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]
Propose deletingCategory:Singles released independently (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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,
None of the articles I checked confirmed that the singles had been released independently, thereby failing WP:CATDEF
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?
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.
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]
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]
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 ...
I would not object adding "Province" to the article titles about the provinces, but that requires an RM rather than a category discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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
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]
Propose deleting Category:Populated places in Orientale Province
Propose deleting Category:Populated places in Kasai-Occidental
Propose deleting Category:Populated places in Bandundu Province
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
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]
Support categorizing geography under the new provinces. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per both above comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 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.
Former districts by former province
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.
Oppose merging these to Category:Former districts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We should rename them to e.g. Category:Former districts of XYZ. Thus Category:Districts of Kasai-Occidental becomes Category:Former districts of Kasai-Occidental, containing Kasaï Province and Kasaï-Central. So we can browse from the former province category via its former districts category to the present province articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We generally only have category hierarchies for current national sub-divisions. If you explore Category:Former country subdivisions by country, you will see that only a few countries' former sub-divisions have such category hierarchies, e.g. Uzeyds by former Governorate within Category:Former subdivisions of Belarus.
Whether category hierarchies for former subdivisions makes sense depends on the country and type of subdivision. Nobody would try to track changes to British parliamentary constituencies through the category structure, but they might expect the structure to help them relate modern towns to former duchies, principalities etc.. In this case I think it is useful to let readers navigate between the new provinces (formerly districts) and the old provinces that contained them. All but the most recent sources will use the old terminology. The big problem is that our coverage of the DRC is hopelessly incomplete, so a lot of the categories have few articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge, too little content per category to keep, but articles about former administrative subdivisions may be put in the appropriate modern administrative subdivisions as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the redirects should be merged into the new categories, e.g. Haut-Uele District does not need to be within Category:Haut-Uélé (new province) as its target page is already the lead article for that category. The other category members are now in the categories for the new provinces, so only a simple merge is required. – FayenaticLondon 21:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is in line with what I meant, so then a single merge suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: These now appear to be more useful, being populated mostly with articles rather than redirects. I suggest that this be closed as do not merge, but rename three of them (see above). – FayenaticLondon 22:09, 1 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
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.
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]
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.
@Fayenatic london and Marcocapelle: I still do not understand. The former Orientale Province was a major division of the former Belgian Congo and the successor Congo / Zaire / DRC. People were born there and wrote and sang about it. Governors were appointed, missionaries arrived, companies were formed to exploit the resources. There were revolts, invasions, epidemics and elections. Category:Orientale Province is the natural index to articles on these and other aspects. How does it improve Wikipedia to delete this category? Aymatth2 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: There is currently no historical content within these categories. By all means let these be closed as WP:SOFTDELETE i.e. with permission to re-create alongside Category:Katanga Province if multiple articles are created about historical topics within the former province. – FayenaticLondon 10:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are some articles about governors of Orientale, and probably will be more soon. Presumably there are also articles about people born in the province who died before the successor states were invented. The Zande people are indigenous to Orientale. The Batetela rebellion is an artificial cobbling together of three incidents. Of these, the Dhanis expedition of 1897 deserves its own article. The Simba rebellion and Free Republic of the Congo are very much part of the province's history. Similar content would apply to Bandundu Province and Kasai-Occidental. I see no reason to delete these categories and then immediately recreate them. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can create a governors category when there are a handful of articles about them. Articles like Batetela rebellion do not belong in a former province category unless the rebellion was specifically directed against the provincial authorities of Orientale Province. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 7 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]
@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. – FayenaticLondon 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. – FayenaticLondon 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. – FayenaticLondon 22:11, 1 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
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. – FayenaticLondon 09:54, 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. – FayenaticLondon 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
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. – FayenaticLondon 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]
The lack of sub-categorization is because of the very poor coverage in the .en Wikipedia of the DRC. Each province had a series of governors, often with great power, but the .en wiki has nothing on them. I may start a few. See w:fr:Catégorie:Gouverneur de province de la république démocratique du Congo. The French wiki has better coverage, but still very weak. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy for the closer to note that the small categories are merged for now as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. with permission to re-create them when there is sufficient content to make them useful. – FayenaticLondon 10:52, 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. – FayenaticLondon 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
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]
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
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.
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]
Support would also support ALT of Category:Activists from North Macedonia to eliminate the tyranny of demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 31 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]
Oppose per WP:NCMAC and vast majority of reliable sources. "North Macedonian" is not present in any English dictionary. Also, the nominator's rationale is wrong - the Prespa agreement officially defines the nationality as Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, not as "North Macedonian". The essence of the Prespa compromise was that only the name of the country is changed (or specified in relation to the broader Macedonian region), but Macedonians get to keep their national identity. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:20, 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
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]
I have just created Category:North Macedonia people, but right now nothing belongs in it except the current two subcategories. Anything that is going to be renamed from Macedonian to North Macedonia(n) can only be added after the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 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]
Support it seems that the categories are being used for the nationality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support would also support ALT of Category:Academics from North Macedonia to eliminate the tyranny of demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 31 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]
Support as the scope of this category is clearly linked to the country of North Macedonia (and mostly academics teaching in institutions there), not the Macedonian ethnicity. Also support ALT Category:Academics from North Macedonia as WP:NCMAC discourages the use of adjective in the name of categories and articles, precisely because the use of demonyms for this particular country is often problematic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:33, 14 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.
Category:User script developers
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.
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]
Question - do we have any content categories for developers of userscripts? — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me 16:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close Not seeing any hunger for this. Maybe worry about this when other categories are created that match Category:User script ... — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me 12:37, 18 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.
Category:Royal Bank of Scotland Group
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. – FayenaticLondon 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.