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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Controversies in Christian theology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Violation of WP:NPOV. I added Origenist Crises, which I think could legitimately belong in this category. However, the remainder of this category consists of what some Wikipedia editor consider unorthodox. We shouldn't be making these kinds of judgements. All theologies have advocates and detractors. I recommend either deleting the category, or trimming it to include only articles that are explicitly about controversies and debates, such as Origenist Crises. Daask ( talk) 23:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - One Wikipedia editor's decision to remove Origenist Crises from the category does not make the whole category worthy of deletion. There have been moments in Christian history that have been controversial, and thus a category would be needed. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• (as creator) purge, the category currently contains a number of theological concepts and while there will have been discussion about almost every concept, they do not belong in a controversies category. On the other hand for example Religious images in Christian theology and Origenist Crises are fine. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Yoshiman6464 and Marcocapelle: I am willing to keep the category, but I object to even Religious images in Christian theology being included. I would accept a non-existent article titled " Christian iconoclastic movements". I realize there has been extensive and passionate debate on that issue spanning many centuries. However, is the article about the controversy or the theological topic? Controversies are a part of history, and the emphasis is on popular opinion and shifts in power. Theological topics emphasize various views. Obviously there's plenty of overlap and articles about history need to explain the issues while articles about theology mention the historical development and reception of the ideas, but I want to hold on to the spirit of WP:DEFINING.

  My concern is that virtually all theological topics have been debated and could be (and have been) placed in this category. How much debate needs to take place before an article is worth putting in? Also, there is a strong potential for bias as activists often seek to create controversies or describe an issue as controversial as a normal part of their rhetorical activities. How can we draw a clear line that can prevent our own biases as editors from creeping in? Daask ( talk) 13:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• I agree with your concern. The more questionable articles in this category were originally in parent Category:Christianity-related controversies. While I do not consciously remember, I notice based on page history that I must have diffused the parent based on whether an article was about theology, but apparently without too much attention on whether the articles were about a controversy at all. I'll change my vote to weak support - while I am not totally convinced that the category isn't salvageable, not much should remain after purging. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete What sources define these topics as controversial? For example the article on the Harrowing of Hell mentions that it is "taught by the Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox traditions", and rejected by others. Is this enough to categorize it as controversial? It seems like a POV category to me. Dimadick ( talk) 00:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete virtually everything theological in Christianity is controversial to someone or some sect. Doctrines like Category:Mariology seem to belong as many Christians do not ascribe to her such things as perpetual virginity and the Assumption of Mary; Transubstantiation is also not universally acknowledged; the Seven Sacraments ditto; Papal Authority, the doctrines promoted by Martin Luther and Joseph Smith etc. etc. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above comments: too much room for personal interpretation and POV. Place Clichy ( talk) 23:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Launch titles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The category is underutilized and needless, since they only list random games who just so happen to be launch titles for their respective consoles. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Just N. ( talk) 13:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 13:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Articles to be moved to Category:Transwiki candidates

Nominator's rationale: All subcategories of the category except for Requested moves (which doesn't belong here anyway) solely contain transwiki candidates. JsfasdF252 ( talk) 01:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 23:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom as well. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 13:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Lil Pump ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: too little content: only one article other than the main one and three categories which are interlinked. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The only things in Lil Pump's category are his bio and his discography. The subcategories do not need to be merged into "Category:Lil Pump". Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: No harm done, provides navigation between the singles and albums subcategories that otherwise wouldn't be there. It's apples and oranges, but practically all pages on ethnic groups are empty or near empty, but contain subcategories that otherwise wouldn't have the hub there - I wouldn't ever consider nominating Category:Spanish people for deletion for that reason. An empty main category means nothing if the subcategories are populated. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 22:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Useful for navigation. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 09:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Obvious deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a test category only associated with a sandbox, and has been created by an editor who has not made meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia. — Longchess ( talk) 18:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - nonsense category. Oculi ( talk) 21:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per the nom. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per nom. Just N. ( talk) 13:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete Per WP:G2. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 21:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge, but allow recreation of Cornish dramatists and playwrights, poets, novelists, and writers; limited to categories with a main article establishing ethnicity notability pursuant to WP:OCEGRS.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 01:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Cornish people by occupation to Category:People from Cornwall by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Cornish people is described as "People who are closely associated with Cornwall or identified themselves with Cornwall, but who were not necessarily actually born or raised there." Category:People from Cornwall is described as "This category includes only people who were born or raised in Cornwall. For people closely associated with Cornwall, but not born or raised there, see Category:Cornish people, and article Cornish people." Its clear that most editors do not follow these instructions, which are at variance with all our other county categories, and they dont make much sense for the occupational sub categories. There was discussion of some related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#Category:Cornish artists

