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 to Writers about theatre. Standardisation of names should be addressed in a new discussion. MER-C 10:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Theatre writers to Category:Writers on theatre or Category:Writers about theatre

Nominator's rationale: As with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_27#Category:Film_writers, this category name creates an ambiguity issue. Per the category's usage note, this was intended for people who write non-fiction work about theatre as a subject -- theatre critics, theatre academics, etc. -- but it regularly has to be cleaned up for misfiled writers of stage plays, who belong somewhere in the existing Category:Dramatists and playwrights tree rather than here. I would also request that the current name not be retained as a redirect to the new one -- because a bot automatically refiles articles that have been erroneously filed in categoryredirects to the target category, any misuse of the old category would simply move playwrights into the new category anyway, and thus completely defeat the purpose of renaming it for clarity — rather, a category disambiguation page, directing people to the distinction between "writers on/about theatre" and "dramatists and playwrights", would be the best solution. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The current title is misleading. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, with a weak preference for "about". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (as creator, though I don't remember it). I don't know which is the better replacement, though, given that it seems to parallel Category:Writers about music and Category:Writers on film. Rigadoun (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately the problem is indeed that we have a mix of both "on" and "about" in the "writers by subject" tree. Personally I'd prefer "about", as it seems more natural to me, but "on" is significantly more common among its siblings — so I had to leave both options on the menu. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 30 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: rename. MER-C 10:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Internet companies to Category:Internet technology companies

Nominator's rationale: To make it clearer that "This category is for companies concerned with the process or delivery of the internet (its infrastructure)." If approved the subcategories can speedily follow. Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, improves from a very unclear category name to a slightly unclear category name. Frankly I think that this category tree should be dissolved/merged/split altogether, but I am not knowledgeable enough in this field to come up with a concrete proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• My problem too. I've cleared out hundreds of companies which use the internet to do their business, but there are some left which are not ISPs, but are concerned with building or maintaining the infrastructure. But there are some categories, and articles, which I dont understand. I havent looked at the Information technology company categories yet! Rathfelder (talk) 15:49, 29 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 10:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Devious Maids characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single page category TTN (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. No need to upmerge, the article is already in the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:26, 29 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: merge. MER-C 10:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Naskapi village municipalities in Quebec to Category:Populated places in Quebec and Category:Naskapi

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one item, and zero possibility of expansion, because as the category's creator acknowledged in the category header text, "There is, in fact, only one Naskapi village municipality in existence". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Note that there are multiple Naskapi smallcats. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 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) 00:04, 29 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, and the parent Category:Populated places in Quebec is not a set of municipalities by type.

This is just a single-item category which is not part of any series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 29 September 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 Quebec. It is unique to Quebec. While there will never be a Category:Naskapi village municipalities 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) 16:49, 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) 17:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, because a category consisting of one item makes little sense. A category should group together "sets of pages on topics that are defined by [certain] characteristics" (according to WP:CATEGORY), and while one item is technically a "set", I don't think a category for it is necessary. PKT(alk) 02:32, 30 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: rename/merge. MER-C 10:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ice hockey arenas in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Ice hockey venues in Newfoundland and Labrador
• Propose merging Category:Active Ice hockey arenas in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Ice hockey venues in Newfoundland and Labrador
• Propose renaming Category:Defunct Ice hockey arenas in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Former ice hockey venues in Newfoundland and Labrador

Nominator's rationale: To resolve several breaches of naming conventions:

1. The convention of Category:Ice hockey venues+subcats is "Ice hockey venues", not "Ice hockey arenas"
2. The convention of Category:Former ice hockey venues+subcats is "Former ice hockey venues", not "Defunct ice hockey arenas"
3. There is no categ tree of Category:Active Ice hockey arenas, or any other permutation thereof (i.e. no Category:Active ice hockey arenas or Category:Active ice hockey venues). The convention is to have a subcat former former venues, but not for those currently in use.

It seemed clearest to nominate these as a group. Sorry that it's still a bit complex. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good reasoning, and the proposed new names fit related categories better........PKT(alk) 02:50, 30 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: rename. MER-C 10:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tax software to Category:Tax software of the United States

Nominator's rationale: All the content is about the US tax system Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Note when implementing the rename: the parent category should accordingly be changed to Category:Taxation in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 28 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: do not rename. MER-C 10:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Picross (video game series) to Category:Picross

Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation is unnecessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Picross redirects to Nonogram. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:40, 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 manually. MER-C 09:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Companies based in Singapore to Category:Companies of Singapore

