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) 06:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Organisms named after elements in the Harry Potter franchise ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining and not grouping articles about similar topics.  See previous CFDs e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_22#Category:Animals_and_plants_named_after_David_Attenborough. Note: The List of organisms named after the Harry Potter series article (which does a much better job than the category) may need to be upmerged. DexDor ^(talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete we do not like categorisation by shared name. Listify if necessary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Textbook example of WP:SHAREDNAME. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Egremont F.C. players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Either delete or merge to Category:Egremont Rangers players which this appears to refer to. There is no article at Egremont F.C. and Google suggest that its the same as Egremont Rangers and even if it is separate entity it would/could fall under WP:SMALLCAT. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: I don't believe they are referring to the same team given that Egremont F.C. is an association football side while Egremont Rangers is a rugby league side. Kosack ( talk) 18:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Nzd (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: Definitely shouldn't merge into Category:Egremont Rangers players as it's a different sport (even if they did happen to be run by the same entity, we wouldn't do this). SMALLCAT may apply though. I could only find one other existing article, Tom Pickering, that should be in the cat. Searching the Hugman and Neil Brown sites, I could only find one other player, Ian Hall, who played for Egremont Town (I don't know if this is the same club). Nzd (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Egremont Town appears to be a different club, according to ENFA, but I've found one other in their database, Tom Geldart, which I've just created. Nzd (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Oppose: As already stated, Egremont F.C. is an association football club and Egremont Rangers is a rugby league club, so merge would be inappropriate. Subdividing footballers by club, as in Category:Footballers in England by club, is another example of the SMALLCAT exception "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country". There's a bot run occasionally that lists footballer articles that don't have the corresponding player cat for all the clubs in their infobox. If the missing cat is for a notable club, as Egremont F.C. is although no-one's yet written an article for it, people add and if necessary create the category, as happened with this one: if it were deleted, it'd only happen again. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 11:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Oppose per Struway2. I was coming to the conclusion that this would be a SMALLCAT exception myself. The club appears to be notable by virtue of FA Cup participation (per FCHD). Nzd (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I closed this as withdrawn with the reasoning "There are now 3 pages in the category and this appears to be conventional as well as that it has been pointed out that the Rangers club is different." However Peterkingiron has now pointed out on my talk page that they were going to favour deleting this so I'm re opening. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- As far as I can make out from the 3 articles, this was a local amateur club, some of whose players later played professionally elsewhere. And five pages is probably the normal minimum for a category. I do not think we allow categories for such clubs, but I am not a football expert. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Struway2. Giant Snowman 11:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Japanese music lists to Category:Japanese music-related lists

Nominator's rationale: Adding the hyphenated "-related" will standardize the naming with the other similar categories. KConWiki ( talk) 14:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Irish music lists to Category:Irish music-related lists

Nominator's rationale: Adding the hyphenated "-related" will standardize the naming with the other similar categories. KConWiki ( talk) 14:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Dynasties of Armenia to Category:Armenian noble families
• Propose merging Category:Burial sites of the Dynasties of Armenia to Category:Burial sites of Armenian noble families‎

Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge) per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the dynasties category and the noble families category are both largely a container category for royal and princely dynasties. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nominator. Good suggestion! ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ^☖ 14:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Not renamed. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Reformed church buildings to Category:Calvinist and Reformed church buildings
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed church buildings by country to Category:Calvinist and Reformed church buildings by country
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed church buildings in France to Category:Calvinist and Reformed church buildings in France
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed church buildings in Germany to Category:Calvinist and Reformed church buildings in Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed church buildings in the Netherlands to Category:Calvinist and Reformed church buildings in the Netherlands
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in Romania to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in Romania
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed church buildings in Switzerland to Category:Calvinist and Reformed church buildings in Switzerland
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in the United States to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in the United States
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in Iowa to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in Iowa
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in Michigan to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in Michigan
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches by city to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches by city
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in Basel to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in Basel
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in Bern to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in Bern
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in New York City to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in New York City
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in Paris to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in Paris
• Propose renaming Category:Reformed churches in Zürich to Category:Calvinist and Reformed churches in Zürich

