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: "British Hong Kong" is a translation from "ying sok heung gong", or "ying shu xiang gang" (英屬香港), with both being neologisms with obvious political connotations, and are seldom used in any sort of official context outside of the English and Chinese Wikipedias. I am certain that a place is not entitled to stick the adjective "British" to the front of its name simply by virtue of having been under the jurisdiction, sovereignty and protection of the British Crown (Kings and Queens of England, or of the United Kingdom) and therefore having hosted the British Union Flag upon its territory; e.g., I have heard of a "British North America", but never a "British Canada". There is just simply no international [precedent ] for this, and either names do not appear to be ever in any sort of official use at any given time. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We do used "British India", possibly to distinguish this from French, Danish, Portuguese factories there and princely states. However, there was only one Hong Kong, so that no adjective is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there was never a "British Hong Kong". The maps almost all read "Hong Kong (to U.K.)", "Hong Kong (to G.B.)" or variants thereof, only the Chinese ones read differently ("heung gong (ying tsim)"; "xiang gang (ying zhan)"; 香港(英佔) (Hong Kong (under British occupation)), or sometimes "heung gong (ying chi)"; "xiang gang (ying ji)"; 香港(英治) (Hong Kong (under British administration)) ); and is that not a circular proof (or, Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source?) --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure that a place where the connection dies every half an hour after 00:00 GMT/BST is quite insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the busy Embassy and Ambassador of the Government of the People's of China to the Court ofSt. James's! What I would say is this, I challenge you to find a single instance of the name "British Hong Kong" or "British Hongkong" in any of the records deposited with and now open for view in the British National Archives and Public Records Office in Kew, RichmondnearLondon. You wouldn't, because it is ultimately a modern Hongkong Chinese political neologism, a tongue-in-cheekword-play! My only ties to Hong Kong are that I used to live there for a little while. The same as the category's creator, no doubt! I have no strong views on this, but I am pretty sure that most treaties were simply declared, unilaterally by the Her Majesty'sImperial Government by means of Orders of His or Her Majestyin Council to apply in Hong Kong or in any other named British colony or possession on a list, after consultations within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or between the old Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Dominion Office and the India Office, without having to put the name "Hong Kong" and the potentially hundreds of names in both English and French of all other British colonies and other possessions and protectorates, protected states, mandates, trust-territories and associated states onto a piece of paper, in order to formally "extend " the geographical scope of the provisions of a treaty to cover Hong Kong; "in force" is simply the British legal technical term for making a foreign treaty into part of the "domestic" or "Imperial" British legislation, by either an Act of the Imperial Parliament or by Her Majesty's Order-in-Council. (Unlike, say, in the United States of America, a simple declaration of ratification does not make a foreign treaty part of the domestic law of the United Kingdom or any one of her "foreign Plantations", Colonial possessions or Overseas Territories. (See the Incorporation of international law.)) --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (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:Pekan Olahraga Nasional competitors by year
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.
Comment - it is a pity but the creator has no apparent reply to any admin type notices since he/she has started editing, so the proposal will get no response there - as the viability of the cateogries, it is possible the same editor might fill the category with more articles over time... As there is no response, there is no knowing what the editor ever gets up to, apart from cleanups after the editing... satusuro09:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything to a single category. Pekan Olahraga Nasional appears to be a national sporting event, a sort of national Olympics. That a person took part in these games would appear to be a performance, so that these categories fail WP:OC#PERF. WE categorise sportspeople by sport, nationality, and (for team sports) club or team, not by what competition they took part in; