mic_none

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 6 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_6

< December 5 December 7 >

December 6

[edit]

Foreign relations of Ireland

[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to match the head article Foreign relations of Ireland, recently renamed from Foreign relations of the Republic of IrelandForeign relations of the Republic of Ireland per an unoposed WP:RM discusison at Talk:Foreign relations of Ireland#Requested_move_18_November_2018.
The use of plain "Ireland" in this case fits with the long-standing guidance at WP:IRE-IRL, which was developed in 2009 after many months of intense debate to reconcile two strongly-opposing viewpoints, and has remained stable in the 9 years since then. Basically, the name of the state is plain "Ireland", but WP:IRE-IRL requires the use of "Republic of Ireland" in cases where there is ambiguity.
However, there is no ambiguity here because Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state and therefore does not conduct international relations. So there is no article Foreign relations of Northern Ireland or Bilateral relations of Northern Ireland, and no Category:Foreign relations of Northern Ireland or Category:Bilateral relations of Northern Ireland and no Category:Ambassadors of Northern Ireland/Category:Ambassadors to Northern Ireland etc.
As I noted at the RM discusison, the country is known in international relations by its constitutional name "Ireland", rather than by the description "Republic of Ireland": the United Nations and the European Union (EU) both use "Ireland", as does the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Universal Postal Union (UPU), etc etc.
Following the article renaming, this category renaming was listed[1] at WP:CFDS for speedy renaming per WP:C2D, but was opposed by @Oculi who noted that this would cause a discrepancy with the parent Category:Politics of Ireland.
However, that is based on the opposer's apparent lack of awareness both of WP:IRE-IRL and of the rest of the category tree.
The subcats which are unambiguous already use the plain "Ireland". See e.g. Category:Ireland and the European Union, Category:Ireland and the United Nations, Category:Ambassadors of Ireland+50 subcats, Category:Ambassadors to Ireland+49 subcats, Category:Treaties of Ireland, and 127 subcats of Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of Ireland. I used WP:AWB to check Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland to a depth of 4 subcats. That found a total of 1375 subcats, of which 533 contain the whole word "Ireland" ... and only 41 of those contain the phrase "Republic of Ireland".
Irish editors north and south have conscientiously upheld WP:IRE-IRL even when it produces results which they dislike, because it is a formualtion which overall produces the results most acceptable to both nationalist and unionists on the island of Ireland. Its adoption has not only improved collaboration between editors from both sides of the Irish border, but also ensured that our article names are free from external controversy. Please can CFD uphold that stable consensus and apply it in this case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 7 December 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discusison at CFDS
CFD shouldn't make policy on the hoof: we have have here a naming convention agreed by a long process involving a huge number of editors, which has been stable for 9 years. We have speedy criteria C2D and C2C.
Northern Ireland's external affairs are conducted by the United Kingdom, so it does not have its own foreign policy. That's why there is no article Foreign relations of Northern Ireland and no Category:Foreign relations of Northern Ireland. so there is no ambiguity.
We have 127 sub-categories of Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of Ireland, all of which use plain "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland", and AFAIK there has been no suggestions anywhere that any of them creates any ambiguity.
Your analogies with "Great Britain" and "Hispañola" are misplaced in several ways. This is a proposal to name the categories in accordance with the actual name of the state, which is the name used in all its international relations and memberships of international inter-governmental organisations. Your examples (one hypothetical) are of entities which do not conduct international relations under any name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is Ireland about the island and not the country? If WP uses the most common usage for titles, surely it speaks volumes that WP regards that what people think of when they hear "Ireland" is the whole island, not the nation-state in the south. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: please do read WP:IRE-IRL. The guidance is very clear, and it is disappointing to see an experienced editor like yourself making repeated contributions without any sign of having read it.
The reason that the article Ireland is about the island and not the country is that in many contexts, the bare word "Ireland" is ambiguous between the island and the state. Phrase such "a school in Ireland" or "Sean lived in Ireland" or "sport in Ireland" could refer to anywhere in the island. However, islands to do not conduct foreign relations; only states do that. So phrases such as "foreign relations of Ireland" or "Ambassador of Ireland to X", "Ambassador of X to Ireland" or "Ireland–Z relations" are unambiguous.
If Northern Ireland was an independent state conducting its own foreign relations, then those phrases would be ambiguous. But it is not an independent state, and the only organised political group which entertained the idea was short-lived and utterly marginal.
This issue of disambiguation being needed only in some contexts a very common issue. For example we have Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States), because without context both are massively ambiguous. However, in many contexts there is no ambiguity, so we don't include the disambiguator in many categories such as Category:Democratic Party Presidents of the United States, Category:Republican Party members of the United States House of Representatives, Category:Oregon Democrats, Category:Cuban-American Republicans or in articles such as List of Democrats who opposed the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.