Nominator's rationale: rename to reduce ambiguity (making Reformed a clear proper name, it is not like the church buildings have been reformed) and to align with sibling Category:Calvinist and Reformed Christians. Please refrain from comments on churches versus church buildings, this is only a very small nomination in which we are not going to solve that problem. In this rename nomination churches are kept churches and church buildings are kept church buildings. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, because it's expanding the scope. Reformed Baptist churches and Primitive Baptist churches are Calvinist in their soteriology, but Baptists aren't included in the Reformed family because of differences on matters such as the sacraments. Nyttend ( talk) 23:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'm not sure if it is expanding the scope, in the lead of article Calvinism it is assumed that Calvinism and Reformed Christianity coincide. But even if it does expand the scope, doesn't it make sense to align the churches and the adherents? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose all European categories. Categorisation should be according to what the denomination is called in the country or city in question. In many cases these seem to refer to the State (or city or provincial) church, which may be "Reformed" or "Lutheran" (German Evangelishe, literally evangelical). This nom is trying to impose a simplicity that does not exist in life. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• At least in the Netherlands this would be very unpractical. Calvinism (insofar not part of the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland) is scattered among many tiny denominations, see list at Religion_in_the_Netherlands#Protestantism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

North Macedonia category list

1. Category:Republic of Macedonia to Category:North Macedonia

North Macedonia: Rationale

Nominator's rationale: the head article for this Balkan country has been moved from "Republic of Macedonia" to North Macedonia per an RM discussion closed on 13 Feb 2019). The closer @ MSGJ noted an overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article.

Category names should follow the country name, so this nomination is a first step on that path. To simplify matters, I have tried to make a start by taking only the simplest and most clearcut cases, i.e. those which:

1. use the full phrase "Republic of Macedonia", and not the demonym "Macedonian" (so no Category:Macedonian people etc)
2. are clearly a descriptive title per WP:NDESC, i.e. a phrase such as Category:Organizations based in the Republic of Macedonia which has been invented by en.wp editors to describe a set of articles
3. Do not wholly relate to a period before the name change. So for example, I have omitted Category:2009 in the Republic of Macedonia, Category:1990s in the Republic of Macedonia, etc
4. are not a proper name
5. do not approximate the title of a public office (e.g. Category:Presidents of the Republic of Macedonia)
6. do not refer to the participation of the country in international organisations such as the United Nations, which sometimes uses a name different to the name chosen by Wikipedia's naming policies
7. do not refer to a national sports team of the country or to the country's participation in international multi-sport events such as the Olympics, since those sports and events may have their own naming procedures

This left a list of ~660 categories.

These exclusions are not intended to prejudice future discussions of the other categories. Maybe the others will all be renamed without controversy, or maybe they need to be discussed in smaller sets. But simplifying this list will allow this discussion to focus on the principle, rather than on any exceptions. If you spot any categories listed above which you think should be left for a future discussion, please strike them or ping me and I will strike them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Notifications:
• WP:CENT
• WikiProject Countries
• Eastern Europe
• Republic of Macedonia

-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• All categories were tagged, causing some of them to show up in the Article Alerts for other WikiProjects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply

North Macedonia: Discussion and survey

• Support per nom. Small notes - I note at least one stub category (which may need an associated template change), and am not sure some of the "expatriate" categories need to exist -- those cats appear to be over-categorization of footballers. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ power~enwiki: Yes, the stub cats will need template changes, so I have grouped the 3 stub cats together.

Please could we leave questions of deletion for another day? This sort of mass renaming nomination can rapidly become unwieldy and confusing if it strays off the core renaming proposal. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment, I have requested User:MattLongCT to revert the procedural close. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Note. This conversation was previous closed with the following comment: The result of the discussion was: Procedural Close. This discussion is best suited for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC before action should be taken here. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ^☖ 19:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom, to follow the uncontroversial rename of the article to North Macedonia. Oculi ( talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom, the outcome of the RM should be leading. I haven't spotted any category in this long list that would require separate discussion for any sort of reasons. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all changes. There's currently a big RFC running on this topic, as Matt has linked. Either the CFD and RFC will reach identical conclusions, making this discussion redundant, or there will be differences, in which this discussion will need to bow to the other. Nyttend ( talk) 23:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Nyttend: given the limited scope of this CFD (see the exclusion listed in the nom), please can you identify which sections of the multi-section RFC could conflict with the outcomes here?

The only one I can see is the section WP:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC#Non-contentious_housekeeping, which considered re-opening the RM discussion from which this CFD derives. Apart from the fact that RFC isn't the place to challenge an RM (we have WP:Move review for that), that section has already been snow-closed as upholding the RM.

So where else is there scope for different outcomes? I have been back-and-forth through the RFC, and haven't found anything which could affect this. What do you think I have missed? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Imagine that a good number of editors show up and oppose some or all of the changes on content grounds (distinct from my opposition, which is only on procedural grounds), saying that certain categories need to remain at their current titles for some reason, and their views come to the point of dominating and it's unreasonable to close this as anything except "keep" for the categories in question. Impossible, i.e. there's no real chance of that happening? If that's what you think (which is how I understand you to mean), then what's the point of running this CFD? If there's no plausible chance of any conflict between the two discussions, this one is simply redundant. Right now, any changes will go against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), which is binding per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, so this CFD mustn't be acted upon until the RFC concludes in a more than month from now. Nyttend ( talk) 23:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Nyttend: This reply is in two parts. First, the RFC, then the other points you raise above.

Here's my analysis of why the RFC won't impact this CFD. Taking the RFC sections one at a time:

• §1 Disambiguation discusses the wording and listing-order of a disambiguation page. No outcome there can alter category names
• §2 Nationality of people discusses demonyms: "North Macedonian(s)"/"Macedonian(s)". No such categories are included in this nomination
• §3 State-associated and other public entities discusses whether to exclusively use "of North Macedonia" only e.g. Government of North Macedonia, not (North) Macedonian Government. This nomination excludes all adjectival uses, so it will no in any instance crate a category "North Macedonian Foo".
• §4 Adjective discusses adjectives, but this nomination excludes adjectives
• §5 Historical names asks What should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in other articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019?. This nomination excludes topic which relate to periods wholly before the name change
• §6 Non-contentious housekeeping could if upheld have negated this whole CFD. But as noted above, it improperly raised a WP:Move review issue and has been snow-closed in favour of upholding the RM.
• §7 "Northern Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" Redirects discusses where two article redirects will point. The decision there cannot relate to any of these categories.

So I don't see any potential clash between the RFC and the CFD.

As per the nomination above, I am happy (no, actually keen) to strike out any categories which may raise unconsidered issues. The point of this CFD is simply to test whether there is, as I think, a consensus that a huge set of categories can be renamed uncontroversially, and if so to do them together in an orderly way, with the bots implementing all the changes and linking to the consensus. That's the same as any group CFD: if there is a consensus to change a category naming convention, then do it consistently.

That consistency matters, not just because consistency a core principle of category naming conventions -- it also ensures that the standard templates which form many categories can be handled consistently, without either breaking category trees or coding exceptions

We have been here before, only a few months ago. See WP:CFD 2018 November 5#Swaziland, where the country's name was changed to Eswatini. I did a similarly-scoped mass nomination; the discussion identified a number of exceptions (from memory, I think ~100), and several hundred categories were renamed. That's the model for this CFD, and I still don't see what that process can't work here. Please do look at the Swaziland discussion, and see how it whittled down the list to a set of uncontroversial renames.

I don't see any better way of handling this name change. Some no-discussion speedy process means no review of exceptions. Leaving it all the individual editors to do on an ad hoc basis also gives no scrutiny, but also risks reversions (and even move wars) if individual changes are contested. And move wars on categories are horrendously disruptive, because each page in that category gets edited each time. Do you see a better way? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes: close this discussion, because you risk stirring up a mess (are you aware that this dispute's been affecting Wikipedia for more than a decade?) among editors who have strong feelings on the subject. Moreover, this topic is not subject to discussion except at the RFC, and any changes that take effect because the RFC closes will be taken to arbitration enforcement, with sanctions likely for whoever's responsible for throwing a spanner in the works. You are aware, I trust, that a special arbitration decision had to be made to permit any changes to happen at all? Nyttend ( talk) 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Nyttend: I am well aware that this is a highly-controversial area in which Arbcom is involved. That is precisely why I tried to create a structure to implement the category-space consequences of the RM, to put a halt to all the ad-hoccery which was happening.

However, it's not at all clear what you actually want to happen now

The category names are not being discussed at the RFC. So if this CFD is closed, the categories will not be renamed without some further process.

Do you want the categories to be renamed randomly by editors on an ad-hoc basis with no discussion, and no overview of consistency?

Or do you want the categories to remain at their old titles?

Maybe you want some sort of review somewhere else of which categories to rename?

Please do explain ... because so far I see nothing from you which answers the question of exactly how and where a decision is made on which (if any) of these categories to rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Either the CFD and RFC will reach identical conclusions, making this discussion redundant, or there will be differences, in which this discussion will need to bow to the other. It is important to realize that neither identical conclusions nor different conclusions will occur because the CFD and RFC are simply discussing different things. With either outcome of the RFC this CFD can and should go ahead. The CFD is no more than a housekeeping follow-up on the RM. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename It's now "North Macedonia", there is no need for "Republic of Macedonia" names for anything except trademarks or historic titles. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename why should we wait longer? all main articles are renamed. so this is more confusing.-- Azeryion ( talk) 08:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support Now the main article has moved, these should also be renamed to match it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support - the main article has moved (by a very large majority) and any category in the list provided by nom, should follow. Please stop this battleground mentality of opposing each sub-discussion of this. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support: prior to the filing of this I had made a request on meta for the same to be implemented on small wikis as IPs are making the changes and causing redlinked categories. SITH (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support the principle -- In addition, by convention historic categories (e.g. years in) of a country that has changed its name appear under the parent for present name. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support. The RFC isn't questioning how we name the country at all — there are some outstanding questions about how we should adjectivally name the language and culture, but there isn't even one argument even being attempted against using North Macedonia as the geographic noun. But these are the geographic "Things in Noun" categories, not the "Adjectival X" ones, so it should be a no-brainer even if we haven't fully resolved the other matter yet. Bearcat ( talk) 19:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support It's time to go north. Semi Hyper cube 03:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Strong support - the category tree should follow the base category, which in turn should follow the article. We renamed the article, we should rename the base category and then the rest of the tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am afraid there is nothing to discuss since we already reached consensus on the North Macedonia page which is the "parent page" to all the rest. We just need to do the moves... And we should add this btw : Template:MKD. Thx!!-- APG1984 ( talk) 15:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Cautious support - per above, the name of the country in question has clearly been changed and recognized as so, but as other examples prove (such as the Eswati/Swaziland) example show this isn't always straight forward. Nonetheless it seems that renaming is the right course of action. Inter&anthro ( talk) 21:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Inter&anthro: the Sawziland CFD was my model for this nomination, and many of the exclusions in the nom are based on the issues raised with Swaziland/Eswatini. Unfortunately, some of the drama around this nomination seems to have distracted a bit from the core purpose of checking the nominated categories to see if there are any more exceptions.

I am a little worried that nobody has identified any exceptions which have been mistakenly included. It seems to me to be more likely that this is due to lack of scrutiny rather than to me somehow achieving perfection. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply

1. Category:Republic of Macedonia folklore's parent category Category:Folklore by country uses Fooian (adjective) construction instead of Foo (noun), so it might be Macdeonian folklore or North Macedonian folklore, depending on the adjective RfC?
2. Category:Republic of Macedonia football club seasons's parent category Category:Association football seasons by club also uses Fooian (though I think it shouldn't), so ditto to the above.
3. Category:Lists of ambassadors to the Republic of Macedonia -> Category:Lists of ambassadors to North Macedonia, Category:Socialist parties in the Republic of Macedonia -> Category:Socialist parties in North Macedonia, and all similar categories, might be influenced by the historical names RfC. Is an ambassador to FYROM in the 1990s now going to be categorized as an ambassador to NM? (Is anyone caling it NoMac?) I guess that's what the RfC will figure out? Might one of the possible outcomes be Category:Ambassadors to Republic of Macedonia (1991–2019) and a separate Category:Ambassadors to North Macedonia (2019–) or Category:Ambassadors to Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia)? Leviv  ich 02:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking the time to look at those, @ Levivich.