Nominator's rationale: All the companies of Singapore are based in Singapore Rathfelder (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Are you sure? In a major financial centre like Singapore there are likely to be companies based there, but whose formal incorporation is elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that is a different issue. There isnt anywhere else to be based in Singapore. The city is the country. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, for Singapore we do not need a city category since the city and the country are the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge I think the based in category is a clearer name. There is clearly no reason to have two categories here, especially since no one is going to be sure how to parse the few cases that might fall under one and not the other, and we have no reason to have massive category overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that "based in" is used for cities, while "of" is used for countries. Don't ask me why. In this case "of" is more appropriate as we surely need a country category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Manual merge to sector and year sub-categories of the target as appropriate, redirect to the target, and add the target into the parent Category:Companies by city. – Fayenatic London 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that is all needed indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per John Pack Lambert's proposal. Based excludes international companies who have local buildings in Singapore. Dimadick (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the system of country based categories has to take precedence over the city one. Rathfelder (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Prefer merger as proposed for consistency with the companies by country category, otherwise a reverse merge is preferable to the status quo. --Trialpears (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont see how we can manage without the country category. Its the anchor for a lot of subcategories. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 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, because Category:Films with mute people was deleted. MER-C 09:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Animated films with mute people to Category:Animated films about mute people

Nominator's rationale: Clearer scope and per WP:CATDEF we shouldn't be including films where a mute character is incidental. DonIago (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Support per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Films with mute people. We should see how the main 'Films...' category fares before we split out a subcategory for animated films. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changed vote) per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the fact that a character is a film does not speak is not defining to the film. This is very clear in a case like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. It is even more clear when we realize that some of these films have non-human characters, so calling these "mute people" is not relevant. What next Category:Films with black people. It should include Captain Marvel since the role played by Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury in that film is way bigger than that of the "mute" character in Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Agree with Black Falcon. If Category:Films with mute people is kept then merge, otherwise delete. --Trialpears (talk) 19:43, 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 - Black Falcon's argument has proved persuasive. MER-C 09:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films with mute people to Category:Films about mute people

Nominator's rationale: Clearer scope and per WP:CATDEF we shouldn't be including films where a mute character is incidental. DonIago (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Speak now, or forever hold your peace... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; if kept, oppose rename. This is a category of films that feature (fictional) mute characters, not films about (real) mute people. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is not "about" Dopey; Dumbo does not have any spoken lines but may not be mute and is not a person; The Nut Job and The Nut Job 2 are not "about" Buddy; the characters in A Quiet Place are quiet, not mute; Tom and Jerry are neither people nor mute in Tom and Jerry: The Movie; and so on... Works of fiction are rarely about a single topic. Instead, they contain/feature one or more themes, and "Works about..." categories are inevitably either subjective or arbitrary (e.g. how prominently must mute people feature in a film for the film to be considered "about mute people"?). A better approach would be to assess the viability of a topic category, Category:Muteness in film or Category:Mutism in film. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there is The Little Mermaid, where we can debate if form altered mermaids really count as "people" and either way, I do not think magical loss of speech really creates entry in to such a situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changed vote). Black Falcon is right that the films in this category are mostly not about mute people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the fact that a character is a film does not speak is not defining to the film. This is very clear in a case like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. It is even more clear when we realize that some of these films have non-human characters, so calling these "mute people" is not relevant. What next Category:Films with black people. It should include Captain Marvel since the role played by Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury in that film is way bigger than that of the "mute" character in Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. It isn't useful for navigation nor defining. --Trialpears (talk) 19:40, 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: rename. MER-C 10:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Geography of Bradford to Category:Geography of the City of Bradford

Nominator's rationale: The category is about the wider district not just about the settlement. Also per parent category and other entries under category:City of Bradford Keith D (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• not support If the contents of Category:Geography of Bradford are indeed "about the wider district not just about the settlement", then the appropriate solution is to create and populate a new category named Category:Geography of the City of Bradford Hmains (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The others in Category:Geography of West Yorkshire that have settlements/districts do refer to the district (such as Wakefield) but I agree it might just be better to create a new category but indeed we could rename and then re create this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 30 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: merge. MER-C 10:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete, there is no specific content about the medieval city of Moscow, it is all about the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough relevant content to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge so that its categorisation is applied to the one subcat, which needs the parents of this cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, the subcategory should at least remain in Category:Medieval Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:23, 5 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 10:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:United States Senators from Arkansas to Category:United States senators from Arkansas

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other states at Category:United States senators by state. —GoldRingChip 02:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Query What is the American convention on this? In the UK, a member of the Westminster parliament is the "MP for Finchley", not the "MP of Finchley" since many MPs were not ordinarily resident in the constituency that returned them to parliament. Can one be a senator for Arkansas but not a senator from Arkansas? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 5 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 10:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:United States Senators from Louisiana to Category:United States senators from Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other states at Category:United States senators by state. —GoldRingChip 02:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 28 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.