The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Category names, set categories should be plural. Apparently, the singular category was created on the basis of th German Wikipedia (which use singulars). Boson (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Category names, set categories should be plural. Apparently, the singular category was created on the basis of th German Wikipedia (which use singulars). Boson (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Category names, set categories should be plural. Apparently, the singular category was created on the basis of th German Wikipedia (which uses singulars). Boson (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2012 (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.
Single-page categories for European Parliament constituencies[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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge each one to all parents. Even though these are part of a scheme of categorisation, these single-page categories for the national constituencies add an unnecessary layer of navigation. The head category Category:European Parliament constituencies can hold directly the pages for these whole-country constituencies, as well as the remaining sub-cats for the countries with multiple constituencies. This is a follow-up to CFD July 5 re the similar category for Northern Ireland, where I was persuaded by Black Falcon's argument at the end, which I have summarised in this nomination. – FayenaticLondon 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. This could also be done for some other stand-alone articles on electoral districts (such as in some United States cases as was brought up in a previous related discussion).John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge per nom and previous discussion. - jc37kenobi 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I didn't want to be left out : )[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 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:Federated States of Micronesia in World War II[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.
Nominator's rationale: The current name of this category is misleading. The Federated States of Micronesia did not exist until either 1979 or 1986, depending on how you consider "independence"; the current name of the category implies that they existed during World War II. This needs a different name, but I can't determine what it should be (Category:Micronesia in World War II?) The BushrangerOne ping only 04:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Category:Micronesia in World War II does not seem appropriate as Micronesia is a region of Oceania including a number of countries, see Category:Micronesia. FSM was formerly part of the South Pacific Mandate to 1947 then the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands but along with what are now the Marshall Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Palau. So I cannot suggest an alternative name for the present area in WWII. But “Federated States of Micronesia” can be used before independence if that was what it was known as (the use of Category:1894 in Australia or Category:1894 in London does not imply independence!). A change of name often happens at independence, but some like Burma to Myanmar in 1989 were much later. Hugo999 (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I remember correctly though the South Pacific Mandate also included Palau and possibly some other places not in the FSoM. In that case we should make sure that the larger context is invoked. On the other hand, since the FSoM is a post-WWII creation without a total equivalency in any unit at the time, we need to do something with this category because it is giving a false sense of historical unity and cohesiveness to a place that was not in any way real at the time. I mean do we have Category:Yugoslavia in the 19th century?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to South Pacific Mandate in WWII, and make sure the Palau stuff is included. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So a category Category:History of the South Pacific Mandate is needed? The difficulty with the title “Federated States of Micronesia” is that like “German Empire” (but not “Germany”) it implies a particular type of government. And “Micronesia” generally means a larger region of the Pacific. But country histories generally go back before the creation of a unified country eg for Canada, Germany and Italy (19th century) or Australia and South Africa (20th century). The only reason we do not have 19th century Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia categories is that they are not now countries, but it was commented in a discussion on 19th century Slovenians (nationality or ethnicity?) that Dante is regarded as Italian. The history of Scotland did not start with its 9th century unification. Hugo999 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no, the reason we do not have 19th century Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia history categories is because that is total fiction. To see Czechoslovakia before the Pittsburgh Convention of 1918 is an impostion of a point of view in violation of NPOV rules at best, and Yugoslavia is even worse. We have categories that properly treat Newfoundland pre-1949 as distinct from Canada. Germany before 1870 works because there was a concept and idea of Germany, the same works with Italy. We would not classify someone who lived their entire life in Trentino from 1800 until death in 1848 as Italian. We would generally classify things that occured from 1650 until 1870 in East Prussia as having been in Germany, even though it is today divieded between Poland, Russia and Lithuania. We should not have Category:History of Ukraine in the 19th century and even if we do we should never but events in Lemburg or Ungvar (Uzhgorod) in that category. Events in 1930 in Ungvar go in History of Czechoslovakia, not in a category that reflects the present national location of that place. What next, Category:19th century history of South Sudan?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You accept that both Germany and Italy both work “as concept and idea” which existed before the unification of Germany and Italy in the 19th century, which is why there is a category: Category:People of medieval Germany. Re Dante, he is classed as an Italian poet etc, and although he is not in Category:14th-century Italian people there is such a category. And a Category:14th-century Czech people which is a subcategory of Category:Czech people then Category:Czech Republic ie the present (from 1993) state. Also there is the “Pre-statehood history” of American states eg Category:Pre-statehood history of Oregon which has articles directly in it as well as in subcategories like “Oregon Territory”. Some states were late concepts eg West Virginia broke away from Virginia when Virginia was part of the Comfederacy.
Comment my main point is that to see Yap having more connection with Chuuk than Palau in 1942 is a rewrite of history that creates a false impression of the past. The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was bigger than the Federated States of Micronesia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale: We do have categories for women by nationality (e.g., Category:American women) and ethnicity (e.g., Category:Asian-American women), but they are to be used as container categories for general articles, lists and subcategories. Convention is that they should not directly contain biographies, except temporarily. In the case of ethnic Slovene women, there are no general articles, lists or subcategories which could populate this category; it should, therefore, be upmerged to the main ethnicity category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these are meant to be container categories, but they tend to have way too many individual articles placed in them. Unless there are some articles that are on this topic, and not just people who fit this description, we should not have the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Category:People from Gaborone is a small category and diffusing it at this point seems like over categorization. TM 02:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At what point should you create a separate category for sportspeople? Is there some kind of quota that needs to be reached? Ethan | talk. 03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as part of multiple hierarchies. I looked through dozens of pages about Botswana sportspeople; most do not currently state the place of birth/origin, but there must be scope to expand this category if somebody who knows the Botswanan media does some work to expand the articles. – FayenaticLondon 18:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just recreate the category if a need arises.--TM 20:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point; although there are lots of pages for sportspeople from the country, there are only a few for all people from the city, so it would not be hard to start again from the latter. I suppose removing the contents from the category hierarchy for sportspeople by city is not a great loss. – FayenaticLondon 21:54, 28 July 2012 (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:St. Mary of the Lake Seminary alumni[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.
Nominator's rationale: St. Mary of the Lake Seminary was renamed to University of Saint Mary of the Lake in 1986 (after having originally used the latter name from 1844 to 1866). These are the same school simply renamed, and therefore are categorised, per WP:CONSENSUS, at the most recent name. The BushrangerOne ping only 00:42, 23 July 2012 (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.