Similarly we have Category:Sailors/Category:Sailors (sport) to distinguish sportspeople from fishermen, naval personnel, merchant seamen etc. But when we get down to more specific cats, we have Category:Olympic sailors/Category:Volvo Ocean Race sailors etc, because the context of a sporting event makes the disambiguator un-needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that you are treating the WP:IRE-IRL guideline like one of the 10 commandments. It is not to be followed blindly, but some thought needs to be applied. I have applied thought and disagree with your proposal; no need to get testy or nasty about my unwillingness to agree to your proposal. Your argument above does not convince me. I have thought of another analogy of a country name being a subset of a geographical one: America. Which redirects to United States, the title of the article. The analogous categories are all like Category:Foreign relations of the United States, where Category:Foreign relations of America would be, under your analysis, unambiguous because the continent(s) ha(s/ve) no foreign relations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: do you agree that "Foreign relations of Ireland" is unambiguous? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: after the independence of the south, yes. Are you saying Ireland (however defined) had no foreign relations prior thereto? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: Indeed I am. Brief history summary:
  • Ireland was ruled by England before independence, and as such conducted no foreign relations in the colonial era. The Lordship of Ireland (1177–1542) and the Kingdom of Ireland (1542–1800) were both only nominal states wholly subservient to England, and before 1177 a) Ireland was not a unified political entity, and b) the modern concept of foreign relations was barely applicable to any country.
  • From 1801 to the partition of Ireland in 1921, the whole island was at least nominally an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and as such conducted no foreign relations. In practice, Irish governance 1801–1922 combined some features of integration (such as sending MPs to Westminster) with some features of colonial rule (it was in practice governed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was usually English) ... but the Chief Secretary's British administration in Dublin Castle had no role in foreign relations.
Irish foreign relations began in 1919 with the establishment of the First Dáil, which appointed Count Plunkett as its first Minister of Foreign Affairs on 21 January 1919. The legitimacy (or otherwise) of that post in the 1919–22 revolutionary era depends on whether one takes a British or Irish constitutional perspective, but either way these were foreign relations conducted under the authority of Dáil Éireann, as has also been the case since agreed independence with the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922.
Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I get the history, but if we take the position that a dependent country can have no foreign relations why do we have things like Category:Foreign relations of Puerto Rico. Category:Foreign relations by country seems to contain only extant country categories – i.e., it doesn't contain Category:Foreign relations of the Soviet Union, Category:Foreign relations of Yugoslavia, which were only disestablished recently; much less Category:Foreign relations of ancient Rome, etc. If ambiguity is be all and end all, then the same argument could support changing the "Republic of Macedonia" names to "Macedonia". Needless to say, I don't see wisdom in that sort of logic; I still don't buy it; sorry. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: I think we are drifting off-point here, but Category:Foreign relations of the Soviet Union and Category:Foreign relations of Yugoslavia are in Category:Foreign relations by former country, which is a subcat of Category:Foreign relations by country. I don't see any surprise in that.
Please note that I explicitly do not argue that, as you put it ambiguity is be all and end all. That's your position, not mine. On the contrary, I am arguing for the use of the actual name of the country as used in international relations and as defined in en.wp's naming convention WP:IRE-IRL. Ambiguity might arguably be a reason to diverge from that, but there is no evidence of ambiguity here.
There is a very good reason that Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia uses the term "Republic of Macedonia". It's because that is how the country is known in international relations. The country's own foreign ministry explicitly labels itself as Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a similar label ("Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") is used by the UN[5] and the EU[6].
Likewise, you mentioned our use of Category:Foreign relations of the United States rather than Category:Foreign relations of America. Again that's because the country is consistently known in international relations as the "United States or the "United states of America". See e.g.[7], [8], [9]
As to Puerto Rico ... Puerto Rico is not Northern Ireland. Its constitutional status is different, and per Foreign and intergovernmental relations of Puerto Rico it is given some scope to conduct its own foreign relations. Northern Ireland does not have such scope, and you have advanced no evidence to suggest that it has.
You seem to have misunderstood both the names used for other countries, and the WP:IRE-IRL guidance, which is to disambiguate the official name only where needed. AFAICS we agree that a) Ireland is recognised in international relations as "Ireland"; b) there is no ambiguity in the term "Ireland" in international relations; c) the naming guideline WP:IRE-IRL supports use of the undisambiguated term.
