Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 8



Category:Boonie Bears
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4%23Category:Boonie Bears

Category:Red Curtain Trilogy

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting red curtain trilogy


 * Nominator's rationale: I question the need for a category for this. Calling it the "Red Curtain Trilogy" seems to have been more of a stylistic and perhaps after-the-fact decision, as the films aren't (to my knowledge) explicitly linked. I'm also not sure this passes WP:CATDEF. A navbox and/or appropriate prose may be more effective options. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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:Islamic personalities mentioned in the Hebrew Bible

 * 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 19:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting islamic personalities mentioned in the hebrew bible


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a plain duplicate of Category:Muslim saints from the Old Testament that has been nominated for renaming on September 5, except for the fact that New Testament people have been wrongly added here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete  per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, I removed New Testament people from this category, as their addition to the category was plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or just delete -- an obvious duplicate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete none are mentioned as such; and having things of one nature mentioned in some other source is a bad precedent. Category:Non-Roman people mentioned in Ab Urbe Condita and such would be similar. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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:Immigration and crime

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting immigration and crime


 * Nominator's rationale: The very title of this category seems controversial to me. Its only purpose would seem to be to imply a link between immigration and crime. Yes, there is an article on that topic, but what was wrong with the previous categorization of that article, i.e. listed in both the "Crime" and "Immigration" categories? Deb (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * keep: nothing was "wrong", except that we had no category for easy browsing of articles about this topic. Please notice that this new category is categorized in  "Crime" and "Immigration", so I don't get your point. Apokrif (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Apokrif (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this CfD.
 * keep As there are three articles specifically dealing with the concept. Whether its defining for the other articles is another topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently it includes articles where one of the perpetrators happened to be a migrant, which seems like arbitrary inclusion criterion. Either Delete or rename to Immigration and crime by country.VR talk 21:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep notable concept; the fact that people are adding articles where the perp was an immigrant, one can also add articles where the victims were the immigrants. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It's difficult not to draw parallels to Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 4, Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 8, Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 18, and Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 24, all of which resulted in deletion. This is yet another variation on the same theme. The arguments that have been made in these previous discussions include that this violates WP:TRIVIALCAT/WP:ARBITRARYCAT/WP:NONDEFINING (see e.g. in 2016: this category, without year or country specification, could become a long list of crimes with little in common with each other,  in 2016: Claims related to criminal behaviour require strong, explicit references. The criteria for inclusion are unclear and difficult to define.,  in 2018: Delete as a trivial intersection,  in 2018: We don't do demographic profiling of crimes unless the group attacking, or attacked, is clearly a defining feature of the crime,  in 2019: (a) there was a crime; (b) the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It doesn't follow that the 2 facts are related,  in 2019: usually not a defining category of the crime itself, which leaves this category open to POV., and  in 2019: This is not defining.), that it represents a non-standard categorization of crimes (see e.g.  in 2016: Crimes can be categorized by type of crime, country and year - there's no need to start categorizing crimes by biographical characteristics of the perpetrator(s) (bank robberies committed by women?). and  in 2016: Categorization of crimes by perpetrator is non-standard.), and that it is a magnet for WP:POVPUSHING (see e.g.  in 2016: The category lends itself to de facto unsupported and/or incorrect POV claims.,  in 2018: This category seems to me to be based on WP:OR and SYNTH - and exists as a magnet for PoV pushing. and  in 2019: Wikipedia doesn't need a category that exists as a dogwhistle for xenophobes.); these arguments also apply here. Do we really need to relitigate this at regular intervals? The idea that one can also add articles where the victims were the immigrants has been discussed previously (see the CfD nominations I linked above), but I'll briefly say two things about it. Firstly, it is hopelessly naïve to expect that to be the way the category will be used (or perceived). Secondly, this suggestion demonstrates the scope problem here: what is this category about, and what is its raison d'être? TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I included articles on specific crimes according to what these articles said about the link, or alleged link, between these crimes and immigration, not just because an immigrant was involved in the crime.
 * "what is this category about": the answer to this question should be found in Immigration and crime.