• Propose renaming Category:Cornish dramatists and playwrights to Category:Dramatists and playwrights from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish poets to Category:Poets from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish novelists to Category:Novelists from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish writers to Category:Writers from Cornwall

• Propose renaming Category:Cornish non-fiction writers to Category:Non-fiction writers from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish geologists to Category:Geologists from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish scientists to Category:Scientists from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish sailors to Category:Sailors from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish painters to Category:Painters from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish mineralogists to Category:Mineralogists from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish inventors to Category:Inventors from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish farmers to Category:Farmers from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish engineers to Category:Engineers from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish explorers to Category:Explorers from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish clergy to Category:Clergy from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish architects to Category:Architects from Cornwall
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish archaeologists to Category:Archaeologists from Cornwall

Rathfelder ( talk) 17:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support, it would be fair to have an ethnic Cornish category, but I think that Category:Cornish-speaking people already fulfills that purpose. We also, already, have Category:People of Cornish descent. I can't see a need for having even more categories for people who are "closely associated" with Cornwall but not living in Cornwall. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Those who regard themselves as ethnically Cornish are much more numerous than those with the ability to speak Cornish. -- Johnsoniensis ( talk) 18:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This comment that "Cornish-speaking people" covers all or even most of the ethnic Cornish just shows that this motion has no idea about Cornwall whatsoever. -- Gwikor Frank ( talk) 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support - fully agree with nom. Oculi ( talk) 18:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - Renaming "Cornish poets" etc to "Poets from Cornwall" etc is an extremely offensive suggestion to Cornish people. The category for English poets is "English poets", not "poets from England". The category for Scottish novelists is "Scottish novelists", not "novelists from Scotland". I could go on. Cornish people are a legally recognised national minority of legal equivalence to the Welsh, Scottish, etc. I assume zero Cornish people are involved in this nonsense. Appalling. -- Gwikor Frank ( talk) 16:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - The Cornish identity is recognised by the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM). The FCNM aims to protect the rights of individuals belonging to national minorities, promote and protect minority languages and fight against discrimination and racism. Cornish identity is not confined to ethnic origin or the ability to speak the Cornish language, but encompasses a wide range of aspects, including but not limited to: traditions, cultural heritage, values, beliefs, language, dialect, etc. Bearing in mind the legal status of the Cornish people, it would be completely inappropriate and discriminatory to insist that they accept being referred to as "people from Cornwall", a phrase which only covers geographical location and completely ignores their unique national and cultural identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.32.153.157 ( talk) 20:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — 217.32.153.157 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose - I totally agree with Gwikor Frank. Cornish identiy is recognised by the Council of Europe. Such a suggestion is tantamount to colonialism. May I point out that the number of Cornish speakers is rising and irrelevant in this case anyway. In any case it is far easier (and logical in English) to say Cornish people rather than people from Cornwall. Many England cricketers were born abroad but they are denoted as English cricketers on wikipedia. It's possible to be Cornish and have been very influential in Cornish actitvities, be they language, arts etc without having been born there. Absolute nonsense. -- Brwynog ( talk) 17:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Category:People from Cornwall is not restricted to people born there. It is for people for which the link to Cornwall is DEFINING. Place Clichy ( talk) 23:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - Renaming "Cornish poets" etc to "Poets from Cornwall" etc The Cornish are a legally protected national minority. Poets etc from X is an affected nonsense. Not only do we generally qualify occupations by country but also by region eg Yorkshire poet. In both cases, Cornish Poet would be the correct description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:e105:501:500f:fa1f:537a:8ee8 ( talk) 17:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — 2A00:23C4:E105:501:500F:FA1F:537A:8EE8 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose - "Cornish" needs to be preserved as an adjective to mirror the absolute recognition of Cornish identity as distinctive, especially where "from Cornwall" is not altogether inclusive of people with Cornish ethnic identity, or relationship with the Cornish language. Gourmas ( talk) 17:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Gourmas ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose - Cornish must be maintained as an adjective, as it reflects the Cornish identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamblynJ ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — TamblynJ ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose - A Cornish identity is protected in European law. While there may be many non-Cornish people who don't like that, it's still the case and this is not the forum to undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:8485:4b01:4ccf:1193:db42:439f ( talk) 19:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — 2A00:23C6:8485:4B01:4CCF:1193:DB42:439F ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose - On any grounds "Cornish" is a valid description, distinct to Cornish speakers and people from Cornwall. Erasing this would marginalise an already marginalised, but legally protected minority ^[1] -- 92.5.164.67 ( talk) 20:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — 92.5.164.67 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose - The Cornish are a legally protected minority under the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. (Pease note that this is the Council of Europe, as distinct from the European Union, and that even after Brexit, the UK will be a member.) As such it is protected under European law and will remain so. The Cornish are a distinct people with a distinct and unique language, and a history unique within the UK. I also notice that the person proposing this change also refers to Cornwall as a county. It is not a county, but a part of a duchy, under Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall rather than as under the queen. One point of this is that the inheritances of those who die intestate in Cornwall go to Prince Charles rather than the queen. A demotion from a national and ethnic minority to 'people from Cornwall' also does not take into account the aspects of Cornish language or Cornish ancestry, but just refers to them as people from a place, which is also narrow and inaccurate. It regulates a national minority, with a history and a whole multitude of traditions (including language, music, art, work, and incidents of national discrimination) by which they have been defined and affected, and by which their parents have been affected, and so on into the mists of time, to a coincidence of location. This is not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.185.178 ( talk) 21:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — 69.172.185.178 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose - Cornish is the preferred term by a protected minority. -- FSK-MÇ ( talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — FSK-MÇ ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose - I'm an English person. Or person from England if you prefer. But I live in Cornwall and am one of the kwwiki editors. You don't have to live here very long to know that Cornish identity isn't just some county thing. DiworthNorth ( talk) 21:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — DiworthNorth ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Oppose. This proposal shows no understanding of Cornish identity and the cultural distinctiveness of Cornwall. Totally agree with Gwikor Frank who has an excellent understanding of the issues and sensitivities. Oppression of the Cornish is real and should not be bought into by global misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.211.53 ( talk) 22:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)— 89.168.211.53 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Does European law prescribe that to say that people are from Cornwall is belittling? And will the law still apply after January? What should we do with Category:People from Cornwall by occupation? And how are we to distinguish the Cornish identity from that of Yorkshire or Northumberland, for example? Rathfelder ( talk) 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment European law prescribes that Cornish people are given equal treatment as the Welsh, Scottish, etc. So, however we refer to Scottish poets, Welsh sportpeople, etc. is how we should refer to their Cornish equivalents. And those Wikipedia categories are "Scottish poets" etc. not "poets from Scotland". If you propose to rename all the nationality categories, you may get a different response, but there is no reason to single Cornwall out. And this legal status comes from the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. After Brexit, this will still apply as the UK will remain a member of the Council of Europe. -- Gwikor Frank ( talk) 14:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - European law prescribes that Cornish people are given equal treatment as the Welsh, Scottish, etc. So, however we refer to Scottish poets, Welsh sportpeople, etc. is how we should refer to their Cornish equivalents. And those Wikipedia categories are "Scottish poets" etc. not "poets from Scotland". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.208.127 ( talk • contribs) — 86.3.208.127 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support. This is not an issue of recognition of the Cornish identity. The trouble here is that these categories have proved impossible to maintain with a strict reading of this definition, and that they are in fact used by all good faith editors for anybody relative to Cornwall regardless of Cornish identity. In fact, a geographical scope is much more easy to source than an ethnic or regional identity, and will therefore allow for a better quality of these categories in the future. And for editors who compared this to English or Scottish categories, these are in fact also geographical categories gathering anybody from England or Scotland, as opposed to a strict reading of what would be an English or Scottish ethnic identity. We should therefore not do it for Cornish people. Place Clichy ( talk) 02:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Surely you understand that most of these comments are not objecting to the geographical issue, they are objecting to the downgrading in the naming where it is not accompanied by the downgrading of equal nationalities. If you want to make identity purely geographical, I think that's highly reductive, but by far what is most upsetting is the fact this proposal seems to have a problem with the word "Cornish" when they don't with English, Welsh, etc. Bit fishy. -- Gwikor Frank ( talk) 12:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• "Equal" nationalities? Do you have scoops about the devolution of Cornwall? The difference here is that English, Scottish, Welsh, German or Spanish unambiguously refer to everybody coming from a country regardless of their background, whereas "Cornish" comes with the ambiguity that it could refer, depending on context, to either Cornwall the county or the Celtic ethnicity. This ambiguity is really an fundamental issue for a Wikipedia category, which does not offer much flexibility for context or nuance, unlike for instance list articles. Place Clichy ( talk) 23:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Yes. Equal. Under the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), Cornish is a national minority equal to Welsh, Scottish, etc. Equal. Enshrined in law. -- Gwikor Frank ( talk) 14:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Well Wikipedia's guideline about categories and category names are not enshrined in any law, especially not the National Minorities Convention. You do not answer about the ambiguity between geography and ethnicity, although it is the core issue. Place Clichy ( talk) 09:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment "From Cornwall" is not a slur. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have not seen people saying that it is? -- Gwikor Frank ( talk) 14:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• That is the clear implication of arguments about protected status. This discussion is only about the occupational sub-categories. You might like to consider the fact that all the geographical subcategories are already in Category:People from Cornwall, which is a subcategory of Category:Cornish people. If its OK to have "People from Truro" there why is it unacceptable for geologists to be there? Rathfelder ( talk) 17:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think it is exceptionally bad faith to ascribe "clear implication" to people's arguments when you don't know these people. They are fully capable of saying it's a slur if that's what they mean, how dare you put words in people's mouths to then discredit their arguments. -- Gwikor Frank ( talk) 12:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Your argument that using "From Cornwall" is contrary to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities only makes sense if you say that is a slur. And that is the clear implication of "downgrading ". Rathfelder ( talk) 22:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• No, it does not only make sense that way. What I am saying, and I can't believe I have to say this again, is that if the Welsh are called Welsh and the Scottish are called Scottish then BY LAW the Cornish deserve to be treated equally and called Cornish, not from Cornwall. If it's not downgrading, fine, you can do it to everyone then. When we are suggesting it is poets from Wales, poets from Cornwallwill be fine. What I am saying is that we should be treated the same as everyone else and the Council of Europe agrees. -- Gwikor Frank ( talk) 14:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment so "Cornish" means someone of Cornwall regardless of race, ethnicity, etc? right. No different that "Iowan" on this side of the pond meaning people from the state of Iowa, not necessary affiliated with the Iowa people. If that's how it's used in Britain, there may be no need to move it; if it is to connote some connection with the Celtic-speaking inhabitants only, then it needs to be renamed. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Both "Cornish" and "from Cornwall" are pretty ambiguous. They might mean you live there, or you were born there, or your ancestors came from there. But we generally use "Fooish" to denote nationality categories, and "from Foo" for geographical ones. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Support But "Cornish writers" could easily be mistaken for Category:Cornish-language writers where "writers from Cornwall" would not be. For the first 5 nominated categories related to writers, that is decisive since the proposed change will remove ambiguity. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Ethnicity okay, but then WP:OCEGRS applies, we do not categorize by non-notable intersections with ethnicity. At most the writers category may be kept. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support. Cornwall is not a devolved government like Scotland and Wales. Also, do the current categories include the Cornish diaspora as well as those born in Cornwall? According to Cornish people, it should, but that would diverge from our standard categorization process. "From Cornwall" is much clearer and unambiguous. Also, are we going to distinguish between (1) ethnic Cornish and (2) non-ethnic Cornish (Englishpersons, blacks, Desis, Europeans, etc.) who reside in, or were born and grew up in, Cornwall? If not, the the category should be "from Cornwall". If so, then there should be two non-diffusing categories. Also, as Marcocapelle notes just above, WP:OCEGRS applies, so these people (with the possible exceptions of writers, particularly if they write in or use or are associated with the Cornish language) should not be categorized by ethnicity, but rather by residency. Softlavender ( talk) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support. "Cornish" should only be used when the ethnicity of the person is relevant to the occupation. This is essentially what WP:OCEGRS says. The categories for writers might therefore be justified, but the rest are not. However, at this stage I would think it would be easier to rename all of the "Cornish" categories to "from Cornwall", as nominated, and then re-create "Cornish" categories for writers as appropriate and populate them with the correct articles. I don't think it's desirable to categorize everyone "from Cornwall" as being "Cornish".(There seems to be an inordinate number of single-purpose accounts participating in this discussion. I count only two "opposes" from regular non-SPA WP editors.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note to closing admin: Nearly all of the "oppose" !votes seem to have been canvassed. Pinging Good Ol’factory and BrownHairedGirl to see if any further action should be taken about that problem. Softlavender ( talk) 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: The categories for people from England and Ireland are "English writers" and "Irish writers" respectively. It is commonly understood that those refer to nation of origin, rather than language of writing, so "Cornish writers" should brook no confusion in respect of that concern. Similarly, there is no real distinction in those existing categories with respect to ethnicity, so I'm not sure why it would be such a big problem for "Cornish writers". It strikes me that referring to writers from Cornwall as "Cornish writers" is entirely unproblematic, and so I disagree that we should recategorise for what seem to be questionable semantic reasons. CuriousCabbage ( talk) 14:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• If ever Cornwall was a nationality it was a long time before any of these people were born. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• The category structure currently uses a mix of the "Fooers from Foobar" format (e.g. "... from Lancashire") and the "Foobarish fooers" format (e.g. "English ...").  Afaics there's generally no significant difference in meaning as regards wp categorisation (e.g. a  "Lancastrian ..." category would be the same as a "... from Lancashire" category).  Using "from" has the advantage of generally being clearer (e.g. people may wonder if "Lancastrian" refers to the city rather than the county) and more comprehensive (and hence more consistent), but can be a bit long ("British fooers" reads better than "Fooers from the United Kingdom").

• On balance, I think it's best to have a clear rule and to avoid sibling categories using different formats - thus, use the demonym for a nation (including England etc) (as the demonyms for nations are generally known and understood), but use "from" for counties, cities etc (i.e. not "Mancunian ..." etc). Cornwall (despite what one editor says above) is a (ceremonial) county (albeit, for obvious geographic reasons, one with a more distinct culture than many other English counties). The purpose of the categorization structure is to categorize articles not to show that Cornwall is special.  Thus, I weak support (weak because the existing name isn't a problem per se and the category structure would still contain a mix of the 2 formats).
• TLDR version: We need a rule to decide which format to use in a particular case. The best such rule is probably to use the demonym for a nation and "from" for a county/city. Cornwall is a county. DexDor ^(talk) 16:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support ERGS rules apply to this, so these are all misaplications of those guidelines, and should either be renamed or just plain deleted. Wikipedia should reflect reality, not the unrealized desires of irredentists. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Sea Urchins described in 1903 to Category:Animals described in 1903
• Propose merging Category:Sea Urchins described in 1910 to Category:Animals described in 1910
• Propose merging Category:Sea Urchins described in 1927 to Category:Animals described in 1927
• Propose merging Category:Sea Urchins described in 1939 to Category:Animals described in 1939
• Propose merging Category:Sea Urchins described in 1948 to Category:Animals described in 1948
• Propose merging Category:Sea Urchins described in 1950 to Category:Animals described in 1950