So I am really puzzled why you insist on opposing this renaming. I see no point of fact or of en.wp policy which supports your view, and am disappointed that some of this was based on your apparent misunderstanding of Irish history, and that several of the points you made (e.g. about Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union) derived from simply not checking parent categories. It's a not a very productive approach, and seems to me to be simply increasing the burden on a closer who will be obliged to read it all but can attach little weight to this erratic succession of counterfactuals, research glitches and misplaced analogies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Because the representatives of the Dublin government do not speak for Northern Ireland, whose foreign relations are dealt with by the London government, with minor exceptions such as north-south relations. Even historically, before partition, Ireland had no separate foreign relations. Diplomatic relations of UK (1801-1921), GB and Ireland (1707-1801), and England and Ireland (pre-1707) are conducted by the British crown from London or wherever the monarch was. Neither the Lord Lieutenant nor Chief Secretary in Ireland conducted any foreign affairs. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely true that, as you say the representatives of the Dublin government do not speak for Northern Ireland, whose foreign relations are dealt with by the London government. Equally, it is entirely true that Ireland did not conduct foreign relations before 1918.
@BrownHairedGirl: Actually, if you want to go that way, the country of Ireland has always considered inhabitants of the North to be its citizens (see Chen v Home Secretary), and the Irish seeking French alliance in events such as those of 1796 or 1798, among others, very much classify as foreign relations held before 1918, so the statements above are only half right. (Pouring gasoline on the fire, I know...) Place Clichy (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore in international relations the only entity called Ireland is the state of that name, conducted by the Department of Foreign Affairs of Ireland. That's why, as noted above, the unqualified name "Ireland" is used in every international and supranational inter-governmental organisation, and why ambassadors to and from Ireland are Ambassadors to and from the state's constitutional name: Ireland.
The stable consensus is the long-standing guidance at WP:IRE-IRL, which is to use the term Ireland except where there is ambiguity. In this case there is no ambiguity, as yourself acknowledge.
The head article has already been moved without opposition, in accordance with the policy. I therefore see absolutely no basis in either policy or guideline for your opposition to this correction of the category title.
Since the 1960s, only the UK has ever used the term "Republic of Ireland" in international relations (source: Daly, Mary E. "A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1". The Journal of British Studies. Journals.uchicago.edu. 46: 72–90. doi:10.1086/508399.) The UK govt itself abandoned that usage in 2000, and now correctly refers to the state as "Ireland." (see Names of the Irish state#Distinguishing_the_state_from_the_island)
Irish editors north and south have upheld the WP:IRE-IRL guideline even when it produces uncomfortable results. It is very sad therefore to see a British editor arguing for the use of a long-since-abandoned piece of British govt misnaming, without any supporting basis in fact, policy or guideline. Editors should not use CFD as a vehicle to pursue their own political agendas, and I struggle to how Peterkingiron's opposition has any other basis.
In this case there is no ambiguity, and common usage in international relations aligns with the official name "Ireland", so every piece of en.wp policy supports renaming this category to match its head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:IRE-IRL, the use in current scholarly literature, and current political practice including that of the United Kingdom. We have a scholarly journal titled Irish Studies in International Affairs published since 1977, ISSN 0332-1460, with a section Irish Foreign Policy and annual reviews that are titled Ireland's Foreign Relations in 2012 (JSTOR 42912427). Likewise British journals such as International Affairs of Oxford University Press published an article titled The Soviet Union in Irish Foreign Policy JSTOR 2617981. Or the journal Nordic Irish Studies, published in Sweden, published an article titled The Back to the Future? Ireland at the UN Security Council, 2001–2002 (JSTOR 30001541). Articles have been written about this question, for example, The Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country be Any Other Name”? by Mary E. Daly (doi:10.1086/508399). The author compares this question to those of China/Taiwan or Macedonia/FYRM and tells that “Britain’s refusal to use the constitutional title of the state, which had formerly been part of the United Kingdom, and its efforts to persuade other nations to adopt a similar practice, can be interpreted as an effort to exercise a residual authority over an independent Ireland.” However, according to the same article, “by the mid 1969s, Britain was the only country not to refer to the state as Ireland.” However, even this has been changed due to the Good Friday Agreement. Since 2000 the Diplomatic List issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office refers to “Ireland” (before it refered to the ”Republic of Ireland”) and “the credentials presented by the British ambassador, Stewart Eldon, in 2003, were addressed to the President of Ireland“. It is time to accept this here as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is not a perverse vote (contrary to claim of BHG, who did much to fix past confusion). We have a long-established convention that we use "Ireland" for the whole island, including institutions that still operate on both sides of the border and pre-partition topics, but RoI and NI for post-partition issues. RoI long purported to be a de jure government for the whole of Ireland, but it has zero de facto control in the north. No doubt people will use "Ireland" as shorthand for RoI, but WP should seek to be precise. This is a substantial part of the reason why the BREXIT treaty is having such difficulty in getting ratified by the British Parliament. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have never before issued a comment regarding your vote and in particular I did not characterize your vote as “perverse”. Your comment does in no way consider any of the arguments I have put forward in consideration of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. Much as we do not cite ourselves, we should focus on how this question is considered by reliable sources and not on assumed conventions or personal opinions. Nor is it helpful to associate this question with any current Brexit grievances. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Either you have not read the nomination and you have not read the naming guideline WP:IRE-IRL and you have not read my reply to you above ... or you are simply being intentionally perverse.