 * Apokrif (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2017 Stockholm truck attack because of what the article says about the link or alleged link between that attack and immigration (besides the perpetrator being a rejected asylum seeker)? I'm not seeing it. Based solely on the text of the article, I'd say that this is a WP:NONDEFINING characteristic of the crime. You may disagree, and that's perfectly okay, but that brings up a different problem: subjective inclusion criteria bordering on WP:OCASSOC (if the category were instead called Category:Crimes associated with immigration it would be a clear-cut violation of WP:OCASSOC, and using this category for individual crimes makes it functionally equivalent to a category with that title). You say that the answer to what this category is about should be found in Immigration and crime, but I don't see that that's the case. Immigration and crime refers to perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration does nothing to clarify inclusion criteria or even the scope of the category, because it is hopelessly vague with regards to individual crimes – in fact, I think it even adds to the confusion. I don't doubt that your intentions are good, but surely you must see how this category lends itself to WP:POVPUSHING because of confusion about the unclear inclusion criteria (notwithstanding that it's an inappropriate category for other reasons as outlined above and in previous discussions)? It is virtually guaranteed that articles where the link is very tenuous indeed will be constantly added to this category, either because editors don't understand that the category is not meant for that kind of content or because they think it should be. A category that necessitates unending cleanup because it is misused (in good faith or bad) is not a helpful category, and one that also attracts WP:XENOPHOBES is actively harmful to Wikipedia as a project. TompaDompa (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles about the issue in general might possibly work, but articles about individual crimes leads us quickly into undefinable territory. Should the massacres in Poland by German invaders be included?  Some people who migrated as children commit crimes thirty years later. People in the UK have been attacked because someone thought they were an immigrant when actually they were born here.  On the whole I think Delete.Rathfelder (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)signed on behalf of Rathfelder
 * Concur with Rathfelder. We might keep the category for just the 4 topic articles, but as the category serves as a magnet for individual crimes as well, it is probably better to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * do reliable sources claim that these individual crimes are linked to immigration? Apokrif (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The category is added to 2019 El Paso shooting. That event was related to anti-immigration and crime. Putting it in the category of "immigration and crime" gives the wrong idea.VR talk 05:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti-immigration is related to immigration. Apokrif (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is it? Does Illegal immigration to the United States and crime discuss crime by anti illegal immigration activists? That's not what I see. The category should follow the same topic as the article.VR talk 21:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Does Illegal immigration to the United States and crime discuss crime by anti illegal immigration activists": how is this question relevant to the current discussion? Anyway, you can add content to this article (perhaps you'll find some info in Category:American anti–illegal immigration activists; Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime would be a better place to discuss it). Apokrif (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With every crime, newspapers will publish any kind of information they can find about victims and criminals, but that does not mean that we have to create an intersection category for everything. We also do not have e.g. Category:Social class and crime for criminals from lower social classes or Category:Ethnicity and crime for criminals from certain ethnic groups. A crime does not get any worse by the fact that it has been committed by someone from a certain minority group, nor does the crime get any better if it has been committed by a 40-year-old white heterosexual man with an income of $80,000. The crime is just the crime. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Newspapers pretty much always report the ages of the people involved (victims, perpetrators, in some cases witnesses), yet we don't have Category:22-year-olds and crime, Category:38-year-olds and crime, and so on. Nor do we want those categories, obviously. TompaDompa (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "A crime does not get any worse by the fact that": wikipedians' POV is irrelevant here, only reliable sources matter. The point is that many prominent politicians, police services and activists are interested in crimes who involve or allegedly involve immigrants, and many sources talk about it.
 * "newspapers will publish any kind of information": Mentioning some information is not the same as saying that this information played a role in some debate or policy. The use of this category (or any similar category) should be restricted to the later case. See for instance 2015–16_New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany.
 * Same reasoning as e.g. the categories of Gab (social network) (we don't categorize social networks in far right-related categories only because they have some far-right content).
 * do we categorize crimes in gender-related categories if reliable sources say that gender could have played a significant role in the crime, or that the crime caused protests by organizations interested in gender?
