Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 20 April 22 >

April 21[edit]

Category:Gemitaiz[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON since only content is appropriately categorized in the subcat Category:Gemitaiz albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:14, 21 April 2021 (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:Regiments of the Union Army[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:Units and formations of the Union Army by state or territory to reflect the renamed contents from this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_160#ACW_regiment_naming_and_categories. Per that discussion this cat renaming would also need to be applied to all next level "X Union Army regiments" toward "X Union Army units" subcategories. BusterD (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a container where all the subcats concern "regiments". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is (perhaps unclearly) mentioned in the nomination. If you look further down to the subcat contained articles, the page subjects range in size from brigade to regiment to battalion to company to battery. For the record, this morning I made a malformed nomination (from "...regiment" to "...units") of each of these subcats but have temporarily withdrawn it after my malformation was pointed out. The discussion linked in the nom was between myself and two WikiProject:Military History project coordinators, both administrators as well. I made this nomination as a result of that informed discussion. BusterD (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2021 (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:Regiments of the Confederate States Army[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:Units and formations of the Confederate States Army by state or territory to reflect the renamed contents from this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_160#ACW_regiment_naming_and_categories. Per that discussion this cat renaming would also need to be applied to all next level "X Confederate States Army regiments" toward "X Confederate States Army units" subcategories. BusterD (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (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:UK Championships (snooker)[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:UK Championship (snooker). There is no consensus to remove the disambiguator, but based on other similar categories there is no reason for the category to be pluralized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More suitable per the articles involved. Would also be fine with Category:UK Championship (snooker) if disambig is required (I don't think it is). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and content to match) -- It is a great surprise to me that no other sport has a "UK championship". Perhaps they do, but have failed to get articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a one-off UK Championship (golf) in 2020, professional wrestling has the NXT United Kingdom Championship, The Caterham Seven UK Championship is one of several that exist in motorsport (I've not looked at their notability), and UK championships of various sorts exist in athletics, cube sports (whatever that is), ten pin bowling and others but they all looked non-notable at first glance. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disambiguator, neutral about singularization, without disambiguator the purpose of the category would not be clear enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2021 (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:Jessie (2011 TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Category:Jessie (2011 TV series)

Category:WikiProject Genetics participants[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer, sole content is Category:Wikipedians interested in genetics‎, which is miscategorized anyway, and Category:WikiProject Genetics members‎, which should be moved up to both parent categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:36, 21 April 2021 (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:Pratyekabuddhas[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one other article next to the eponymous article. The two articles are directly interlinked already. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2021 (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:Cinema COTW participants‎[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Cinema Collaboration of the Week is tagged as inactive. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:32, 21 April 2021 (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:Wikipedians who see, but do not necessarily own, pets[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a joke category, as the userbox that populates it does not make any statements about seeing pets. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear to be useful. Hog Farm Talk 01:11, 23 April 2021 (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:Choirmasters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Category:Choirmasters