Nominator's rationale: Small categories. William Avery ( talk) 16:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• If not merged, rename to "Sea urchins" (no capital U). Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support - not sufficient for a separate tree. There are a couple more to list ( Category:Sea Urchins described in 1912, Category:Sea Urchins described in 1914, both tagged). Oculi ( talk) 18:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths from progressive supranuclear palsy

Nominator's rationale: delete,

There is no such thing as a death from Progressive Supranuclear Palsy

Sources:

• "PSP itself does not directly kill." - Cleveland Clinic
• "PSP is not fatal" - Stanford Health Care
• "PSP isn't fatal" - Johns Hopkins Medicine Kire1975 ( talk) 12:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete judging from the articles in the category it's a non-defining characteristic even if they did die of the palsy. ( t · c) buidhe 05:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Tri-State Conference (1960–1981)
• Propose deleting Category:Tri-State Conference (1960–1981) football‎
• Propose deleting Category:Tri-State Conference (1960–1981) football templates‎

Nominator's rationale: delete, multiple redundant category layers that ultimately only contain a single subcategory, namely Category:Tri-State Conference (1960–1981) football standings templates‎. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep all as these fit into a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (per WP:SMALL) downstream from Category:College sports conferences in the United States, Category:American college football templates by conference, and Category:College football by conference and there is potential for growth. Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• I would expect that defunct conferences would not fall under the SMALLCAT exception rule. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• I don't see why it should matter whether a conference is defunct or not. Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Similar to country trees that usually do not exist of every country that ever existed. The older a topic is, the less content is available, the less meaningful a category is. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

There's plenty of content available for defunct American college conferences of the 20th century. In most or all cases, most or all of of the members of the such defunct conferences are still active. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Precisely, if most or all of the members are still active, content relative to them (such as athletics program history) is already found elsewhere in categories where readers are more likely to find them. Place Clichy ( talk) 23:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

There are valid reasons for an article to exist in multiple categories--it happens (almost) all the time.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 23:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 10:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note that the creation of 1968 Westmar Eagles football team has undermined the nominator's rationale here. Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• We usually do not have categories for one article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Marcocapelle, I've now created 1973 Northwestern Red Raiders football team. Jweiss11 ( talk) 17:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep categories for college sport conferences are widely used. This is true for current active sports conferences (such as Ivy League), defunct large conferences (such as Big 8 Conference), and defunct small conferences (such as South Dakota Intercollegiate Conference). While I link to the main article in my comments, a quick check shows that the category exists as well. Legacy sports articles that will be entered into these such categories include sporting teams, coaches, and athletes--some that are likely to be created in the future and some that likely exist on Wikipedia already (such as Jack Scott (American football), Glenn Jagodzinske, and Don Birmingham). They get filled up. Wikipedia is far from complete.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Jweiss11 and Paul McDonald. Having a one-off exception would be weird. Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Rebellions by ethnic group. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 12:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Armenian rebellions to Category:Rebellions by ethnic group and Category:Social history of Armenia

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer, it only contains one subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 05:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Wario (series) to Category:Wario
• Propose renaming Category:Wario (series) media files to Category:Wario media files

Nominator's rationale: This is an example of a category whose disambiguation is unnecessary. Despite the main article being Wario (series), it also contains the Wario article within it, and is not competing with any other Wario category. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 20:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The category is primarily about the series, not the character as such, so adding the disambiguator to match Wario (series) is appropriate. Wario is about the character. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The suggested retitle would also change the scope, from a category about a specific series of videogames to a character-based category. Dimadick ( talk) 20:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - Wario is a major character in the Wario series, and the cat in question pertains to the real-life Wario series of games. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Bing (search engine) to Category:Microsoft Bing

