Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 3 August 5 >

August 4[edit]

Category:Singles released independently[edit]

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 16:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No significant defining characteristic - "independent of large record labels" is meaningless and capable of almost infinite expansion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I disagree massively with the nominator's rational. There are 4 major record label groups: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and BMG Rights Management. Perhaps the description of the category wasn't quite clear but there are tonnes of record labels that sit outside of this major label system. I'll amend the category description. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are "tonnes of record labels that sit outside of this major label system", it's hardly a defining characteristic worthy of a category. More importantly, what about all the thousands of records that were issued before those "major record label groups" existed? Motown is just one example - most of its hits were "released independently" long before it became part of a larger group. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my vote to keep, in hindsight there are ways to categorise singles released by specific labels and although there is some clear obvious aspects to a song being released independently i.e. the label that released it is independent if there is a require for a reference for each song to specifically say that song was released independently then yes there's no point. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per several reasons,
  1. None of the articles I checked confirmed that the singles had been released independently, thereby failing WP:CATDEF
  2. At least a couple of those I spotted were imprint labels of larger record companies. (some misunderstanding between the words ‘record label’ and ‘record company’ perhaps?
  3. There is a scheme, Category:Singles by record label which could have been used for each label.
  4. Even List of independent record companies is a redirect to Lists of record labels which suggests this level of data mining is not required.
  5. No objection to an article with a supporting list.
--Richhoncho (talk) 12:55, 5 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.

Former subdivisions in D. R. Congo[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for former Provinces and Districts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo before the reorganisation in 2015, see Subdivisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo#New provinces.
http://www.statoids.com/ucd.html may be a helpful source, and here are two templates for reference. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be easier if broken into smaller proposals. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london and Aymatth2: would it be helpful to split the discussion in different subsections? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might help, if that can be done easily. My preference would be one section per item in my bullet list, which I think covers all the proposed changes. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Former districts to new provinces[edit]
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 with cat redirects. bibliomaniac15 18:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haut-Uele District and Tshopo District are now redirects, as these districts became full Provinces and no longer have separate articles. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging district categories into the new province category if the name has changed. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there are no articles specifically about the former districts. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Foo Province". There's obvious confusion in cases like this, and the word "province" clarifies what falls within the scope of the new categories. This approach is standard for non-DRC articles anyway. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haut-Uélé refers to the upper (haut) part of the Uélé River basin. It was administered as a district for a long time, then upgraded to province status. It seems reasonable to have the Haut-Uele District article redirect to Haut-Uele Province. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tshopo District was combined with Kisangani District, formerly Stanleyville District to form Tshopo Province. I am not sure the article redirect was correct, since more than half the population is from Kisangani District rather than the old Tshopo District. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is obvious scope for confusion here and I do not understand the basis for the objection. It is common to include province or state in a category title - see for example Category:States of Nigeria or Category:Provinces of Vietnam. Aymatth2 is correct that Haut-Uélé has long been a term used to describe a particular area but that does not make it a WP:CNAME to describe the administrative unit in question. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Brigade Piron: Haut-Uele (Upper Uele) is the region around the upper part of the Uele River, but not a sharply defined geographical concept. In the past, Haut-Uele District was sometimes larger than the modern Haut-Uélé province (see Haut-Uele District#Maps) but as of 2015 had the same extent. The term "Haut-Uele" without a qualifier is often used for the region, district or province depending on the context. Some of the district commissioners deserve articles. If we started Category:Haut-Uele district commissioners it would would seem a bit odd to me under Category:Haut-Uélé Province, better under Category:Haut-Uélé. I would also have no problem leaving the current categories, with the district one for history of the district and the province one for geography and recent history. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Aymatth2: I'm afraid that seems rather questionable logic. Flanders is a region, but is distinct from the Flemish Community as well as the sub-units East Flanders and West Flanders. Attempting to group all these concepts into a single Category:Flanders would seem a odd. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do not have strong opinions. I would be o.k. with Category:Haut-Uélé holding Category:Haut-Uélé Province and Category:Haut-Uele District, with the main category more for geography, botany etc. and the sub-categories more for politics and administration. A search on "Haut-Uélé" -wikipedia throws up:
                Hotels in Haut-Uele, Democratic Republic of the Congo ... Tens of thousands displaced after attacks in Haut Uélé ... Meri refugee settlement, Haut-Uele Province ... Dubele gold mine, Haut-Uele, DR Congo ... Region: Haut Uele, Democratic Republic of the Congo ... inondations dans le Bas-Uélé, le Haut-Uélé et la Tshopo ... 2016 malaria outbreak in Pawa, Haut Uélé ... The aardvark of the Haut-Uele ... Refuerzo de la participación comunitaria en el distrito de Haut-Uele ... Guatemalan Forces deployed in Haut-Uélé are awarded ... Watsa, Haut Uele. Artisanal Gold mine ... health zones in Haut Uele province ... bird species found in Haut-Uele ... DRC - Haut-Uele province: MSF intervenes ... Faradje, Haut-Uélé District, northeastern DRC ... The Congolese Army in Haut Uele. The Congolese army has deployed close to 6,000 soldiers in Province Orientale, but they have utterly failed ... Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), abducted at least 99 people in the Bas Uele and Haut Uele provinces of DRC ...
              • Sometimes the name is qualified, rather more often not. Again, the geographical / botanical region is not well defined. It is not "all territory in the Uele River Basin above the following line..." Aymatth2 (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but Leave redirect -- If the current province and past district are co-terminous, the appropriate course is to merge, but the headnote should explain the scope as referring to the past district as well, and the present category should be retained as a cat-redirect. This follows the practice with renamed countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 16 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.
Populated places by former province[edit]
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 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These only contain sub-cats for (former) districts. – Fayenatic london
  • Support deleting populated places categories for former provinces. The places belong in the populated places categories for the new provinces. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both above comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 4 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.
Geography by former province[edit]
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, delete or split as indicated. MER-C 11:17, 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.
Former districts by former province[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge; rename Category:Districts of Kasai-Oriental to Category:Districts of Kasaï-Oriental (former province); Category:Districts of Kasai-Occidental to Category:Districts of Kasaï-Occidental; Category:Districts of the province of Équateur to Category:Districts of Équateur (former province). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:38, 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.
Categories named after old provinces[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to new provinces as no longer useful. Note: Category:People from Bandundu Province has to be kept as there is no data by which to split it. – Fayenatic london
  • Don't understand. These should remain, and each contain Category:Former districts of XYZ, holding the new provinces. Non-historical articles should move to the categories for the new provinces. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom as the most common sense thing to do and I do not understand the alternative. Having new provinces as subcategories of a former districts container category is just very confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles on towns, airports etc. in Category:Orientale Province can move to the categories for the new provinces, but we still need Category:Orientale Province for the historical stuff such as governors and wars. E.g. w:fr:Liste des gouverneurs de la Province orientale. It seems reasonable to also link the categories for the new provinces back to the former province, a bit like Category:Departments of Brittany. That way readers can navigate via the category structure to/from the new provinces that were in the old province. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But Category:Orientale Province currently has 100% geographical content and no historical articles, so it is not needed. Of that list of governors, English Wikipedia only has an article on Jean-Pierre Finant (President of the province for a few months in 1960).
The comparison with Brittany does not work. There is a whole hierarchy of Category:Regions of France, because there are official administrative Regions of France. There is not a similar hierarchy within Congo, and former provinces should not be used as a substitute. Provinces are the top-level division, like Regions in France.
As for navigation, readers can already navigate more clearly via (i) linked text within the articles, (ii) the templates above, and (iii) lists & tables such as Subdivisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo#New provinces and Provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo#Approximate correspondence between historical and current provinces. There is no need for categories to do so as well, see WP:CLN, and it would not be particularly helpful in this case as Marcocapelle has pointed out. – Fayenatic London 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a country of 100 million people, our coverage of the DRC is atrocious. We have far more material on Kent. I am trying to sort out the provinces and governors using Lists of provincial governors of the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a sort of to-do list. Orientale dates back as an administrative unit to the the Free State days and lasted through to 2015. The intendent / governor biographies suggest articles on missionaries, activists, companies, incidents, inquiries etc. I expect to keep plugging away at that for some time. Of course there is history of these huge administrative units. Katanga is not the only one of interest, just the only one that most westerners have heard of. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am thinking of starting articles on all the districts of the Belgian Congo, sub-divisions of the old provinces. They were sometimes larger than the present provinces, and were administered by district commissioners. Often they had the same name as a modern province, but they did not necessarily cover the same area. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of placing all local history articles under the current provinces is certainly original. An article about a mining strike in the 1940s might be categorized under gold mining in the Belgian Congo, the town where it happened, the history of the province and the history of the ethnic group involved. It does not belong in the history of an administrative unit that would only be created 60 years later. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter is standard practice in history by location categories. For example Category:Belgian Congo is in the tree of Category:History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Marcocapelle: Is this documented somewhere? Let's say (and this is not entirely hypothetical) that there was a wave of strikes in the Orientale mines in the 1950s, and some editor with too much time on their hands wrote a general article about the strikes, and detailed articles about each particular strike. It seems reasonable to start Category:1950s Orientale strikes with the general article as the {{catmain}}, and put this category under Category:Orientale Province or maybe Category:History of Orientale Province. Why not? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would depend on the circumstances. If the strikes were directed against the province government it would be likely that they would be called Orientale Province strikes and it would be reasonable to put them in an Orientale Province history. However it would be different if the strikes would be unrelated to the province as such (e.g. against employers or against the state government). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)}[reply]
          • @Marcocapelle: Just a wave of strikes against privately owned mines across the province, same organizers, same grievances, same union and same employers association, an overview article and ten detailed articles grouped under Category:1950s Orientale Province strikes. Is there any documented policy that says this category should not be under Category:Orientale Province or maybe Category:History of Orientale Province? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is too hypothetical. If the strikes were unrelated to the former province there would not be an overview article about the former province. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Marcocapelle: This not very hypothetical. The strikes were all connected, and are known as the 1950s Orientale Province strikes. The overview article discusses them as a whole: it is about the strikes, not the province, but the wave of strikes is part of the history of the province. Is there any policy that says a category like Category:1950s Orientale Province strikes should not be in a category like Category:Orientale Province? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps the above example is too complex. How about articles on the 1935 Act Concerning Orientale Palm Oil Production, the Orientale Soccer League, the 1974 Orientale Games, the Orientale Chamber of Commerce? None of them are about the province, just about topics related to the province. Is there any policy that says they should not be in a category like Category:Orientale Province? Fayenatic london may care to chime in. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • If separate articles existed on those topics, then the category would be useful. Currently, it only holds geographical articles (airports, elephant centres), and subcats for Governors and former Districts. I was going to say, WP:SOFTDELETE it for now, i.e. with permission to re-create when useful. However, Category:Haut-Uele District has 4 pages, 2 of which are historical, and 2 of which are about locations but have significant historical content, so we could dual-merge that one also to Orientale Province, and move the sub-cat for Ituri Interim Administration up into it as well. Then it would be just about worth keeping now. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So these merges and deletions can go ahead, then I may start a few articles and undelete / unmerge, no problem. I thought the discussion was about whether the categories should ever be allowed to exist, like an AfD, but I guess it is just about whether they are useful at this point in time. The problem with deleting an article is that an editor who goes to restart it sees a big red notice, which is discouraging. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to "Foo Province", rather than just "Foo". Per my comments above. Or do we need a separate re-name discussion? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the target categories already exist, and have not been tagged, it would need a separate nomination to rename them. The category names match the lead articles; I believe the article names only include the word "Province" where there is ambiguity e.g. an extant article for a former district/ river /settlement with the same name. – Fayenatic London 15:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split content where possible, but keep the cat for former province largely as a container, with only articles that cannot be re-assigned to a successor, such as articles on the province as a whole or its governors. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The former contents have been mostly purged to new categories for airports by current province. The remaining contents are historical, so this section of the nomination can now be closed as keep. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:33, 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.
Katanga Province[edit]
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: purging has already has been taken care of, the only thing left to do is deleting Category:Populated places in Katanga Province which has now become empty. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Katanga Province has significant separate history content and is worth keeping, with its sub-cats for Districts and People, but the geography articles should mostly be dispersed to the new provinces. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: It appears that this has been implemented by Aymatth2. I am not sure whether the RC dioceses of Kalemie-Kirungu and Kamina can or should be removed. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved the airports and populated places to their current provinces, which seems uncontroversial. I think the dioceses should stay. They tend to be considerably bigger than the current provinces, but fit into the large old provinces fairly easily. The other odds and ends (newspaper, flag, film, coin) seem to belong too. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:44, 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.
Governors by former province[edit]
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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that under Mobutu Sese Seko a person from Katanga Province was automatically disqualified from becoming governor of the province. The Belgian governors would also not be considered people from Katanga province. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, currently 3 articles in the category, but the parent category is not otherwise subcatted by province. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing this section. I will make Category:Governors of Katanga Province a sub-cat of Category:People from Katanga Province rather than Category:Katanga Province. For info, I have copied the category onto all 10 of the corresponding articles in French Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, see above, the governors of Katanga Province rarely came from Katanga Province. They came from Belgium or other parts of the Congo. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That does not really matter, "people from" categories are used for people having lived somewhere. Governors, mayors etc are always in a "people from" category of the province or town they held office. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems ridiculous to call someone like Ralph Windham, born in England, a "person from" Palestine, Ceylon, Kenya, Zanzibar and Tanganyika. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • But more ridiculous to call him a "person from" the modern states of Israel, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Tanzania. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • In English wikipedia, categories are parented in ways that are useful for navigation. So people from a former province are in the category for that province (if there is one), which is in a parent for former provinces – even though, obviously, people are not provinces. This is different from e.g. German Wikipedia, where (as I understand it) categories are structured so that all members of a sub-cat must strictly fit within its parent categories.
          • So, because governors are people, the English Wikipedia category for governors belongs within the province's category for people, even if the members of the sub-cat do not match all the criteria for the parent. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I prefer "people of" for people associated with a place, since it does not imply they originated there. But Belgians who administered the Belgium Congo are neither of nor from the DRC. They may be of Orientale Province, which is of the Belgian Congo and the DRC. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Personally I agree that "people of" or "people in" would be better-phrased than "people from". However nobody will propose renaming all "people from" categories because the number of these categories is huge, and the outcome of the discussion would be uncertain. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 8 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.
Districts by new province[edit]
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 18:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge small category with one page. – Fayenatic london
  • Not sure. There is one entry, Likati District. The article for Bas-Uélé cites a 2010 source giving 6 territories: Aketi, Ango, Bambesa, Bondo, Buta and Poko. I think there is a town called Likati but suspect there never have been any districts of Bas-Uele Province.
  • Delete. There are no districts of Bas-Uele Province. This category is now empty. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 4 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.