Category:Wikipedians who participate in the Comics Collaboration of the Month[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: Speedy delete deleted as G7 by Fastily * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collaboration is marked as historical/archived. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - (as creator) I removed the cat from the populating userbox. - jc37 20:06, 21 April 2021 (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:Wikipedians who participate in the Baseball Article Improvement Drive[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just added {{historical}} to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive, since it seems to have stopped functioning around 2009 and hadn't been edited since 2014. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 21 April 2021 (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:Deaths form the COVID-19 pandemic in Andorra[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: speedy rename per C2A. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: misspelled "from" and there are no other categories of this with correct spelling DemonStalker (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oh my bad, I didn't even realize it! Although the renaming proposal is still with "form".Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Typo in the title. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2021 (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:Digital marketing companies in San Francisco, USA[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created by COI editor, localization is too specific. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:24, 21 April 2021 (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 Saint Stanislaus[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This award is usually mentioned with others in an "awards" section of the bio, if at all. It is not remotely defining for individuals such as Alexander Bagration of Mukhrani, Otto von Bismarck, or Christian IX of Denmark. (t · c) buidhe 05:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's another issue here: these categories are comingling recipients of the related Order of Saint Stanislaus of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the later Order of Saint Stanislaus (House of Romanov) of the Russian Empire. (I would actually consider there to be a 3rd award here once it was given out as a private award by the former royal family after the Russian Revolution.) Normally I suggest listification but that's tougher here, especially since the biography articles are often unclear on which award was received. In any case, none of these multiple awards seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I was not able to easily separate the category contents into separate lists since it's often unclear which award was won. I copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if other editors find this useful starting point. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2021 (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:Czech non-sectarian Muslims[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. ✗plicit 08:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Non-sectarian Muslims was renamed to Category:Non-denominational Muslims here and Category:Non-denominational Muslims was deleted here. Non-sectarian Czech Muslims can simply be categorized as Czech Muslims. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2021 (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:Statuary of Ludwig van Beethoven[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: speedily rename. The category creator agrees with the proposed move, which follows other moves already made. Although this is not a super-new category, discussion is not really required where these factors have lined up. BD2412 T 04:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All sculptures are statues, but not all statues are sculptures. This category is not a subcategory of Category:Statues, so move does not require any category changes. See parent list of sculptures of Ludwig van Beethoven. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—good call, I forgot about the category, should be moved now that the list has been moved. Aza24 (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2021 (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:People with scoliosis[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT, WP:COP and WP:NONDEFINING
According to the Scoliosis article, the curving of the spine effects between 2-3% of the American population. Of the 17 articles in this category, 12 either don't mention it at all or give 1 sentence in their childhood like with Laura Dern#Early life, Chloë Sevigny#1974–1993: Early life, and James Blake (tennis)#Early life and education. We get 3 sentences for Isabella Rossellini#Early life and also learn she had an appendectomy at age 5. Richard III of England does have a paragraph describing his reputation as a hunchback with the analysis of his recently found remains but that still seems like a stretch. (The only article defined by this condition is Brooke Lyons who wrote a book on it and founded an organization, so I added her to Category:Health activists since we don't have enough content for Category:Scoliosis activists.) I don't feel able to write a list that would pass WP:LISTN but I copied all the category contents right here so no work is lost if another editor is up to the task. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very clearly a non-defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not entirely surprising that scoliosis does not get treated at length in the biographical articles. Per the main article: "Mild scoliosis does not typically cause problems, but more severe cases can affect breathing and movement." The symptoms described in the article cause problems, but they are not typically life threatening. "Pain in the back, shoulders, neck, ribs and buttock", "Respiratory or cardiac problems", "Constipation", "Limited mobility secondary to pain". Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Where this is a severe deformity, it is likely to be life-defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If kept it should however be renamed to sth like Category:People with severe scoliosis. BTW isn't it the same with cases of severe Diabetes ->amputations etc.? --Just N. (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2021 (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:People with biliary atresia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT, WP:COP and WP:NONDEFINING
Biliary atresia is a "childhood disease of the liver in which one or more bile ducts are abnormally narrow, blocked, or absent". The only article in the category is Kendall Ciesemier but WP:SMALLCAT is not a concern: according to that main article, the rates vary from 1 in 16,700 in the British Isles to 1 in 5,000 in East Asia. So not so common that you'd hear of it a lot, but not so rare that a large population wouldn't have many cases. People today often have several childhood illnesses and many more in the past and Wikipedia is not a medical record for every illness that notable people survive during their lives. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background There was a rename CFD nomination for this category last year and we've deleted other medical conditions here, here, here, here, and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the fact that the category is almost empty is very likely due to the fact that it is too trivial to even be mentioned in public sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RevelationDirect, read further in the article. It is a disease that can cause liver failure if untreated. The treatment used for the disease is a surgical operation. So the disease would be life-defining only for dead infants who did not receive proper health care. The rest of them survive without lifelong symptoms. Dimadick (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2021 (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.

