September 20
Sinn Féin MPs
- 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 rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale American readers might think that an MP is a military policeman. Some might agree that the organisation has, in the past, been correctly described as such. Nevertheless, it stands for "member of parliament" - the UK parliament to be precise. Also, to facilitate the splitting of the category into those MPs elected before the creation of the Irish Free State and those elected afterwards, including the current batch. See discussion here and the decision at Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party that facilitated this nomination. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose All subcats of Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party use "MP"s, and it will take more than a handful of people at Category talk:Sinn Féin MPs to change that]]. The 2nd link leads to no "decision", just the category - was this the intended target? I see the old-UK/new-UK issue, but not how this will help with it. Johnbod ( talk) 03:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Link to decision of Sept 9
here
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @
Johnbod: If the other political parties are also incorrect, per the nomination rationale, then they too can be the subject of future nominations. If they are not wrong, please state your rationale for them being not wrong, as opposed to them being numerically greater.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The issues were somewhat different at the other discussion. By the way, several people there seemed unaware that (unusually perhaps) there has never been a citizenship requirement for MPs, and citizens of many counties have been MPs. Last century an American only took up British citizenship when he joined the cabinet, & even then nobody had asked him to. You haven't explained how this will help with the old-UK/new-UK question.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that any other state is concerned with dividing its citizens membership of the parliament of another sovereign state into pre independence / post independence categories. The concern is confined to Ireland I think. So I don't foresee a massive proliferation of copycat categories in other commonwealth countries. Does this address your concern? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The issues were somewhat different at the other discussion. By the way, several people there seemed unaware that (unusually perhaps) there has never been a citizenship requirement for MPs, and citizens of many counties have been MPs. Last century an American only took up British citizenship when he joined the cabinet, & even then nobody had asked him to. You haven't explained how this will help with the old-UK/new-UK question.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Link to decision of Sept 9
here
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – we have been through this many times. The decision of 9 Sept 2015 has a completely different rationale and also contains the remark that Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party is a container category, whereas Category:Sinn Féin MPs is not. Oculi ( talk) 10:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @ Oculi: If you'd read the discussion, you'd see that the effect of the current proposal would be to transform this category into a container category. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This is a subject that we have been over many times. Unusually, we allow (indeed encourage) the use of the abbreviation "MPs" in categories, because many of them have a lot of MP categories, one for each Parliament in which he sat and a few more. Container categories should have the description in full, but those with articles should use the common abbreviation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Snappy ( talk) 18:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:Peterkingiron Eustachiusz ( talk) 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Further comment -- I would not oppose this if we were dealing with a container category; but we are not. The people involved will also be in a category for each Parliament, e.g. UK MPs 2005-10 or UK MPs 2010-15. There is also a wider issue: I think this category is strictly dealing with Provisional Sinn Fein; not Official Sinn Fein, which was taken over by the communists in the 1960 and may well now be defunct; not the pre-1920 early Sinn Fein, which campaigned for Home Rule and ultimately for a Republic, from 1880s to 1910s. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reply to container issue None of the "By party" categories is a child of the UK MPs 2005-10 / UK MPs 2010-15 etc categories. These latter categories are only populated by individuals. In which case I don't see how a problem arises. The category in its renamed form would become a container vehicle for the sub-categories that were mentioned in the discussion. That is, the individuals would be allocated to one of those sub-categories leaving this nominated category empty, apart from the proposed sub-categories. Isn't that what a container category looks like? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reply to wider issue I'm not aware of the Officials getting any of their members elected to Westminster. Are you? So effectively the post-1921 SF MPs are all Provisionals. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Presenter women wearing hijab
- 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) 03:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF and generally odd criterion. Brandmeister talk 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete As being non-defining and due to BLP issues too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Hijab-wearing female presenters. Only kidding. Delete of course. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete non defining per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete We have many categories about clothes, but we don't categorize people by their fashion choices. Dimadick ( talk) 17:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Electors of Baden
- 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:
Relisted at
2015 OCT 2 CFD.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 01:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete as a pointless category since Baden existed as an electorate for only three years, from 1803 to 1806. Before 1803 Baden was a margraviate, while after ending the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Baden became a grand duchy. Likewise for Württemberg which became an electorate in 1803 and a kingdom in 1806. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support If there was a government of Baden category I'd say upmerge. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- keep as part of a set found in Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. No valid reason to delete. Hmains ( talk) 01:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete or Cat-redirect to the succeeding kingdom or Grand Duchy. Single member categories are really rather pointless. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- keep as part of a set of categories. Dimadick ( talk) 17:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Dukes of Baden
