< October 5	October 7 >

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 delete. No need to use French on the English Wikipedia. Category is already empty. JIP | Talk 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sport à Chrudim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:Sport in Chrudim. Robby (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G6. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No reason to use French here. Place Clichy (talk) 13:59, 8 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 as nominated. MER-C 10:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Online education to Category:E-learning

Nominator's rationale: Neither category is well defined. Neither actually has an eponymous article. No obvious distinction between them. Rathfelder (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge, no reason to keep these two categories apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge personally prefer online education, but both are fine. --Trialpears (talk) 14:08, 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: merge (equivalent to rename). MER-C 13:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Defunct Internet companies to Category:Defunct online companies

Nominator's rationale: These are largely companies that used the internet for their business. They didnt make or run it. Rathfelder (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. JIP | Talk 17:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (rather than rename as stated in nomination), but without prejudice to creating Category:Defunct Internet technology companies as and when companies are identified as such. – Fayenatic London 14:01, 9 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. I'll list this on the manual page for possible inclusion in a list. MER-C 13:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Artificial uterus in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining category, minor fictional element. I don't think this gadget plays a major role in any of the works listed. There is no parent category for Category:Artificial uterus. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree that it is a minor element. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consider making a simple list in a section of the article Artificial uterus. – Fayenatic London 08:49, 11 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 13:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Antetokounmpo brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this is a small category (3 articles) which is unlikely to grow. TM 12:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 17:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 13:59, 8 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. MER-C 09:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:English-language websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. A large majority of the millions of websites are English language. This category has 85. Even those serving other language speakers mostly have an English version. Similar considerations apply to those invoked about male people following various occupations. Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator) I don't like us treating English different from other languages (e.g. as we did at Category:English-language albums). The rationale is different but the effect the same that there is a big hole in the scheme of works by language. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:11, 6 Octoberv 2019 (UTC)
Keep I find creator argument reasonable. Who knows, in x years, maybe English won't be the main language anymore? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the language websites scheme is utterly misleading. When English is not the main language of the internet we can change it. But if we ditched Category:English-language albums I dont see how we can keep this. Rathfelder (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT: when properly populated this category will close to coincide with all content that is in the tree of Category:Websites due to the overrepresentation of British, American, Canadian and Australian content on en.wp. On top of that, many websites in other countries are bilingual, i.e. also in English. On top of that, it will require WP:OR to establish whether a website is in English language since it is a too trivial characteristic to be mentioned by sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You don't need a third-party source to make a claim that a website is in English—the site itself is the source. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless, the site itself will normally also not state that it is an English-language site. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to threat English differently than other languages. Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added a note on the category page similar to Category:English-language songs stating that American/British/etc websites should not be included. – Fayenatic London 14:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While that certainly helps, it also raises a new question: how do we draw the line between American and British websites on the one hand and global websites on the other hand? The question was triggered by the fact that English Wikipedia belongs to this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think writing notes on categories is an effective strategy. Most editors never see them. Rathfelder (talk) 23:39, 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 09:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:All vital articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty and obsolete category related to those listed below but which has been superceded by Category:Wikipedia Version 1.0 vital articles. Does not appear to be populated by any template and the only use is a link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Assessment stats, itself an obsolete assessment table which was last updated by Erwin85Bot in 2010. The actual category for all vital articles, which is populated by ((Vital article)), is at Category:All Wikipedia vital articles. PC78 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 7 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 13:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bad Seed Ltd. albums to Category:Bad Seed Ltd albums

Nominator's rationale: No period/full stop present per albums/singles packaging; publishing and copyright notices; as well as both Australian and British English conventions. --Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 18:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to match parent article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:06, 6 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. MER-C 13:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of minor fictional in-universe traits. No need to upmerge because all articles are covered within the same category structure. TTN (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fictional robotic insects, not delete yet again. Despite criticism at previous similar nominations, TTN continues to propose merges which would remove the contents of a category from one parent or another. In this case, all articles in the nominated category are within Category:Decepticons so no merge is required to that one, but the other parent would lose half its contents by simple deletion. – Fayenatic London 12:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fictional robotic insects. That is what an Insecticon is, anyway. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 6 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. MER-C 13:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Combaticons to Category:Combiners (Transformers)
Propose merging Category:Power Core Combiners to Category:Combiners (Transformers)

Nominator's rationale: Small categories. Contents are already within the other parent categories. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user:TTN previously nominated the second at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_16#Category:Power_Core_Combiners. At that time it had a lead article (since redirected at AFD), 13 other articles and 1 redirect. It now only contains one page, Dinobots. Such categories were worthwhile when there was content to navigate, but now even the categories' creator pointedly does not want to know. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As almost all of the articles within the category Category:Combiners (Transformers) are going to get deleted anyway, it's probably best to delete the entire category. JIP | Talk 21:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Combaticons has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 6 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 13:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction to Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected pages

Nominator's rationale: To align with Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection and the Wikipedia X-protected pages format of other members of Category:Wikipedia protected pages. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:MusikAnimal) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Makes sense to me. I believe the category was created when we were using AbuseFilter to enforce the editing restriction, before "extended confirmed" was actually added to enwiki. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:28, 7 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.

October 6

Category:Fox Channel

Category:Sport à Chrudim

Category:Distance education in France

Category:Distance education in Brazil

Category:Distance education in Bangladesh

Category:Online education

Category:Triple Changers

Category:Defunct Internet companies

Category:Artificial uterus in fiction

Category:Antetokounmpo brothers

Category:English-language websites

Category:Films based on real people

Category:All vital articles

Category:Bad Seed Ltd. albums

Category:Insecticons

Category:Internet companies of Malaysia

Category:Internet companies of Israel

Combiners (Transformers)

Category:Educational video websites

Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction