance, Marcel Ruiz (American actor), whose article starts by Marcel Ruiz Pérez (born July 9, 2003) is a Puerto Rican actor..., is already in Category:American male television actors, Category:American male film actors and Category:Male actors from San Juan, Puerto Rico (itself a subcategory of Puerto Rican actors). The article does not need more categories. Place Clichy (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe both subjects in this category should be removed per WP:CATDEFINING. I cannot find a single source describing Ruiz or Basilio as "emigrants" implying that is not a defining characteristic. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Puerto Ricans are American citizens by birth. This is in accordance with the Jones–Shafroth Act, which was enacted in 1917. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:08, 26 July 2019 (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 10:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Politics user templates to Category:Political user templates

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate category with only 11 templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Support merging. Also, the categories in each of the affected templates should also be renamed accordingly. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the categories in each of the affected templates should also be renamed accordingly. LightandDark2000, if I understood you correctly, this is done by User:Cydebot after the discussion is closed. The process is described in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Support merging. -- Timeshifter (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2019 (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 10:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Australian city of residence user templates to Category:Australian city user templates — also WP:C2E applies
• Propose renaming Category:German city of residence user templates to Category:German city user templates
• Propose renaming Category:Algerian city of residence user templates to Category:Algerian city user templates‎
• Propose renaming Category:Russian cities user templates to Category:Russian city user templates — per WP:CAT#General conventions Names of topic categories should be singular

Nominator's rationale: ⁠(for all categories)

• For consistency with Category:US city user templates (see discussion) and Category:Russian cities user templates (see discussion).
• In preparation of removing the dichotomy Place of origin user templates—Place of residence user templates.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seems reasonable to me, I do support the proposed renaming. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the template names are not making a difference between "city of origin" and "city of residence" either. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2019 (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 10:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Transport in Jelgava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, as far as I know we do not categorize railway lines by their beginning and end point. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Jelgava. No need to lose the link of these lines to the city's categories. As to whether we categorise by end-points, it seems to be a bit haphazard - some are, some aren't. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I left a notice at WikiProject Trains. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2019 (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 09:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gwardia Koszalin to Category:Sport in Koszalin

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains an eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - contains parent article, an image, and a sub-category with scope for expansion. No point in deleting. GiantSnowman 08:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination is not about deletion but about merging. No imformation is lost with this. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge too small a category to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2019 (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 per WP:OCEPON. (The interlinking between the songs and album categories and the lead article means that adding a Works parent category would not provide any additional navigation, which is the purpose of categories. WP:NOTDUPE does not have any bearing, as the existence of a list or navbox for this musician is not being used as a rationale for deletion.) – Fayenatic London 21:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tiny Tim (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON. Subcats already interlinked. --woodensuperman 12:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep or rename Our convention is to use "Works by ..." Deletion would do nothing to achieve this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a rename. We should not be using eponymous categories in this way though. --woodensuperman 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Andy should take such a proposal to WT:WPMU. This contains minimal content, is sufficiently interlinked, and would require an update to the WP:ALBUMS and WP:SONGS projects. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for any new proposal, the appropriate guideline is already stable at WP:OCEPON. Please refer to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which states: "Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". --woodensuperman 08:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems fine, as do most if not all on this page. This is the problem with deletions, the deletionists can put up half a dozen or more noms at once and hope that editors get tired of saving the obvious saves. Why don't people just nominate the totally obvious and leave populated categories like this alone? They know the difference, and know which categories are okay and which will be an agree-upon deletion. Andy Dingley, thank you for your perseverance against the unwarranted deletion tidal waves such as today. You and others who take on the watchmen's task are to be commended. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OCEPON, note that we do not need a parent category when there is just a main article with an albums and songs subcategory because in that case all content is linked by the ((Songs by artist)) and ((Albums by artist)) templates already. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This category, like many similar eponymous categories of musicians, is uncategorised. I thought it was a fundamental principle that every category had to be categorised. Is there an exception for musicians? Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is in Category:American male singers now. But this is neither a reason to keep nor a reason to delete. Adding parent categories is just a matter of proper maintenance. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. I just wanted a bit of guidance. I am getting grief when I categorise these uncategorised categories. Rathfelder (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And despite the "grief", he continues. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Works by. While WP:OCEPON recommends against eponymous categories in this case this can be solved by a simple rename. The argument that they're already interlinked is not a reason for deletion per WP:NOTDUPE. --Trialpears (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2019 (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. MER-C 10:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Debby Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep or rename Our convention is to use "Works by ..." Deletion would do nothing to achieve this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per numerous precedent and WP:OCEPON. A category for album cover files is not appropriate under a "Works by Debby Ryan" category anyway. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OCEPON. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it and that's why I referred to it and why this category should be deleted according to it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Then read it again.

"Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category but should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie.". So if you really wish to, convert this to be Category:Works by Debby Ryan. But in the meantime, there is no reason to delete this. WP:OCEPON supports having it, as the " unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. " test is met, it merely disagrees on the naming. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Debby Ryan songs‎ exists and that's all that's needed. Nothing else needs to be categorized in a useless eponymous parent category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So where does Debby Ryan go? She's not a song. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1993 births,Category:Living people,Category:21st-century American actresses,Category:21st-century American singers,Category:21st-century Christians,Category:Actors from Huntsville, Alabama,Category:Actresses from Alabama,Category:Actresses from Texas,Category:American child actresses,Category:American child singers,Category:American Christians,Category:American female singer-songwriters,Category:American film actresses,Category:American pop singers,Category:American singer-songwriters,Category:American stage actresses,Category:American television actresses,Category:Military brats,Category:Musicians from Huntsville, Alabama,Category:Singers from Alabama,Category:Singers from Texas,Category:Walt Disney Records artists,Category:21st-century American women singers should do. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andy. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. Category:Debby Ryan songs‎ is indeed all that is needed. Oculi (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, so where does Debby Ryan go? She's not a song. Nor are Category:Debby Ryan album covers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in an eponymous category that's for sure. See WP:OCEPON: "Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". There are not sufficient articles or subcats to meet this guideline. --woodensuperman 08:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, so where does Debby Ryan go? You're seeking to delete the parent cat, yet refusing to give a solution as to what should be done with the contents. You can't just keep hiding behind a dogma here. Why are you suggesting that the sub-categories should be disconnected altogether, because that's what your deletion would leave us with. Policy is only there as an aid to improving the quality of the encyclopedia, not as an excuse to make things worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She should be categorised by all the people categories she is already in. The whole point of WP:OCEPON is that most individuals will not have eponymous categories. Therefore we definitely should not be creating/keeping them just for somewhere for the eponymous article to go. By your logic every biography would have an eponymous category, which exactly the opposite of what WP:OCEPON espouses. I have no objection to a "Works by..." category, as we should definitely not be favouring an eponymous category over this. --woodensuperman 12:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCEPON, note that Debby Ryan is already in the header of the page of Category:Debby Ryan songs by virtue of the ((Songs by artist)) template. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Articles about people should be in categories for people (e.g. subcats of Category:Musicians) and articles about songs should be categories for songs (e.g. Category:Debby Ryan songs); there is no need for these articles to be linked by the category structure (except that both are under Category:Music etc) as they are linked by normal links (including on that category page). Eponymous categories for people often cause mis-categorization so should be avoided where unnecessary. Note: I think the ambiguous language ("directly related") in OCEPON may be a cause of disagreement above. DexDor ^(talk) 16:43, 17 July 2019 (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 10:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Members of Catholic religious orders and societies to Category:Members of Catholic orders and societies
• Propose renaming Category:Members of Catholic religious orders and societies by nationality to Category:Members of Catholic orders and societies by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Simplify, removing "religious", to match parent Category:Catholic orders and societies. Within this compound phrase, it is understood that Catholic orders = Catholic religious orders. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Also, it is not entirely clear whether "and societies" is really needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category was created by PPEMES a few years ago. The motivation for "and societies" was presumably the same as at the requested move here, i.e. to broaden the scope slightly. However, I do not know if there are any such societies which are not also referred to as orders. The parent "Catholic orders and societies" was agreed at CFD last year but only as a merge from "Roman Catholic"; renaming was not discussed. – Fayenatic London 07:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Hesitant. What about name and description of religious order? Are you sure a disambiguation is not motived in order to distinguish from other Catholic orders? PPEMES (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, here we are. Religious_order#Catholic_tradition and the table in Institute of consecrated life give this overall picture:

Institutes of consecrated life

Religious institutes

Religious order (Catholic)

Congregation (Catholic)

Secular institutes

Societies of apostolic life

IIUC, "orders" is a helpful word to use, because it covers more people than the others. I suggest that although "Catholic orders and societies" is imprecise, it is indeed a sensible and convenient way to summarise all of the above. It's also clear enough by itself to distinguish from Holy Orders. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then you also have Catholic orders of chivalry, Catholic fraternal orders, and perhaps more? PPEMES (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is probably not a problem to have members of Catholic fraternal orders in this category as well. Orders of chivalry is a different issue though, while many of them have medieval origins there is no reason to categorize them as Catholic per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The requested move for an article, linked above, has now gone ahead, using "Catholic orders and societies". – Fayenatic London 21:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok let's then rename these categories as nominated per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2019 (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: do not merge. MER-C 08:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scientific societies to Category:Learned societies

Nominator's rationale: Scientific society redirects to learned society, but we have separate trees for Category:Learned societies and Category:Scientific societies. There are also some subcategories that need renaming or merging; I've asked Danny for help (User_talk:DannyS712#Found_new_set_of_categories_that_need_merging) and I expect he will update this nom with the relevant list of subcategories soon. The summary of this request is:

To rename (from scientific to learned):

• Category:Awards by scientific societies‎

To merge (from s to l):

• Category:Scientific societies
• all ~30 categories Category:Scientific societies based in Foo country like Category:Scientific societies based in the United States‎ to Category:Learned societies of the United States‎ . Note the slight difference - first one is 'based in', second one is 'of'. I think it is inconsequential.

All other categories and articles in parent category Category:Scientific societies like Category:Academies of sciences just need to be recategorized following the merger of the parent. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all - a scientific society is a restricted sort of learned society (regardless of wikipedia redirects, which have no authority whatever). Category:Learned societies of the United Kingdom contains historical and literary societies which are not scientific. Category:Scientific societies based in the United Kingdom is a subcat of Category:Scientific organisations based in the United Kingdom; 'learned societies' would not be. Category:Scientific societies is, correctly, a (proper) subcat of Category:Learned societies and should certainly not be merged. The redirect should be changed to something more sensible. Oculi (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: I am open to consideration that instead of scientific merging to learned we may want to do it in the other direction, but long story short, my point is that it is difficult to define how learned and scientific organizations are different. Can you present a reference to back up your claim that there is a difference in meaning that can be defined? Because I looked and I couldn't find much that would suggests those terms are not simple synonyms. Consider: [1] defines a ss and ls, with a note that " scientific society applies to those organizations whose aims are directed principally toward advancement of a discipline" and "learned society, as used in this report, is in part synonymous with scientific society, but also includes organizations in the humanities". Also, [2], which shows that Royal Society is called scientific society by Britannica and Oxford Dictionary, scientific organization by Columbia Enc., but a learned society by us. RS itself refs to itself as a scientifi cacademy. There are indications that learned is a bit older term and sometimes used for interdisciplinary/umbrella societies that concern themselves with pretty much every field, and scientific ones are used for more specialized orgs that focus on one particular field ([3]) but I haven't found much to reinforce this, and I am currently not convinced that those concepts have independent notability. As such I think that such a distinction cannot be accepted as universal, and further, this meaning is already covered by Academy of sciences (Category:Academies of sciences), and frankly, maybe learned society should redirect there instead, with the current content of the ls article being instead renamed to scientific society?
  • Second, please consider the problem at hand, i.e. that the usage of those categories is pretty chaotic and it is clear that in practice for vast majority of Wiki-editors there is no difference between those terms. Perhaps my solution of the proposed merger is not optimal, and we can figure out a better one, but consider the following problems with the current situation:
  • Point 1. There is a bizarre split between Category:Learned societies by subject and Category:Scientific societies by subject. There is no overlap here outside medical societies being in both. Learned tree includes biblical, classical, economical, historical, law, linguistic, literary, medical, oriental, philosophical, political science, social science and text publication societies. Scientific ones has astronomy, biology, chemistry, engineering, geographic, geology, mathematical, medical, meteorological, natural history, neuroscience, physic, psychological, system science and zoological ones. This seems pretty random, unless you want to argue that scientific societies is a term that does not apply to social scientist or humanities. Which seems like an OR distinction, since for example Ralph Samuel Bates (1965). Scientific societies in the United States. M.I.T. Press. happily lists the Americal Sociological Association and many others social science or such.
  • Point 2. Interwiki mess which suggests the concept of a learned society, whatever it is, is niche and does not exist in most other languages, implying it is either a pure synonym or some very niche British(?) term that should not be used for other countries. Consider. Very few countries have both SS and LS trees
    • Countries with no SS interwiki but LS interwiki: fr:Catégorie:Société savante, da:Kategori:Akademier.
    • Countries with no LS interwiki but SS interwikiL es:Categoría:Sociedades científicas, pt:Categoria:Sociedades científicas, de:Kategorie:Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft, sv:Kategori:Naturvetenskapliga sällskap (through both learned and scientific connect back to it, the Swedish page links only to SS)
    • Countries with both trees:
      • Italian: LS links to it:Categoria:Associazioni culturali, SS to it:Categoria:Associazioni scientifiche
      • Polish: LS is interwikied to pl:Towarzystwa naukowe, which directly translates as... scientific societies. Category:Scientific societies on the other hand is connected to pl:Kategoria:Stowarzyszenia naukowo-edukacyjne which translates as Educational and scientific associations (a weird concept).
      • Russian: exact reverse of Polish. LS connects to ru:Категория:Научные и просветительские общества (google translates it as "Scientific and educational societies"); SS to ru:Категория:Научные общества ("Scientific societies")
    • Overall, very few countries have both trees, and it's hard to comment on some translations for languages which use different alphabets / vocabulary, for example Chinese and Turkish may follow the learned/scientific, but I am unsure. Korean one seems to be like Danish, with LS translating to Academy which btw means they are plain wrong and should link to Category:Academies... either way interwiki suggests that it is a mess because there is no precise distinction between those concepts even in English. And in some cases, the other wikis have clearly wrong trees; as in, I am pretty sure whatever a 'learned society' is, assuming it is something distinguishable from a scientific one, it is not educational and scientific or an academy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: They should all be tagged now --DannyS712 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do I understand User:Oculi correctly that their oppose is related to the discussion about the meaning of the word "science" (covering all academic disciplines, versus natural science only)? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Science' in the modern sense contains the disciplines in Category:Scientific disciplines and does not include Arts, music, law, literature, all of which would be included in 'learned' (under Category:Academic disciplines). Modern Language Association is a 'learned society' but not a 'scientific society'. All scientific societies are learned, but not vice versa. One could rename Category:Learned societies to 'Scholarly societies' or 'Academic societies' but a merge either way would be wrong. The majority of articles in Category:Learned societies of the United States at the top level are learned but not scientific and one or 2 (eg American Chemical Society) should be moved to the subcategory Category:Scientific societies based in the United States. Oculi (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah ok but it is still the definition of 'science' that is the underlying issue here. In that case support the nomination because all scientific societies are (also) learned societies but not vice versa. I can fully imagine that the distinction between the two is not maintainable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Oculi: With all due respect (a bit less of it since you ignored my very detailed response to you which took me close to hour to write lass time, sigh, and having to repeat this part): can you provide sources that define learned and scientific societies in such a way as you presented it? Anyway, having looked at "Learned societies of the United States", it seems to me that they are mostly scientific: crimonology, dietics, african studies, arachnology, economic... all sciences. I do see your point about art institutions being grouped to scientific ones, but it is debatable, humanities can be considered sciences and they include art, and there are certainly scientists studying arts. As I said above, we could consider, perhaps, a reverse merge - merging everything into the learned three, and renaming scientific society article into a learning society one. I don't have a super strong preference here - outside the preference to avoid confusing and poorly defined splits in terms and category trees.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is a repeat of the cfd nom in 2011 which was a brief and unanimous keep, with which I fully agree - in the UK most students do a degree in Arts or Science and get a BA or a BSc (plus a few others). Both are 'learned'. Category:Scientific societies is a subcat of Category:Scientific organizations whereas Category:Learned societies is not. This nom would entail a major effort in detailed manual upmerging, with no gain whatever. I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Science. Oculi (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: These cats are a mess. As Oculi observes, Category:Learned societies is not a subcat of Category:Scientific organizations. However, Category:Social sciences organizations is, even though that subcat contains several cats concerning learned societies that according to the American tradition don't belong to the sciences (e.g., Category:Sociological organizations, which contains for example British Association for American Studies, which is also in Category:Learned societies of the United Kingdom). And, of course, if we remain strict, then Category:Social sciences organizationsshould not be in a scientific organizations category... Either we merge the whole tree as proposed by Piotrus, or somebody should go through these cats with a fine comb and remove this kind of inconsistencies. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all per Oculi - if wanted, "Scientific learned societies" might be a possibility, as a basis for a reorganization. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about that. I have to admit that to me, say, the American Association for the Advancement of Science is a "learned society" (which, I note, covers social sciences and humanities such as linguistics and anthropology). Let me be more general: any society grouping academics, regardless of field of study (be it sciences, social sciences, or humanities) is to me a "learned society". I fail to see the value of separating "scientific societies" from the rest. --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a mess, but I'm not convinced its fixable. The terms are used differently in different places and at different times. There is no agreement about what constitutes science at the edges - economics, politics, sociology etc. I dont see merging the two as helping. Rathfelder (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem is that many editors don't understand what is being meant either so that categorization into the different trees is kind of haphazard. Either somebody should put in the effort to clean this up, or we could merge everything and then the ambiguity is gone. --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all I agree with Oculi. I know what is a "scientific society", but do not understand very well what is a "learned society" (it:Categoria:Associazioni culturali maybe is not perfectly the same, because I know what it means and it looks different to me from "Learned society" definition given on en.wikipedia). Maybe other users could have the same problem, so to keep it clear, I think the best thing is to leave these two concepts separated, otherwise more confusion could arise. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2019 (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 10:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sports competitions in Leende to Category:Sports competitions in Heeze-Leende
• Propose renaming Category:Events in Leende to Category:Events in Heeze-Leende

Nominator's rationale: While all events are/were in Leende, such categories in the Dutch rural space are best organized by the municipality. Hence the parent of this cat is Category:Sport in Heeze-Leende. Please move also Category:Events in Leende to Category:Events in Heeze-Leende for the same reasons. gidonb (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as creator of the cat, this seems suitable. I'm no expert on Dutch areas, this seems to be more inclusive rather than just the village. Weird that the village hosts so many major international pool competitions though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: parent category was not tagged until now. Please wait another 7 days. – Fayenatic London 08:05, 25 July 2019 (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. MER-C 16:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: If ((Radio Data System)) is deleted (see the accompanying nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 14), this category will only have one article. All other articles use the template and are included in this category. Raymie (t • c) 02:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or at the very least rename - see RDS. Grutness...wha? 04:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: no merger would be needed for the main article, as it is already in the parent categories. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2019 (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.