With the first two, it seems to me that the case for using the demonym is a separate issue to updating the noun. Regardless of whether those cats are renamed "Republic of Macedonia" to "North Macedonia", the option of using the demonym can still be proposed. So I don't see any reason to retain the outdated noun form.

Your third point seem to me to be much more substantive. My understanding is that what has happened here is a name change, rather than a new state, and that as such we:

a) keep the old name for topics which wholly predate the renaming

b) handle ongoing categories by renaming the category to current name

All those ambassadorial categories are ongoing, so it seems to me to be straightforward to rename them all, as we did with the Burma→Mynamar.

I can't see any benefit to readers from splitting such categories at the point of the name change, and editorially it would be an absolute nightmare to maintain such a system.

My understanding of that part of RFC is is that is considering the wording within articles, rather than titles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy per WP:C2D. Once again I find myself thinking I should follow RM discussion more closely since I disagree with this outcome. But, I'm not going to venue shop and oppose keeping articles and categories aligned to aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• @ BrownHairedGirl: Comment The order of countries in Category:Norway–North Macedonia relations, Category:Portugal–North Macedonia relations, Category:Poland–North Macedonia relations and Category:Qatar–North Macedonia relations should be reversed to conform to the convention of Category:Bilateral relations by country. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, @ Armbrust. Good catch, all now fixed [1]. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 10:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom, to match parent article name. Giant Snowman 10:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support for either North Macedonia or the Republic of North Macedonia, but the latter might be preferred to distinguish it from the region known as Macedonia. See Macedonia (region). Johndavies837 ( talk) 17:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename - the categories listed above are just the mere application of the renaming of the main article to North Macedonia, and carefully avoid the 7 different cases listed above where there would be any risk of ambiguity or contingency or need for further discussion. E.g. any proper name of specific organizations such as Macedonian Radio Television are carefully excluded. All open discussions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC are about other topics not effecting the target name of the listed categories. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename - not controversial.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support per WP:commonname and given the renaming of the parent article - literally the same country with a different name. Though I still think they should have gone with Paeonia. :( Wnt ( talk) 22:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• March 17, Support: At the moment the current WP:MOSMAC is still in force! This will change after March 17 when WP:MOSMAC will be updated in accordance with the results of the RfC. At the moment, changes to "North Macedonia" across wikipedia are being tolerated in defiance of current WP:MOSMAC, because the state article's RM was so overwhelmingly in support of it. However, it has very clearly been stated at the top of WP:MOSMAC that the current form of WP:MOSMAC is still applicable when it comes to resolving disputes. To simply avoid any pain involved with the potential revert of these categories (post-renaming), I would hope that BrownHairedGirl and others will only perform this renaming action on or after March 17, to coincide with the end of the RfC. In this way there will be no doubt as to the validity of the large renaming action that is about to occur. It does kinda feel like deja-vu that we were discussing the Swaziland/ Eswatini category renaming not that long ago, but the difference between that renaming action and now is the presence of long term arbitration relating to this subject specifically. This renaming activity could potentially be in violation of the "housekeeping section" of the RfC, if that proposal is rejected (unlikely, I know, but possible) and raised for further discussion. If this were to occur, it would not undo the RM's result of an overall move away from "Republic of Macedonia", but potentially clarify it to a slightly modified term (eg. "North Macedonia Republic" instead of "North Macedonia"). Yes, again, this is unlikely as it seems that the "housekeeping section" will be accepted with a landslide majority, but it is best not to jump the gun on this. There is no harm in waiting till March 17 to perform this category renaming. But once March 17 comes, then this should be totally uncontroversial. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Wiz9999 I see where you are coming from, but there are also downsides to delay.

Article space page moves are already happening on a big scale (see 265 pages with intitle:"North Macedonia"), apparently uncontroversially. Same with templates: the 45 templates. There are no uses of "Macedonia" on WP:RM right now, and my RM of the portal was closed early with a note that similar RMs are being processed as technical requests.