- 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) 01:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the dukes appear to be grand dukes and are in Category:Grand Dukes of Baden already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- obviously redundant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatively cat-redirect to the Grand Dukes category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- keep as part of a series or set, namely Category:Dukes of Germany Hmains ( talk) 01:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- They should become part of a different set, Category:Grand Dukes of Germany. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Likewise counts are just dukes of a county. It is a matter of status, dukes have more status than counts, grand dukes have more status than dukes, i.e. are not equal to each other. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:History of Westphalia
- 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) 02:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:History of Westphalia to Category:History of North Rhine-Westphalia
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge because virtually none of the articles refer to either the Duchy of Westphalia or the Kingdom of Westphalia or the Province of Westphalia. If not upmerged, then split by the three polities (because there is no continuity in them except for the name), but having said that it's pretty likely that there is not enough content about either of these polities to justify a category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge -- I think the best way to parent German historical categories will be by the present lander. The complications of German polities mean that we can hardly have categories for everything. The alternative would be to have a category for each imperial kreiss, but they are not obviously very significant institutions. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Province of Westphalia
- 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) 02:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, the name of the category suggests it is about history (check with Province of Westphalia), but the content is just current German cities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Populated places in the Province of Westphalia. This was a Prussian province in the west of Germany from 1815, and lasting about 130 years. This is a long enough period to make it worth having a category for. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that in this earlier discussion it was thought to be undesirable to fill up a history category with current geographic items. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Question Are there 5+ articles that are exclusively or mostly about that time frame?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Only the eponymous article. The remainder are general geography articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Question Are there 5+ articles that are exclusively or mostly about that time frame?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete One legitimate article in the category doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:1978 establishments in Namibia
- 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. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 19:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:1978 establishments in Namibia to Category:1978 establishments in South-West Africa
- Propose merging Category:1985 establishments in Namibia to Category:1985 establishments in South-West Africa
- Propose renaming Category:1987 establishments in Namibia to Category:1987 establishments in South-West Africa
- Nominator's rationale: Following this discussion, South-West Africa was the entity representing this area under the German Empire and remained the proper entity until 1990 when Namibia declared independence. Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, proposal keeps things consistent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- That applies the convention. However, the parent should remain a Namibia one, back to the start of German rule, since the area governed was precisely the same. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - per nom GreyShark ( dibra) 19:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
September 20
Sinn Féin MPs
- 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 rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale American readers might think that an MP is a military policeman. Some might agree that the organisation has, in the past, been correctly described as such. Nevertheless, it stands for "member of parliament" - the UK parliament to be precise. Also, to facilitate the splitting of the category into those MPs elected before the creation of the Irish Free State and those elected afterwards, including the current batch. See discussion here and the decision at Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party that facilitated this nomination. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose All subcats of Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party use "MP"s, and it will take more than a handful of people at Category talk:Sinn Féin MPs to change that]]. The 2nd link leads to no "decision", just the category - was this the intended target? I see the old-UK/new-UK issue, but not how this will help with it. Johnbod ( talk) 03:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Link to decision of Sept 9
here
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @
Johnbod: If the other political parties are also incorrect, per the nomination rationale, then they too can be the subject of future nominations. If they are not wrong, please state your rationale for them being not wrong, as opposed to them being numerically greater.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The issues were somewhat different at the other discussion. By the way, several people there seemed unaware that (unusually perhaps) there has never been a citizenship requirement for MPs, and citizens of many counties have been MPs. Last century an American only took up British citizenship when he joined the cabinet, & even then nobody had asked him to. You haven't explained how this will help with the old-UK/new-UK question.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that any other state is concerned with dividing its citizens membership of the parliament of another sovereign state into pre independence / post independence categories. The concern is confined to Ireland I think. So I don't foresee a massive proliferation of copycat categories in other commonwealth countries. Does this address your concern? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The issues were somewhat different at the other discussion. By the way, several people there seemed unaware that (unusually perhaps) there has never been a citizenship requirement for MPs, and citizens of many counties have been MPs. Last century an American only took up British citizenship when he joined the cabinet, & even then nobody had asked him to. You haven't explained how this will help with the old-UK/new-UK question.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Link to decision of Sept 9
here
