< August 18	August 20 >

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) 23:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Microsoft MVP recipient to Category:Microsoft MVPs

Nominator's rationale: This category definitely needs to be renamed, as it should be plural rather than singular. I think entirely dropping the word "recipient" makes more sense than pluralizing it. Based on usage in places such as the Microsoft MVP website, it seems that "Microsoft MVP Award" is the award, and "Microsoft MVP" is a title given to award recipients. So, if we wanted to keep the word "recipient", we'd need to do "Microsoft MVP Award recipients", which to me seems too wordy. One more option is "Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals", but that usage seems to be less common. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals, per speedy renaming criterion C2D and main article Microsoft Most Valuable Professional. This is a professional certification, not an award, and it is both notable and defining for most people who receive it. Even if in the professional world MVP is certainly more used that the longer form, the meaning of the acronym is not obvious to the general audience. Place Clichy (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (if necessary) then delete -- as we normally do with AWARD categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft List Created I listed the current contents of the category here on the main article's talk page so no work is lost if anyone wants to create a list. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The standard of WP:OCAWARD is "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." This doesn't come anywhere close and also seems promotional. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 2 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 18:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Statues of women in New Zealand to Category:Sculptures of women in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Per all other by-country categories of its type, and to bring it in line with its opposite, Category:Sculptures of men in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support move for consistency. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article titles refer to them as "statues" rather than as "sculptures", so for consistency with the articles the category name might be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all statues and they are also all sculptures. An alternative option would be to make a new parent category and keep the statues one as a subcat. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, one of them isn't a statue, but it's definitely a sculpture (Kate Sheppard National Memorial). Grutness...wha? 09:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The norm for the tree seems to be sculptures ... However, we also have Category:Statues in New Zealand which needs to be merged with Category:Sculptures in New Zealand. I support the tree being that way around, as sculpture can include bas-reliefs, which are not statues. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That category's OK. There is a tree for sculptures by country, but none of the other national categories splits out women as a subcat. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 23 August 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 17:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Antihero to Category:Antiheroes

Nominator's rationale: It must be plural. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. I suppose the category was originally meant for the topic antihero but now there is no topic article left but the list. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the target has been deleted (twice at cfd, and a DRV); eg 2008_October_24#Category:Antiheroes. Oculi (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. We do have a main article, Antihero, but there isn't enough coverage of this topic to make a topic category. The specific concern, as mentioned in the May 13, 2006 discussion, is that the label is too subjective for a category. For this reason, List of fictional antiheroes requires reliable sources for its entries, which cannot be provided by a category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. killer bee  11:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather subjective category, since the main defining trait is moral ambiguity. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 22 August 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. MER-C 19:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Albums produced by Leo Graham to Category:Albums produced by Leo Graham (songwriter)

Nominator's rationale: The albums in this category were produced by Leo Graham (songwriter) not Leo Graham, the reggae singer. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: to keep consistent with the correct Leo Graham and keep all albums produced by the songwriter in the same, already existing category. Richard3120 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 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 18:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Paris-Saclay to Category:Paris-Saclay University

Nominator's rationale: The main article was recently moved without discussion or objection to Paris-Saclay University. The subcategories Category:Paris-Saclay University alumni and Category:Paris-Saclay University people are already in this format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak rename, for consistency, although while looking at the references it seems that translation from French to English was not really necessary in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 20 August 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 or rename as indicated. MER-C 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology to Category:RMIT University‎
Propose renaming Category:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology people to Category:RMIT University people‎
Propose renaming Category:Chancellors of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology to Category:Chancellors of RMIT University‎
Propose renaming Category:Vice-Chancellors of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology to Category:Vice-Chancellors of RMIT University‎
Propose renaming Category:Former entities of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology to Category:Former entities of RMIT University

Nominator's rationale: The first category and its target appear to be duplicates. The main article is RMIT University and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology redirects there. (I don't think it's worthwhile drawing the distinction that the "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology" is the umbrella organization and "RMIT University" is the Australian portion of that. [There is also RMIT University Vietnam.] This is a distinction that is not drawn in article space.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objectionbut please ensure that "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology" appears in the headnote in each case. The Vietnam institution is no doubt some kind of out-station. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 22 August 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.

August 19

Category:Microsoft MVP recipient

Category:Statues of women in New Zealand

Category:Antihero

Category:Albums produced by Leo Graham

Category:Uttar Pradesh Technical University

Category:University of Paris-Saclay

RMIT University