Nominator's rationale: On October 5, 2020, Bing has rebranded into Microsoft Bing which also called as its full name. Ridwan97 ( talk) 07:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Main article renamed through a formal WP:RM. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Bing is called "Microsoft Bing" now. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 00:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:All Ice Records artists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. The label has no notability independent of its founder Terje Isungset. Geschichte ( talk) 13:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• delete per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 10:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. The original article move was not based in consensus, and since the nominator is a sysop I'm rather surprised to see this here rather than seeing the page move undone so a proper discussion could take place. I find it very unlikely that a discussion to move the page would turn out in favor of the title in English as opposed to its original French, but if someone wanted that to happen they should have begun such a discussion in the first place. A CFD following from a move that did not follow procedure is unwarranted. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Collections of the Musée des Beaux-Arts et d'archéologie de Besançon to Category:Collections of the Museum of Fine Arts and Archeology of Besançon

Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is Museum of Fine Arts and Archeology of Besançon. It was formerly Musée des Beaux-Arts et d'archéologie de Besançon; it was moved without discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Move the article back. Johnbod ( talk) 11:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• If this closes as keep or no consensus it may make sense to rename the article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename - follow the article (which should perhaps be 'Archaeology', used within the article). Oculi ( talk) 11:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename or Move Article Back Article names should be settled on the talk page in an WP:RM and categories should match main articles. No preference on either name. RevelationDirect ( talk) 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Move the article back. Just N. ( talk) 13:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per the other naysayers. Move the article back to its original French name. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Paintings in the Castello Sforzesco to Category:Paintings in the Sforza Castle

Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is Sforza Castle. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support all of the above to align with article names. (Though I am happy to reconsider if fellow editors e.g. User:Johnbod would claim that any of the article moves were questionable.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I think - Moved without discussion in 2011, & I think should go back. Johnbod ( talk) 11:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• General comment - whatever the outcome of these proposals, some uniformity of "Paintings in/of Foo" would be a good thing. Grutness... wha? 04:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: "Castello Sforzesco" is more often used in English-language sources, and the article should be moved. Ham II ( talk) 13:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• @ Johnbod and Ham II: is one of you planning to start an RM for the respective articles (in case category move is opposed)? That would probably be helpful. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename - follow the article. Oculi ( talk) 11:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename The article has been stable since 2011, even if the original move was bold. If the article is moved later, by all means speedy rename the article to match. RevelationDirect ( talk) 18:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename To match the name of the main article. Dimadick ( talk) 20:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename Nine years of stability at the current title is plenty. If the main article is renamed via an RM, then the category can off course follow speedily. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge for now; could be re-created when there are more articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge Category:Sasanian governors of Caucasian Albania to Category:Caucasian Albania and Category:Governors of the Sasanian Empire
• Merge Category:Sasanian governors of Kirman to Category:History of Kerman Province and Category:Governors of the Sasanian Empire
• Merge Category:Sasanian governors of Marv to Category:History of Turkmenistan, Category:Rulers of Khorasan and Category:Governors of the Sasanian Empire
• Merge Category:Sasanian governors of Mazun to Category:Eastern Arabia and Category:Governors of the Sasanian Empire
• Merge Category:Sasanian governors of Padishkhwargar to Category:Rulers of Tabaristan and Category:Governors of the Sasanian Empire
• Merge Category:Sasanian governors of Pars to Category:Governors of Fars and Category:Governors of the Sasanian Empire
• Merge Category:Sasanian governors of Ray to Category:Governors of Ray and Category:Governors of the Sasanian Empire