 * Apokrif (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There may well be politicians and newspapers for whom it is convenient when a crime has been committed by immigrants. But Wikipedia should remain neutral and not follow the views of a specific side of the political spectrum. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We say what reliable sources say. Btw, the name of the category is not "crimes committed by immigrants" (although we could create such a category if we had enough content). The current category is less about specific crimes than about their political consequences. Apokrif (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "debate or policy"? I thought this was about crime. Again, it's very unclear what this category is even about and what its raison d'être is. What did you intend the inclusion criteria to be when you created this category? What you are proposing sounds more like Category:Crimes to which the reaction has touched upon immigration. This would only serve to function as a backdoor to include virtually any crime committed by an immigrant (that otherwise meets notability requirements). Surely you realize this? the name of the category is not "crimes committed by immigrants" (although we could create such a category if we had enough content). What is your rationale for arguing that Category:Crimes committed by immigrants is a valid category when Category:Crimes committed by asylum seekers and Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants were both deleted as the result of CfD discussions? That's bordering on WP:G4., I must ask you: Do you understand why the previous CfD discussions of the related categories (1 2 3 4) resulted in deletion? You say wikipedians' POV is irrelevant here, only reliable sources matter. The point is that many prominent politicians, police services and activists are interested in crimes who involve or allegedly involve immigrants, and many sources talk about it. just as said When an asylum-seeker actually does commit a crime, it gets international headlines because of the status (asylum seeker) of the perpetrator. See: Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen; 2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing. It is because the proclivity to crime on the part of asylum seekers is so loudly alleged/denied/suspected/investigated/discussed that it is appropriate to have a category. back in 2016,  said The crimes are notable fact, as they get a lot of media coverage and mold considerably public opinion about the migrant crisis in 2016, and  said While we might not like the POV, that is not policy. What is relevant is whether the category is discusssed by sources. It is quite clear that crimes by illegal immigrants are discussed by sources and are part of a much wider immigration debate. back in 2019. You say Anti-immigration is related to immigration., just as  said Note that the category contains both attacks on migrants who arrived during the crisis and Attacks by such migrants. back in 2018. Do you understand why those discussions resulted in deletion in spite of those arguments? You assert that The current category is less about specific crimes than about their political consequences. as though that's somehow self-evident (or even true – I'm not sure what makes you so confident that that's the case when it's not clear from the WP:CATNAME or the main page Immigration and crime, besides of course being the creator of the category); by doing so, you're functionally arguing that this should be Category:Crimes associated with immigration in all but name. I'll quote WP:OCASSOC: The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC; but applying some threshold of association may fail WP:OC. When Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis has been deleted twice as a result of CfD discussions, what's your rationale for arguing that we should have this category, which is even vaguer? TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To put it simply: I created the category only because we already had articles (most notably, the category's main article) on this topic. The category's content should, roughly, match what it's main article says.
 * "although we could create such a category if we had enough content).}} What is your rationale for arguing that Category:Crimes committed by immigrants is a valid category" "We could create X if some condition is met" <> "X is a valid category" (anyway, I'm not currently interested in such a category and I am not claiming we should create it).
 * Anyway, thanks for mentioning other discussions which could help us. Do the categories you're referring to also have main articles like Immigration and crime, the existence of which is (AFAIK) not disputed? (I am not saying Immigration and crime could not be improved, renamed or forked) ?
 * Apokrif (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So your entire argument is the existence of the article Immigration and crime (and its subpages)? I'm sorry, but that does nothing to address the objections that have been raised. The objection (well, the main one, being a WP:POV magnet notwithstanding) is that this violates Wikipedia's guideline on WP:Overcategorization, which is an objection that the editors arguing against deletion have barely even attempted to address. This is an issue that is directly tied to the still extremely unclear inclusion criteria for this category. You keep saying to look at Immigration and crime for what this category is about, but that's basically dodging the question as it doesn't actually clarify the inclusion criteria. Immigration and crime refers to perceived or actual relationships between crime and immigration. defines the topic and the scope of the article, but it's about as clear as mud with regard to the inclusion criteria for the category. Articles and categories are not the same and do not function in the same way, so a clearly-defined scope for an article does not necessarily translate into clearly-defined inclusion criteria for a category. The inclusion criteria could be any crime committed by an immigrant, but WP:CONSENSUS has twice (1 2) determined that we don't want that kind of category, and it violates WP:NONDEFINING. It could be any crime committed by or against an immigrant, but that violates WP:ARBITRARYCAT. It could be any crime related to/associated with immigration, but consensus has twice (1 2) determined that we don't want that kind of category, and it violates WP:OCASSOC. It could be your nebulous "played a role in some debate or policy"/"political consequences", but that violates WP:SUBJECTIVECAT because it is ultimately a judgment call whether that applies when it comes to any particular article (and disagreement among editors is very likely). It could also be only Immigration and crime and its subpages (currently only Immigration and crime in Germany and Illegal immigration to the United States and crime)—which unlike