  1. Peterkingiron asserts No doubt people will use "Ireland" as shorthand for RoI. That is simply demonstrably false.
    "Ireland" is not a shorthand form of the "Republic of Ireland", and never has been. Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, as enacted in 1937 and still in force without amendment says The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
    That is clear and unambiguous.
    Petekingiron appears to belive that the official name of the state is "Republic of Ireland". That is not true, and never has been true. It is a falsehood commonly believed in England, where Ireland Act 1949 §1(3) falsely asserts that the name of the state is the "Republic of Ireland". As both I and @AFBorchert both noted above, this no more nor less than a British attempt to impose on a foreign state a name other than that state uses. Shamefully, Peterkingiron persists in this long after the UK govt abandoned the practice.
  2. Peterkingiron asserts We have a long-established convention that we use "Ireland" for the whole island [snip]] but RoI and NI for post-partition issues.
    That too is demonstrably false. As I noted both in my nomination and in my reply above to Peterkingiron, the naming guidance is at WP:IRE-IRL, which provides that we use "Ireland" for the 26-county state, except where that would be ambiguous: "Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context." As Peterkingiron himself noted, neither the island no Northern Ireland conduct international relations, so there is no ambiguity.
I used to have great respect for Peterkingiron, but in this case his persistent refusal to acknowledge either fact or en.wp policy is shocking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: Your asertion that Wikipedia:IRE-CATS advocates 'Republic' throughout Category:Republic of Ireland is demonstrably false. I note that you do not quote the actual text of WP:IRE-CATS, which says "4) The categories titled Category:Foo of Ireland are usually reserved for articles that are island-wide in scope, cover organizations/entities/etc that are All-Ireland/32 county/etc, or if the category is historical in nature.".
Note that word "usually". It is crucial, because it indicates that this is a general principle rather than a hard rule, and that there will be exceptions. And indeed, there are over a thousand exceptions: categories which relate only to the 26-county state but where there is no ambiguity, including:
So Oculi's misrepresentation of the WP:IRE-CATS defies actual practice, as well as the actual words of the guideline.
Furthermore, IRE-CATS was drafted as a subsidiary guidance to clarify the application of WP:IRE-IRL in respect of categories. WP:IRE-IRL is the guidance which was produced by the massive arbcom-mandated discussion exercise in 2009 (see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration), and which has remained staable since. The derivative guidance on categories should not deviate from the core principle agreed in that massive colaboration exercise, which is to disambiguate only when needed.
Your statement that ((tq|it is not generally known that Northern Ireland has no foreign relations}} is irrelevant, because there are no topics which could be placed in a "Foreign relations of Northern Ireland" category. Norniron does not accept ambassadors or send ambassadors, nor does it have membership of inbternational organisations. Just like County Carlow or County Antrim, foreign relations are conducted at a higher level -- in Norniron's case, by the United Kingdom. So the fact that some readers and.or editors are unaware of reality has no bearing on our decision.
What is highly relevant here is WP:NPOV, a core policy of Wikipedia. As noted above[10] by @AFBorchert, the use of the term "Republic Of Ireland" to describe the country in international relations has a long history as a deliberate attempt by the United Kingdom to impose upon Ireland a name not used either by Ireland or by third countries. As noted above, it is nearly 20 years since the United Kingdom itself abandoned that practice, and over 50 years since every other country abandoned it. I have been unable to identify any international organisation which used it.
So it is deeply disappointing to see that in this discussion, we have a few editors effectively pursuing a long-abandoned partisan policy of the UK govt, which was never folowed by any country outside the British Comonwealth. I AGF that those editors do not intend to promote a UK POV, but in practice that is what they are doing because a) no en.wp polcy or guideline supports their stance, and b) there is precisely zero evidence to support the use of their preferred title in actual international relations. They are trying to impose a defunct UKgov policy in place of the usage by the EU, UN, IMF, OECD, World Bank, and every single country which has bilteral relations with Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Northern Ireland does not have foreign relations. There is no ambiguity with the proposed names that they refer to Ireland (the country) and not Ireland (the island). And even if the North had foreign relations, it would not make sense to have a mother category for Foreign/bilateral relations of Ireland (the island) diffused in Foreign/bilateral relations of the Republic of Ireland and Foreign/bilateral relations of Northern Ireland, because A plus B does not equal C here : islands do not have foreign relations, and the sum of the foreign policies of two different countries is not the foreign policy of a third (think Hispaniola island, Haiti and the Dominican Republic as a parallel). Therefore, Foreign/bilateral relations of Ireland only refers to the country, without any ambiguity, as in the main namespace. Place Clichy (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2018 (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:Authors edited by Ursula Nordstrom