South Slavic surname categories[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: if I squint really hard, I can see a consensus for Category:Bosnian surnames, Category:Croatian surnames, Category:Serbian surnames, and Category:Montenegrin surnames. I am unsure how to adjust the parent categories; I am pinging Joy nominator for this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I had proposed this rename back in 2014, but appear to have struck a bit of a nerve there, as two out of the three oppose !votes were from users who are now permanently banned or blocked for abusive behavior in this topic area; we were unable to reach consensus in that discussion despite the fact I believe my arguments countered all the objections, and few other knowledgeable users chimed in before the discussion was closed. So, the context here is that Serbo-Croatian is the proper English linguistic name of the language, but Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian are the official language names. These surnames categorized in here are less tightly linked to any linguistic construct debated since the 19th century, but more to basic cultural origin - there are indeed many surnames that appear among the speakers of most if not all of these languages, and conversely many that only appear in distinct subsets of the whole. (Indeed, there are many names that are also shared with other South Slavic languages like Slovenian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, but it's a bit less common and there are also different ortographies at play there.) It's actually likely that neither the proper linguistic name nor the official languages names were in widespread use at the time most of these surnames were invented, hence the surnames predate any of this linguistic or sociolinguistic terminology. Ultimately, it makes very little difference to English readers to focus on the term "language" in this context, as all five terms will probably be equally as foreign to many of them, but it can be generally interesting to observe patterns between various overlaps and conversely lacks of overlap of some surnames between cultures. The word origin seems to me to be a much more natural categorization method here, and it nicely avoids the whole nationalist-infused debate on which sort of language terminology is used. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As closer of the previous CFD, I confirm that it should not prejudice this discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the rationale insofar related to the first four categories, but does it also apply to Serbo-Croatian? That is a pretty established and longstanding language, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We might as well just use that as one more parent category for the other four? Hence acknowledging the basic linguistic grouping while acknowledging cultural grouping. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and the last comments above. --Just N. (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I just realized we didn't even consider another simple option:
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be a consensus to rename, but I am relisting to see which option is preferred – as originally nominated or the alternate offered late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the alternative proposal, regardless of the language these are Bosnian, Croatian etc. surnames. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The language split is not viable, because they all refer to the same language. The only substantial difference between Serbian and Croatian is whether it is written in Latin or Cyrillic script. Whether there is a viable split between them by country of origin seems dubious to me. This would be viable if the surnames are ultimately placenames, but not whether they derive from a personal name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would not be a split by country, but by culture, as noted before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory do you think we have consensus at this point? I'm being annoying here because I want to prevent another situation of a pointless stalemate resulting in the bad status quo being maintained. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2021 (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:Chairmen of 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Royal Bank of Scotland people. Chrisieboy (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alternatively, this could be merged into NatWest Group people. There is no need for a separate sub-category. Chrisieboy (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, no need to rush, people in this category are correctly labeled as Chairmen of Royal Bank of Scotland Group, renaming the category can wait until Howard Davies is succeeded. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear why we should wait. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group was renamed NatWest Group on 22 July 2020. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but provide a headnote that it includes predecessors including Royal Bank of Scotland, National Provincial, and Westminster Banks. I do not think it is feasible to split a category between the various predecessors. The precedent for Alumni categories is that those for merged or renamed predecessors are included in that for the successor. I would apply that here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Marco. --Just N. (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, NatWest Group comprised the Bank and its subsidiary and associated undertakings (see Report and Accounts 2000). Following acquisition on 6 March 2000, the original NatWest Group was reorganised as part of the enlarged RBS Group (known as National and Commercial Banking Group from 1968 to 1979), which was itself renamed NatWest Group in 2020. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, the NatWest Group that was renamed as such in 2020 is something completely different than the Group that existed until 2000. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. At least not for our purposes. Wikipedia is a living encyclopaedia. Categories are not preserved in aspic. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories refer to substance, not to a name. If two organizations have the same name they should be disambiguated, not merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2021 (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 people[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. There is not a clear consensus that Category:Royal Bank of Scotland people should not exist as a subcategory, so it can be re-created if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Royal Bank of Scotland Group litigation. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Royal Bank of Scotland is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NatWest Group. The contents of this category relate to the parent company. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be in favour of splitting the category like that. I think the changes should mirror NatWest Group litigation. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but provide a headnote that it includes predecessors including Royal Bank of Scotland, National Provincial, and Westminster Banks. I do not think it is feasible to split a category between the various predecessors. The precedent for Alumni categories is that those for merged or renamed predecessors are included in that for the successor. I would apply that here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The split isn't meant to be a split between the various predecessors, but between the holding company and the actual bank. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the case that the category is a mix between the two entities and it would not be possible to separate the contents that way. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can somebody please close this and move. There is one support and no remaining opposition. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2021 (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:Air Link International Aviation College[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no point to this category. It's just redundant having only what the college is of and the college itself in this category. DemonStalker (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2021 (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/2021_April_21&oldid=1025742059"