< November 12 November 14 >

November 13

Category:Controversies in Christian theology

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]
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]
  • 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]
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.

Category:Launch titles

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]
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]
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.

Category:Articles to be moved

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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 21:43, 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.

Category:Lil Pump

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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 21:43, 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.

Category:Nutnut

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]
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]
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.

Category:Cornish people by occupation

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]
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

Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[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]
  • 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 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]
  • 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]
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.

Category:Sea Urchins described in year

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]
Nominator's rationale: Small categories. William Avery (talk) 16:41, 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.

Deaths from progressive supranuclear palsy

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]
Nominator's rationale: delete,

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

Sources:

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.

Tri-State Conference (1960–1981)

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]
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]
  • 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]
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.

Category:Armenian rebellions

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]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer, it only contains one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 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.

Category:Wario (series)

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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 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.

Category:Bing (search engine)

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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 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.

Category:All Ice Records artists

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]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. The label has no notability independent of its founder Terje Isungset. Geschichte (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 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.

Category:Collections of the Musée des Beaux-Arts et d'archéologie de Besançon

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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 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.

Category:Paintings in the Castello Sforzesco

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]
Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is Sforza Castle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 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.

Category:Period post Ninth Crusade

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#Category:Period post Ninth Crusade

Governors of the Sasanian Empire

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]
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.

Scholarship by composer

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]
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]
  • 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]
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.

Mayors of places in California

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]
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]
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.

Category:Video games based on Code Lyoko

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]
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]
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.

Category:Cheka officers 1917-22

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]
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]
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.

Category:Order of Prohibited Legitimacy

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]
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.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Muhammad

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]
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.
  1. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cornish-granted-minority-status-within-the-uk
More