[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. If "Books edited by Ursula Nordstrom" would be helpful, it can't be populated with authors, who are the current contents of the nominated category, so renaming this category would not be appropriate. – Fayenatic London 12:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. Authors hardly ever work with just one single editor throughout their entire careers, so they aren't defined by each individual editor they've worked with. A category might be acceptable for books edited by Ursula Nordstrom, but a category for writers who've worked with her is not appropriate or defining. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category Creator's thoughts: Excellent suggestion to rename to "Books edited by Ursula Nordstrom", Bearcat! At the time I proposed the category, I had a passion for expanding "authors edited by" that I have not followed up on. I don't have the data to back me up at the moment, but while I agree that writers today work with any editors, my hunch is that authors who worked with Ursula really did stick with her for the majority of their career. I hope to find backup in the book Dear Genius: The Letters of Ursula Nordstrom I am still very new to wiki and probably made an error in this post, which I will try to correct if I did! Gabribal (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2018 (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:Oriya politicians

[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. The category is already empty. @Fylindfotberserk: in future please propose a discussion without emptying a category, so that editors can judge for themselves whether there is anything WP:defining about the current usage. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only had 4 entries. I linked all of those articles to another redundant but bigger category Category:Odisha politicians - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2018 (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:Former subdivisions of the Republic of Italy

[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of more specific category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the whole premise of this is flawed. The Republic of Italy and the Kingdom of Italy are the same country in adjacent eras, with almost identical borders. We don't need to categorise them separately, except for a few issues relating to the political regimes. Per WP:CAT, categories are a navigational tool. Adding this sort of theological complexity to the category structure does nothing to assist navigation. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite identical: remember Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Albania etc, all in the Kingdom, not the Republic.Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: AIUI, Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Albania were territories of the Italian Empire, rather than parts of the Kingdom of Italy itself. This is similar to the practice of the British Empire; its overseas colonies were not part of the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 10 December 2018 (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.