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, also to Category:Mockumentaries. MER-C 08:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mockumentary web series to Category:Satirical web series‎

Nominator's rationale: only 2 articles Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, why shouldn't they also be merged to Category:Mockumentaries? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: I believe you have been asked similar questions before. Please start considering all parent categories when making merge nominations. – Fayenatic London 09:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Humble apologies. And yes, merge into Category:Mockumentaries. Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 17 October 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 08:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Women by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As per a previous discussion on English Wikipedia's inclusion of women based on religious affiliation, this category seems inappropriate. Unless users can agree to the creation of categories for women based on religious affiliation, this one should be removed. --Invokingvajras (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, we already have Category:Female religious leaders and Category:Feminists by religion, both as part of Category:Women and religion, I can't see how an intermediate category can be useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Comparing the contents of this category with Category:People by religion, the nomination seems reasonable. Just FYI, the contents of this category are: Category:Women Christian religious leaders and Category:Female Christian socialists. But the title suggests that it is a metacategory that classifies all Wikipedia articles about women. It is not. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and above. The useful intersections already exist, with better names. Place Clichy (talk) 07:28, 15 October 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 08:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category despite it existing since 2009. It is unlikely that others will be added in the future, so the category is unnecessary. Mike Peel (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:C2F. 128.194.3.213 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: WP:C2F says it all. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Category now has 5 members, and Ada (plant) lists about 14 more potential members that are likely to be added in the future, despite Mike Peel's assessment. --Nessie (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the fact that now 4 redirects to the article have been added does not undo the fact that it concerns only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 15 October 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 08:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Cam girls to Category:Sex workers

Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - as per WP:SMALLCAT, there is potential for the category to be expanded. --John B123 (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would support renaming to Category:Webcam models. --John B123 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Has one item only. We can always re-create if five more articles are ever created, but I doubt it. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as per John B123. It is expandable. Störm (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Webcam models. Störm (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was easily expanded to 10 articles by checking the biographies within Special:WhatLinksHere/Webcam_model. Should it be renamed Category:Webcam models per the lead article? If so, Justin Berry should be added. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Webcam models to be gender-inclusive, and keep. bd2412 T 11:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Happy to withdraw the suggestion that it should be deleted, and the renaming seems like an improvement. So long as its not too ambiguous. Thomas the Tank Engine might be drawn into compromising positions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 16 October 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: no consensus. The main debate here is whether Category:Indian government districts in British Columbia is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. This question wasn't settled making both sides about equally backed by policy as well as a close !vote count leading to no consensus. If this is to be renominated I would recommend considering Category:Indigenous municipalities in Canada from the start and settle factual disputes about relationships between municipalities, Indian government districts and First Nation governments using sources. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indian government districts in British Columbia to Category:Municipalities in British Columbia

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one entry, and can never be expanded: per List of municipalities in British Columbia#Indian_government_districts, this is the only "Indian government district" in British Columbia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the exact same reasons in the withdrawn CfD for another single municipal category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28#Category:Resort municipalities in Prince Edward Island. Marcocapelle should recall that discussion and Ivanvector was the other involved editor. Deleting these would compromise the "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" applied across Canada for different municipal statuses. WP:SMALLCAT states: "Avoid categories ... unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" (emphasis added). Hwy43 (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hwy43, in this case there is no such overall categorisation scheme. There is no parent Category:First Nations municipalities, or anything similar. This is just a single-item category which is not part of any series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The parent is Category:Municipalities in British Columbia. Its siblings (all the other municipal statuses in BC) reside there. Its grandparent is Category:Municipalities in Canada. The category enables navigation from this municipal status type to every other municipal status type across the 13 provinces and territories in Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: it appears you are focused on only one possible type of a categorization scheme. There is more than one way to establish an overall categorization scheme for municipalities. The overall scheme is municipalities in Canada, broken down by province and territory. Nested within are each municipal status type available in each province or territory. Some are common across all or most provinces and territories. Some are unique to one or few provinces and territories. An Indian government district is a type of municipal status in BC. It is unique to BC. While there will never be a Category:Indian government districts in Canada, that doesn’t mean this category cannot and does not fit in the existing overall categorization scheme that does already exist, which I have helped described above. If deleted, this will be the only municipal status type in Canada that does not fit in this existing overall categorization scheme, which I hope you are starting to see and realize. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Hwy43, I am not seeing anything other an editor defending pointless smallcats which don't assist navigation. And per WP:CAT, categories exist to facilitate navigation, not to satisfy one editor's sense of neatness.

