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: This is not how we normally categorize academic institutions and appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic - manyarticles in the category have no mention of Calcutta in the text. This could work as a list - in fact a list would be much better as it could explain when and why each institution is no longer affiliated, but it would be better to create any such list directly from WP:RSs rather than from the current contents of this category. DexDor(talk)21:23, 22 February 2016 (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.
Guessing, if it is on the basis of current usage no longer being as a hunting lodge, there are a lot of mills, factories, churches, schools, not to say castles, in this encyclopedia that would be thus mis-categorised on the basis of no longer being in use for their earlier function. Per above, I was quite conservative in leaving out several buildings whose origins were as hunting lodges but where the structure has changed very significantly since they were put to that use, although I think there may be a case to add these too. I also left out some on shooting estates which are termed lodges but where it was unclear as to whether they were specifically hunting lodges. Having re-checked the list, the only one that I think may possibly be left out in the more conservative definition is Cadzow Castle. In any case, the cat is apparently sufficiently large to be sustainable and there are many hunting lodges in Scotland not currently covered by an article or section thereof that conceivably could be.
Oppose -- I accept that I suggested this in the discussion of the Wales category, but both the targets here seem to have adequate content. I suspect that some of the Scottish cases were built so that the men could have a hunting holiday, but their womenfolk merely had a holiday. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well-spotted; I hadn't clocked the confusion in the Loch Muick article between the lodge at Glas-allt Shiel and it's bothy. Vicky definitely didnae slum it in the latter when she was on her holidays! I've amended the text to make the distinction and make reference to the main structure being the lodge but go ahead and remove the cat if you think the mention too insubstantial or without scope for expansion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2016 (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: disambiguate per Palestine (region) and State of Palestine, and per disambiguation page Palestine and disambiguation Category:Palestine. Nrs 1-20 of the proposal involve renaming to Palestine (region), nrs 21-35 involve renaming to State to Palestine and nrs 36-37 involve renaming to Mandatory Palestine. While choosing for one or the other rename, the current content of the category has been leading for this proposal. Only if the current content was mixed, a choice was made based on common sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I wouldn't have an upfront objection if any editor would create an additional child category "of the State of Palestine" in case of nrs 1-20 or would create an additional parent category "of Palestina (region)" in case of nrs 21-37 if this proposal would become accepted. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for #11, 12, 13, Support for the rest. For Category:Abbasid governors of Palestine, the reference is not the region, but the province of Jund Filastin, which is commonly referred to in English sources as Palestine; for Category:Peasants' revolt in Palestine and Category:People of the peasants' revolt in Palestine, they follow the main article on this conflict, where disambiguation is not used, nor IMO should it be used. "Palestine (region)" is proper when there is a danger of confusing the region with the modern Palestinian territories. This applies to categories about modern things as well as categories that are generic and reach up to the present day (e.g. "Geography of", "Centuries in" etc. type categories). For anything else, where there is a specific context and the term is clearly defined within this context, disambiguation is unnecessary. Constantine ✍ 18:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The idea of proper disambiguation, though there should be a review of whether the content actually matches the new title and scope. The Palestine region is wider than the modern state, and has a much more ancient and complex history. The administrative borders of Palestine have changed in time. For example, the Byzantine province of Palaestina Secunda was expanded to include areas of modern Israel, Jordan, and Syria. Its capital, "Scythopolis", was the modern Beit She'an. The city is geographically in the Palestine region, but not in the modern state of Palestine. It has no Palestinian population. Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the concept of "Palestine (region)" and "State of Palestine". The appropriate names are respectively Palestine and Palestinian Terrritory( or -ies). However, I support the principle of a split. Historically (until 1947) it was Palestine. It was then split into the Jordan West Bank and Israel, until Israel occupied the former. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support all I don't think that there's a case for excluding 11, 12, 13. In the Ottoman period, there was no single area called "Palestine" officially: "The region was divided into the five sanjaks (provincial districts, also called liwa′ in Arabic) of Safad, Nablus, Jerusalem, Lajjun and Gaza, all part of the larger eyalet (province) of Damascus". Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Palestine is the region, "State of Palestine" is an area claimed by the government sitting in Ramallah. Are Israelis living in that area Category:Israeli expatriates in the State of Palestine? Articles on buildings, sites, etc. on the Israeli side of the Green Line that would incorrectly roll up into any "State of Palestine" categories would be plain errors. We cannot categorize physical locations by territorial claims. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many categories structures that categorize physical locations by territorial claims. The usual territorial claim categorisation structure is "by country". Every country is just a territorial claim. Some claims have widespread recognition by their neighbours and respected international organisations, others have less recognition, still others none at all outside the fantasy in some person's head. It's a spectrum. France is on the left of the spectrum; Imperial Throne (micronation) is on the right of the spectrum; Palestine is somewhere in between. It's sufficient for wiki if enough neighbours and international organisations, such as the UN, recognise it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not sufficient. In which country is Crimea? Abkhazia? Do we put physical places in a Kurdistan category? And to what extent should credence to the claim be given? Some countries recognize Palestine as a country with borders corresponding to the whole of the British Mandate. So Tel Aviv is in Palestine (the country) in their view. Until the claims are settled we cannot, correctly, make this change. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose #s 34 and 35 and Support for the rest. The stub categories as part of project Palestine include pages referencing historic Palestine, the the region of Palestine as well as the State of Palestine. If renaming all is necessary, then 34 and 35 would make more sense as Palestine (region), although that would still be inadequate. TrickyH (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2016 (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.
Delete both -- The alumni are already in an appropriate alumni category, which mentions Falcon college in its headnote. Both are therefore redundant. No likelihood of expansion, as schoolmasters are rarely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2016 (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.
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.
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: Dubious. This governorate doesn't exist anymore and it's dubious to have a category for it. None of these cities were "built" during the governorate. Most, if not all, of them were established well before the establishment of the governate. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I found the answer in Erivansky Uyezd, about a subdivision of the governorate, which existed 1846-c.1917. It is useful to categories places by former administrative entities as well as the present one. I note that there is a subcat, "people from ...". It seems to me that is also legitimate, provided it is limited to people who were active there during the period of its existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to categorize geography (or people, for that matter) by former country subdivisions, per WP:NONDEF, and it may well lead to a lot of category clutter. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (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.
Delete after reassigning articles to England or Scotland -- This nom and the assumption it is based on depend on an ahistoric interpretation that Great Britain only existed from 1707 to 1801. This causes much unnecessary fragmentation. GB merely changed its name in 1801 when it absorbed the crown dependency of Ireland. All the British institutions continued with minimal change. A much better solution is offered by Category:Dutch expatriates in the United Kingdom, which has a subcategory for England. This category and its subcategories have precisely 4 articles, which is not enough for a category, let alone a tree. The American was a student in Edinburgh and was thus an expatriate in Scotland. The other three were expatriates in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now plain Delete. I have added the appropriate England or Scotland target to each of the articles: all the relevant target categories already existed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second notice, I would not oppose upmerging Great Britain categories to United Kingdom categories if there would be a wider nomination about that. Upmerging in just this one single case doesn't make too much sense though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not delete the existing categories, which would be "out of process". I merely added the alternative ones. If my proposal is not accepted, it is easy to revert the articles. Having found that there are existing categories for England or Scotland as appropriate, I still see no need for a GB category. Many UK categories are diffused to the four home nations. By applying that here, we avoid the need for a GB category altogether, which is never likely to be more than a thin thread of a tree-limb. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2016 (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.
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.