the other possibilities doesn't actually violate WP:OC (it's a WP:SMALLCAT, but it could conceivably grow)—but of course that's not how editors are going to use it, they are going to add individual crimes to it either because they think that's what the category is about or because they think that's what the category should be about, and we're stuck with a category that exists as a WP:POV magnet (and therefore needs constant cleanup to keep out articles on individual crimes) while providing little or no benefit to anybody. Those are all valid interpretations of what Category:Immigration and crime could mean, but they are very different from each other (and are all fundamentally flawed). We can't have a category where it's not even clear what type of content should be included, let alone how to determine whether any individual article belongs to the type of content that should be included; that's worse than useless. The existence or non-existence of main articles is a red herring; the problem isn't that the topic doesn't exist, but that this isn't suitable as a category. This meets WP:DELREASON: Categories representing overcategorization any way you slice it (apart from "only Immigration and crime and its subpages", see above for why that's a terrible idea anyway), and it hasn't even been established how to slice it out of all the possible ways to do it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add that if this category is intended to solely include Immigration and crime and its subpages, the appropriate thing to do is to instead create the category Category:Immigration and crime by country, as suggested above. This would not lead to the same kind of chronic misuse issues. TompaDompa (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add that if this category is intended to solely include Immigration and crime and its subpages, the appropriate thing to do is to instead create the category Category:Immigration and crime by country, as suggested above. This would not lead to the same kind of chronic misuse issues. TompaDompa (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. See also my comment on the deletion of a similar category. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a field covered in academic studies, for instance use a non-Google (or other noncensored) search engine to search the German term Ausländerkriminalität. It doesn't stand to reason that an academic field of study should not have a category of its own simply because enwp editors object to it. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this is even more poorly defined than some of the other categories to which refers above. Binghamton shootings a mass shooting by someone who was a Vietnam born ethnic Chinese, but who had been a US citizen for 20 years before committing his crime. A right wing mass shooting, by someone who hates migrants (are right wing mass killers ever indifferent to migrants? Is every rightwing terrorist or otherwise violent incident from Scandinavia to New Zealand going to be included?). There are two articles about mass sexual harassment in Europe, one of which was probably perpetrated mainly by young male asylum seekers, The second of which the sources say that in the second year, the perpetrators were not foreigners, although our text states otherwise. A child sex 'grooming' case in which police say approx 2/3rds of the suspects were foreign, the rest were Finns. In that instance, less than half of those convicted have nationality mentioned AT ALL in the sources given, yet our article describes them as all as migrants (all of those covicted had middle-easterny names, so perhaps they were migrants, had been migrants, or were the children of migrants, but the sources do not say if any of these are true). The category makes no attempt to construct a consistent or rational definition of what a migrant is nor whether/what the relationship between migration and the crime was. This might as well be category "crimes committed by or against people from a "foreign" background". it has no logical nor useful basis and is little more than a PoV magnet as constructed. Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * delete, at least in its current incarnation. I agree with what has been said above about some of the definitional problems with the category as it is being applied. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete in current condition. If this category was to be kept, it should be strictly limited to overview topics and not incidents or individual laws that claim to address the issue  - as establishing this kind of link is impossibly tenuous & POV (what if the crime has nothing to do with the immigration status?  what if it is committed by an immigrant who's been in the country 20+ years?  what about first generation children of immigrants?  why should any law that claims to stop the issue be trusted to actually have anything to do with it?).  In other words, it'd just be Immigration and crime and the two subtopics on the US & Germany as it stands, which is a 3 article category and not worth keeping.  Potentially could be resurrected if lots more directly-tied articles were created,  but that hasn't happened yet.  SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per consensus in previous discussions and guidelines WP:AND and WP:OCASSOC, abstract: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. The bias, and the artificial link created between the two notions, are actually made more obvious by another advice in this guideline: It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order. Why not crime and immigration? Because obviously the focus here is on immigration more than on crime. Per previous discussions linked above, this category can only be a honey pot of POV trolls. Nowhere in 2017 Stockholm truck attack does it say that immigration, asylum or asylum application rejection are motivations behind the attack, a terrorist incident related to ISIS. The 2019 El Paso shooting was a racist attack targeting Latinos probably regardless of their actual immigration status (did the killer ask for IDs?). These made-up links are a bad idea for a number of policy reasons. Place Clichy (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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:Rural municipalities of Gandaki Pradesh (etc)

 * 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 17:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rural municipalities of Gandaki Pradesh to Category:Rural municipalities in Gandaki Pradesh
 * Propose renaming Category:Rural municipalities of Achham District to Category:Rural municipalities in Achham District
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistency with most other child categories of Category:Rural municipalities of Nepal. ("Of" seems OK for that top, country-level cat... or perhaps not?) Pam  D  12:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename - sounds uncontroversial. Deb (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename - no problem. 👤 Raju 💌 01:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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:Middle English language
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4%23Category:Middle English language

Alvernia Crusaders

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Alvernia Crusaders to Category:Alvernia Golden Wolves
 * Propose renaming Category:Alvernia Crusaders baseball to Category:Alvernia Golden Wolves baseball
 * Propose renaming Category:Alvernia Crusaders baseball players to Category:Alvernia Golden Wolves baseball players
 * Nominator's rationale: Alvernia changed its athletic nickname from Crusaders to Golden Wolves in 2017. See the university's official press release. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 Three Bears

 * 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 17:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Works based on The Three Bears to Category:Works based on Goldilocks and the Three Bears
 * Propose renaming Category:Films based on The Three Bears to Category:Films based on Goldilocks and the Three Bears
 * Nominator's rationale: The parent category is and the main article is Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The Three Bears redirects to Goldilocks and the Three Bears. There are other meanings of "The Three Bears". Some of the articles are about works that focus on the Three Bears as opposed to Goldilocks, but in general I think it's best to have consistency here in the category tree.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename to match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename - no-brainer. Deb (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Makes the most sense.★Trekker (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * support per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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:Honorifics (Allah)

 * 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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Honorifics (Allah) to Category:Honorifics of Allah
 * Nominator's rationale: I don't really know why the current name is formatted as it is. I propose just making it straightforward. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, the category only contains redirects to the same article God in Islam. (If kept, rename per nom.) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As nom, I have no problem with deletion if that is preferred. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a category of redirects is rarely good. If kept rename as nom.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no articles yet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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:Former CBC Television affiliates
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4%23Category:Former CBC Television affiliates