If that type of municipality has only one entry, the category doesn't help navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See my latest reply to your 12:40, 29 September 2019 post above. Hwy43 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy43, If this closes as no consensus and BrownHairedGirl wants to re-propose upmerging and deleting this category to Category:Indigenous municipalities of Canada, I'd support that. We don't have to have a provincial category per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. I suspect Marcocapelle would support an upmerge and delete as well.Doug Mehus T·C 08:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: do you mean Category:Indigenous municipalities in Canada (i.e. “in” instead of “of”? Per the update below, this overarching category for all municipalities for Canada’s indigenous peoples has already been created. Hwy43 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy43, yes, I guess our naming convention is in not of. That's the category I meant. I'd probably prefer also renaming that category, and any subordinate category, as Indian local government districts or something similar since they're not technically not municipalities—they are not subordinate to the provinces in any way. But that can be a separate CfD. For now, consider that an alternate proposal to upmerge these First Nation districts in B.C. to the Canadian category. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about being subordinate. It is about how the provinces and territories recognize and characterize them. Hwy43 (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it seems to me that, if the subject category is merged anywhere, that Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia would be a better choice to merge into.......PKT(alk) 02:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• PKT, that would not be the appropriate category as the First Nations governments are not municipalities, whereas the Indian government district is a municipality. Hwy43 (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this category is a subset of Category:Municipalities in British Columbia, which has categories of all other subsets. Wouldn't it be strange if only 1 subset did not have it's category? Mattximus (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing wrong with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: inspired by comments from others, a second categorization scheme has since been implemented. Category:Indigenous municipalities in Canada has been created for local municipal governments established by provinces/territories for indigenous peoples (i.e. First Nations, Inuit, Metis) of Canada. This Category:Indian government districts in British Columbia‎, as well as equivalents for Cree villages in QC, Inuit community governments in NL, Métis settlements in AB, and Tlicho community governments in NWT are child categories. They each enable navigation to and from each other under this scheme. Hwy43 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support to nom's target category as they aren't technically municipalities. That said, I support, broadly, nom's aims. What about not classing by province? Can we not comingle all First Nations local governments districts of Canada maybe, BrownHairedGirl? I haven't looked. Doug Mehus T·C 08:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: an “Indian government district” is technically a municipality in British Columbia. It is an “Indian reserve” that is not technically a municipality, whether in British Columbia or elsewhere throughout Canada. Per the update above, Category:Indigenous municipalities in Canada has already been created, carefully worded to be inclusive of First Nations, Métis and Inuit, as an overarching category for all municipalities established for Canada’s indigenous peoples to date. Hwy43 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hwy43 That's not quite right. Some First Nations reserves are in fact self-governing local government districts, including outside of B.C. The Category:Indigenous municipalities in Canada is incorrectly named and should be something like Category:Indigenous local government districts in Canada. We should be renaming that category, I think, and I'm sure Marcocapelle and BrownHairedGirl would support that outside of this CfD. It may mean closing this CfD as no consensus in the interim, but these categories need some clean up. I suspect they were added by well-intentioned editors with little to no discussion.Doug Mehus T·C 15:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object renaming Category:Indigenous municipalities in Canada. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus the point has been missed and there is inaccuracy in the above. First, the applicable provinces and territories recognize what you call self-governing local government districts – the Indian government district, the Inuit community governments, the Metis settlements, and Tlicho community governments – as municipalities. Unsure about Cree villages in Quebec due to the French language barrier in sources that could verify. As co-author of Canada's numerous List of municipalities in feature lists, this well-intentioned editor actually based the name on the extensive research to achieve these featured lists over the years. Using the "local government districts" handle, which may be a suitable generalized term to describe what these are, would have to be verifiable. Second, some "First Nations" are in fact self-governing. Reserves assigned to First Nations are geographic features. If a First Nation that has two or more reserves is self-governing, it is the one First Nation that is self-governing, not its individual two or more reserves. First Nations are the governments (autonomous or not), while reserves are the lands. Hwy43 (talk) 20:15, 23 November 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: speedy(ish) rename. – Fayenatic London 11:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:CCI templates to Category:Wikipedia contributor copyright investigations templates

Nominator's rationale: To expand the ambiguous acronym CCI, and for consistency with the parent, Category:Wikipedia copyright maintenance templates. (Courtesy notifying the category's creator, User:Moonriddengirl) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2B (expansion of acronym) and WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 12 October 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 with manual replacement. MER-C 08:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• propose delete of Template:Android-stub

Template:Mobile-stub is more appropriate and the Android template has been used on I think very few articles. PencilmationFan999 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the template adds articles to Category:Operating system stubs, which is entirely appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose withdrawn per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the template is used on a few articles about Android-based devices and apps which do not belong in Category:Operating system stubs. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: e.g. Android Cupcake and Android Donut definitely belong in Category:Operating system stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but that doesn't mean it's helpful to retain this stub. Manually replace with ((operating-system-stub)), ((mobile-stub)), ((mobile-game-stub)) etc. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw my oppose if someone will sort this out manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I’d be willing. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 16 October 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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 17:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Social care in England to Category:Social care in England and Wales

Nominator's rationale: The legislation applies to both England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate systems. No articles that I can see relate solely to Wales. Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose straight rename (which would leave an E&W category under England categories). Suggest instead creating the E&W category, placing this category under it and recategorizing some articles up to the E&W level. DexDor ^(talk) 19:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be better than what we have now, but it would make two rather small categories.Rathfelder (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I estimate that the E&W category would have about direct 15 articles/subcats (including some such as this which would be moved down from the UK category) and the England category would have about 35. That's not too small. DexDor ^(talk) 05:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created the target category (E&W) and moved some articles into it - not as many as I expected, but there are also several articles here that may also belong in it. The proposed rename would now be a merge, but any merge should also be to an England parent. DexDor ^(talk) 12:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK happy to withdraw this. Rathfelder (talk) 16:35, 12 October 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 08:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Professional lawn mowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. The two articles in the category are Martin Bryant (a spree killer whose article has a brief mention of him having a lawn mowing business when he was 19) and Joel Rifkin (a serial killer whose article has a brief mention of him being a landscaper. Moab12 (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. I was about to propose dispersing to Category:American gardeners and Category:Australian gardeners or something like that, but no let's not do that, since gardening is an entirely irrelevant detail in these biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as biographical categorization based on a non-defining characteristic. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This simply doesn't cut it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:04, 13 October 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 08:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Internet companies of Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Internet service providers of Norway‎ Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, same comment as in yesterday's discussion, but merge to Category:Information technology companies of Norway. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Already in Category:Information technology companies of Norway.Rathfelder (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right, so there is no need to merge after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Are you striking your merge !vote above then? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the reminder. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:32, 12 October 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, also to Category:Carsharing. MER-C 08:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Carpooling services to Category:Transportation network companies

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (at least) dual merge, also to Category:Car sharing. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean Category:Carsharing. Yes that's fine.Rathfelder (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 16 October 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.