Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 3 August 5 >

August 4

Category:Singles released independently

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

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
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]
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]
  • 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]
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.
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
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
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]

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
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
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]
  • Merge small category with one page. – Fayenatic london
  • Oppose. There were various governors, e.g.
    Gaetan Kakudji, Moïse Katumbi. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 4 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
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]
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.
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

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]
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

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

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"