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, the above categories only contain one or two governors. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Oppose: In time, there will be more articles for these kind of categories. Constantly nominating these types of categories is far from helpful. Homogenization is not an improvement. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 11:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'll be happy if ultimately there will be more than a handful of governors articles for each of the above provinces, but that seems very far away, also because the provinces articles hardly mention any additional Sasanian governors. See for example Kirman (Sasanian province) which mentions only one additional governor. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge for now per nom; however, the statement by HistoryofIran should also be taken into account. Firestar464 ( talk) 10:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Scholarship by composer to Category:Scholars by composer
• Propose renaming Category:Beethoven scholarship to Category:Beethoven scholars
• Propose renaming Category:Mozart scholarship‎ to Category:Mozart scholars
• Propose renaming Category:Schubert scholarship‎ to Category:Schubert scholars

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, the above categories contain scholars. Note that Category:Bach scholars and Category:Haydn scholars are already named this way. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the category headers say they are for scholars and organisations - which is why International Mozarteum Foundation is categorised here. That seems to be the only article of its type, though. Grutness... wha? 03:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose some more foundation entries to be expected. -- Just N. ( talk) 13:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• The amount of foundation entries is very small, and they can be moved to the parent category so the connection with the composer will not get lost. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• rename to fit the content. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 09:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename Better describes the actual contents that readers would find today. If/when a bunch of new articles about "scholarship" emerge, we can re-evaluate. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge Category:Mayors of Aliso Viejo, California to Category:People from Aliso Viejo, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Baldwin Park, California to Category:People from Baldwin Park, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Daly City, California to Category:People from Daly City, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Davis, California to Category:People from Davis, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Fremont, California to Category:People from Fremont, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Hawthorne, California to Category:People from Hawthorne, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Hayward, California to Category:People from Hayward, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Oxnard, California to Category:People from Oxnard, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Rancho Cucamonga, California to Category:People from Rancho Cucamonga, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of San Leandro, California to Category:People from San Leandro, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of San Luis Obispo, California to Category:People from San Luis Obispo, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of San Marcos, California to Category:People from San Marcos, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of San Mateo, California to Category:People from San Mateo, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of Santa Ana, California to Category:People from Santa Ana, California and Category:Mayors of places in California
• Merge Category:Mayors of West Covina, California to Category:People from West Covina, California and Category:Mayors of places in California

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 09:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge, including to all parents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Video games based on Code Lyoko to Category:Code Lyoko

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - Small with no potential for expansion. Can also be merged into Category:Video games based on animated television series and Category:Video games featuring parallel universes. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 08:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support But they should also be merged into the other parent categories Code Lyoko and Category:Video games featuring parallel universes. Dimadick ( talk) 21:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support merge into all parents. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 09:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Cheka officers 1917-22 to Category:Cheka officers

Nominator's rationale: The Cheka existed from 1917 to 1922, so including the date in this category name is unneeded. Compare with Category:Cheka chairmen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, redundant disambiguator. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename There is no other Cheka article, and after 1922 it becomes the State Political Directorate. Dimadick ( talk) 21:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Order of Prohibited Legitimacy

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Masters of the Order of Prohibited Legitimacy
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights of the Order of Prohibited Legitimacy

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD, WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT

There was a disagreement about the line of succession for the Spanish throne starting in the 1830s and this award is given to people that would have been king ("pretenders") or their supporters (" Carlists"). The recipients are generally already well categorized under Category:Carlist pretenders to the Spanish throne or Category:Carlists. Finally, there was a schism in 2003 for the non-ruling family which has lead to competing entities issuing this same award causing disagreements about who is a legitimate recipient. The recipients (or purported recipients) are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete at least per WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 09:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Muhammad

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)

When foreign leaders or royalty visit Morocco, or vice versa, the Order of Muhammad is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Albert II of Belgium, Emperor Akihito and Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei are not remotely defined by this award. (There is also one Moroccan in the category, Princess Lalla Amina of Morocco who is already well categorized under Category:Moroccan princesses.) There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Background In the past, we've deleted similar categories for visiting officials here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, just another case of WP:OCAWARD. Just N. ( talk) 13:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 09:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.