Category:Macedonian activists[edit]

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) Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: official name per the Prespa agreement HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 01:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per actual content, without prejudice to recreation of the category for ethnic activists in the Ottoman and Yugoslav eras. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of this move review going on right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:13, 4 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.

Category:Macedonian academics[edit]

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. In light of the result of the MR, the proposed rename should be regarded as improper. However, there is some support for a non-demonym form (Academics from North Macedonia). Since this may require nomination of the whole tree (Category:Macedonian people by occupation), and in keeping with the close above by Jackmcbarn, I am closing this as a no rename for now. bibliomaniac15 18:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: official name per the Prespa agreement HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 01:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, the subcategories should be nominated as well. However, Blaga Aleksova retired before North Macedonia came into being. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck the first part, there is no longer a procedural need to co-nominate subcategories, since the nominated category is not going to be renamed anyway, per WP:NCMAC. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update, meanwhile Category:North Macedonia people consists of 9 subcategories that are unambiguously based on the modern country North Macedonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Macedonian people is quite evidently already intended to be unambiguously based on the modern country North Macedonia, as otherwise it would have different parents. Creating yet more contenders for the same category is muddying the waters further. Oculi (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a mistake in the light of WP:NCMAC § Adjectival form of North Macedonia, which states explicitely that Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred. The use of Macedonian as a demonym for the country (rather than just for the culture/language of the Macedonian ethnic group) cannot be seen as neutral as it follows the fringe nationalist POV in North Macedonia that rejects the North Macedonia name altogether. Place Clichy (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of this move review going on right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:13, 4 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.

Category:User script developers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedian user script developers noting the usage in parent categories revisit if necessary Timrollpickering (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is indistinguishable from that of a content category for developers of userscripts. Per Wikipedia:Category names#Special conventions, this category should be renamed to add the prefix Wikipedia (i.e., developers of Wikipedia user scripts) or Wikipedian (i.e., Wikipedian developers of user scripts). -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:52, 4 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.

Category:Royal Bank of Scotland Group[edit]

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: split and rename. Dislosure: I am doing this despite WP:INVOLVED as it is not contentious. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with Royal Bank of Scotland Group being renamed NatWest Group and renaming of article. Busztrax (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- This is a case of a change of name. It is the same company with a new name, and still incorporated in Scotland. Historically, RBS was a Scottish chartered bank; NatWest was an English plc formed in 1960s by a merger of several English banks. The company has throughout traded in England (mainly) as NatWest and in Scotland as RBS. Nothing has changed fundamentally, except the name. Whether the category should also be split is a different question that needs to be considered separately and afterwards. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nominator and Peterkingiron. The company has been renamed and the category should be renamed to reflect this. This is not contentious and I am surprised that it has not already happened. 2.24.81.194 (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can somebody please close this discussion so that I can get on and make the changes. 2.24.81.227 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_4&oldid=987282216"