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – we have been through this many times. The decision of 9 Sept 2015 has a completely different rationale and also contains the remark that Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party is a container category, whereas Category:Sinn Féin MPs is not. Oculi ( talk) 10:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @ Oculi: If you'd read the discussion, you'd see that the effect of the current proposal would be to transform this category into a container category. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This is a subject that we have been over many times. Unusually, we allow (indeed encourage) the use of the abbreviation "MPs" in categories, because many of them have a lot of MP categories, one for each Parliament in which he sat and a few more. Container categories should have the description in full, but those with articles should use the common abbreviation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Snappy ( talk) 18:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:Peterkingiron Eustachiusz ( talk) 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Further comment -- I would not oppose this if we were dealing with a container category; but we are not. The people involved will also be in a category for each Parliament, e.g. UK MPs 2005-10 or UK MPs 2010-15. There is also a wider issue: I think this category is strictly dealing with Provisional Sinn Fein; not Official Sinn Fein, which was taken over by the communists in the 1960 and may well now be defunct; not the pre-1920 early Sinn Fein, which campaigned for Home Rule and ultimately for a Republic, from 1880s to 1910s. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reply to container issue None of the "By party" categories is a child of the UK MPs 2005-10 / UK MPs 2010-15 etc categories. These latter categories are only populated by individuals. In which case I don't see how a problem arises. The category in its renamed form would become a container vehicle for the sub-categories that were mentioned in the discussion. That is, the individuals would be allocated to one of those sub-categories leaving this nominated category empty, apart from the proposed sub-categories. Isn't that what a container category looks like? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reply to wider issue I'm not aware of the Officials getting any of their members elected to Westminster. Are you? So effectively the post-1921 SF MPs are all Provisionals. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Presenter women wearing hijab
- 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) 03:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF and generally odd criterion. Brandmeister talk 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete As being non-defining and due to BLP issues too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Hijab-wearing female presenters. Only kidding. Delete of course. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete non defining per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete We have many categories about clothes, but we don't categorize people by their fashion choices. Dimadick ( talk) 17:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Electors of Baden
- 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: Relisted at
2015 OCT 2 CFD.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 01:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete as a pointless category since Baden existed as an electorate for only three years, from 1803 to 1806. Before 1803 Baden was a margraviate, while after ending the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Baden became a grand duchy. Likewise for Württemberg which became an electorate in 1803 and a kingdom in 1806. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support If there was a government of Baden category I'd say upmerge. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- keep as part of a set found in Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. No valid reason to delete. Hmains ( talk) 01:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete or Cat-redirect to the succeeding kingdom or Grand Duchy. Single member categories are really rather pointless. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- keep as part of a set of categories. Dimadick ( talk) 17:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Dukes of Baden
- 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) 01:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the dukes appear to be grand dukes and are in Category:Grand Dukes of Baden already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- obviously redundant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatively cat-redirect to the Grand Dukes category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- keep as part of a series or set, namely Category:Dukes of Germany Hmains ( talk) 01:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- They should become part of a different set, Category:Grand Dukes of Germany. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Likewise counts are just dukes of a county. It is a matter of status, dukes have more status than counts, grand dukes have more status than dukes, i.e. are not equal to each other. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:History of Westphalia
- 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) 02:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:History of Westphalia to Category:History of North Rhine-Westphalia
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge because virtually none of the articles refer to either the Duchy of Westphalia or the Kingdom of Westphalia or the Province of Westphalia. If not upmerged, then split by the three polities (because there is no continuity in them except for the name), but having said that it's pretty likely that there is not enough content about either of these polities to justify a category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge -- I think the best way to parent German historical categories will be by the present lander. The complications of German polities mean that we can hardly have categories for everything. The alternative would be to have a category for each imperial kreiss, but they are not obviously very significant institutions. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Province of Westphalia
- 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) 02:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, the name of the category suggests it is about history (check with Province of Westphalia), but the content is just current German cities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Populated places in the Province of Westphalia. This was a Prussian province in the west of Germany from 1815, and lasting about 130 years. This is a long enough period to make it worth having a category for. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that in this earlier discussion it was thought to be undesirable to fill up a history category with current geographic items. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Question Are there 5+ articles that are exclusively or mostly about that time frame?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Only the eponymous article. The remainder are general geography articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Question Are there 5+ articles that are exclusively or mostly about that time frame?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete One legitimate article in the category doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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:1978 establishments in Namibia
- 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. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 19:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:1978 establishments in Namibia to Category:1978 establishments in South-West Africa
- Propose merging Category:1985 establishments in Namibia to Category:1985 establishments in South-West Africa
- Propose renaming Category:1987 establishments in Namibia to Category:1987 establishments in South-West Africa
- Nominator's rationale: Following this discussion, South-West Africa was the entity representing this area under the German Empire and remained the proper entity until 1990 when Namibia declared independence. Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, proposal keeps things consistent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- That applies the convention. However, the parent should remain a Namibia one, back to the start of German rule, since the area governed was precisely the same. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - per nom GreyShark ( dibra) 19:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.