Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 19



Category:1920 establishments in Northern Ireland

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1920 establishments in Northern Ireland to Category:1920 establishments in Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale: The partition of Ireland didn't take place till 1921. So Northern Ireland didn't yet exist. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - actually both Category:1920 establishments in Northern Ireland and Category:1920 establishments in Ireland should be renamed to Category:1920 establishments in British Ireland (or alternatively merged into Category:1920 in the United Kingdom), since until 1921 all of Ireland was a part of the British Empire. Ireland as a state didn't have a meaning in 1920.GreyShark (dibra) 09:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- In 1920, Ireland was a united island within UK. We have categories for England, Scotland, and Wales for many purposes.  After 1922, we should have Northern  Ireland and Republic of Ireland categories.  Before partition (and for those matters that continued to operate on an all-Ireland basis, we should have an Ireland category.  This includes such diverse things as Trades Unions and horse-racing.  This is a well-established rule.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Peterkingiron Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:03, 22 August 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:Szatmár County

 * 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) 00:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting szatmár county


 * Propose deleting people from szatmár county


 * Nominator's rationale: A user has created categories like these two for nearly all the Counties of the Kingdom of Hungary. Not being inclined to list over 110 categories for deletion, I've brought this pair as a test case. If the discussion results in a deletion, we can see about a mass nomination.
 * Anyway, these counties have not existed for a very long time. At the end of World War I, most of the Kingdom of Hungary was absorbed by Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia, and the counties stopped existing in any form by the mid-1920s at the latest, when these three states carried out wholesale administrative reforms. In Hungary itself, they lingered on, sometimes with altered or merged boundaries, as late as 1950, but the point is that they have been defunct everywhere for decades. And that is the main reason these should be deleted: we do not, as a matter of course, classify places or people by former subdivision. We do not, for instance, have subcategories for Category:Districts of East Germany – we do not classify places in present-day Germany by their East German district, nor do we categorize people born in East Germany between 1952 and 1990 according to these districts. Towns in southern Maine are not categorized based on their belonging to York County, Massachusetts until 1820, and neither are natives of that region assigned such a category, even if they lived there prior to its disestablishment. Categories pertaining to Danish places are correlated to the regions of Denmark extant until 2007, not the prior counties of Denmark; same goes for people. I could go on, but the point should be clear.
 * For Austria-Hungary, there already exist relevant categories such as Category:Austro-Hungarian people by ethnic or national origin or Category:Austro-Hungarian people by occupation. Defunct county of birth is not a defining characteristic. For places, I support enhancing the lists of places at the county articles (say, Szatmár County), but categorizing by long-dead counties isn't done. Moreover, there is always the possibility of a slippery slope. For instance, Timișoara, now placed in Category:Temes County, was also once the capital of Temeşvar Eyalet, a subdivision of the Ottoman Empire. Orăștie, now in Category:Hunyad County, is very near the capitals of the Dacian Kingdom and of Roman Dacia, the latter a subdivision of the Roman Empire. Where does it end?
 * In conclusion, I hope these are coherent arguments for deletion and that we can begin to get rid of this whole series of categories. - Biruitorul Talk 02:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support deleting Category:Szatmár County per current content. A historical category shouldn't be filled with geography articles. I wouldn't mind the category's existence if it were filled with history articles about this county, but that's not the case now. Support deleting Category:People from Szatmár County per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both – this appears to be OR. Baia Mare, quite a long article, does not include the phrase 'Szat' anywhere in the text. Oculi (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It is useful to have places categorised by former administrative units. Yes it was abolished in the 1920s, as a result of the post WWI treaties, but the county had existed for many hundreds of years before that: the infobox says from 11th cnetury.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Both If these articles were about that time frame (or even roughly) this would be useful. Categorizing articles that generally don't even mention this county doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge into contemporary categories (the ones they were split from), as per nom. While these categories serve a sentimental purpose, they are only confusing and create an unmanageable precedent. Dahn (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete places by former administrative subdivisions is unworkable..in how many categories must every town be placed, especially when borders, international and internal, change with such frequency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 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.