So the use of "North Macedonia" as the country name in page titles seems wholly uncontroversial.

There is a steady trickle of pages being manually recategorised to to the new titles (even when the new cat pages don't exist), and some instances of category pages being manually moved. The longer we delay, the more likely that this will happen.

Given the strength of the RM consensus, the support at RFC, and the lack of opposition at this CFD, the chances of any other outcome make a snowflake-in-hell look like a sure-fire winner.

CFDs are usually closed after 7 days if consensus is clear, so this is now eligible for closure. I'm WP:INVOLVED, so I won't be closing it myself, but it would be hard to fault an uninvolved admin who did close it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I would be curious to get Kahastok's opinion on this, as he/she was the only one on the article's RM request at the time that was advocating that the process be halted for these sort of mass renaming issues. While the rest of us were in a furore about pushing forward with the name change, he/she was the only person requesting that we follow more established procedure and change WP:MOSMAC first. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Wiz9999, I know that Kahastok made several very thoughtful contributions to the RM. This [2] initial contribution was an eloquent plea that it was better to change it through the formal process that we've been told to use. Kahastok later noted [3] a concern that change outside the RFC process are a likely cause of major disruption across hundreds of articles that currently refer to Macedonians and to the Republic of Macedonia. We can almost entirely avoid that disruption by following our own procedures to change WP:MOSMAC.

That was certainly a very reasonable concern, but nonetheless the closer @ MSGJ found a clear consensus to proceed anyway. And crucially, the history since then has shown Kahastok's reasonable fears have not been realised. Instead, we have found that hundreds of pages have been renamed without dispute, and that in this CFD there are zero substantive objections to the proposed renamings.

I think it would be helpful to step back from Arbcom's mandating of RFC as the process to update MOSMAC, and remember that Arbcom's goal was to avoid the whole thing becoming another sprawling bustup. That goal has been achieved by a different route, which has essentially stripped one issue out of the RFC, and handled it at a mass-participation RM.

So the current path works in practice. It seems to me that Wiz9999's concerns relate to a risk which has long since receded. The remaining issues are being handled at RFC; but this one is just uncontroversial consequentials.

I doubt that anyone in Arbcom will object to the community having achieved a clear and drama-free consensus to resolve one part of the question. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, well I can not really argue against that because it is true that, so far, the transition has been occurring rather smoothly, and without large dispute. I honestly was expecting more conflict to occur in light of the lack of an update to WP:MOSMAC, and how long it would still take to perform an update to it. So I concede that these updates should not be problematic, and you may proceed with performing a speedy renaming of the categories. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 05:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support (incl. for speedy rename.) If North Macedonia is non-controversial (which we have reached consensus on both on the renaming of the main article and the RfD), it follows that North Macedonia categories (where they pertain to the sovereign country) are non-controversial as well. — ThorstenNY ( talk) 17:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support, and I wouldn't mind supporting speedy rename as well, and as long as this has no complications. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{( talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment, request for closure of the discussion posted on the administrators noticeboard. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support. My name was raised above and while I've been busy the past few days, I think it's still useful to comment.

It has become clear to me since Republic of Macedonia was moved to North Macedonia that trying to keep references to the country in line with the current WP:MOSMAC until the end of the RFC is both untenable and unnecessary - which is why I advocated the extra box added at the top of WP:MOSMAC advising discretion. I am pleased to say that the community has exceeded my expectations: I didn't think we'd be able to do this as well as we have done.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of articles have already been changed to North Macedonia, largely uncontroversially. Trying to hold back the tide on procedural grounds seems like unnecessary work. Consensus was reached at RM, the question was treated as uncontroversial in the RFC, and the answer at RFC is already clear enough that the question has already been snowballed once (before being reopened to ensure we meet the formal Arbcom requirements). And I note that the CFD avoids the categories where the situation is less clear-cut.

While this CFD may formally go against WP:MOSMAC, I don't see we need to wait before doing something that we're now accepting in practice elsewhere. Kahastok talk 11:08, 3 March 2019 (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.