Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 6: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 78: Line 78:
::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. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired</span>Girl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
::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. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired</span>Girl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|talk]]) 14:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|talk]]) 14:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
::Mine is '''not''' a perverse vote. 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. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 15:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


==== Category:Authors edited by Ursula Nordstrom ====
==== Category:Authors edited by Ursula Nordstrom ====

Revision as of 15:21, 15 December 2018

< December 5 December 7 >

December 6

Foreign relations of Ireland

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to match the head article Foreign relations of Ireland, recently renamed from Foreign 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.
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. 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]

Category:Authors edited by Ursula Nordstrom

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]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Most articles in this category don't even mention Ursula Nordstrom at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:43, 8 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

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]
  • Support, for politicians it makes more sense to be categorized by state than by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 8 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

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_6&oldid=873860762"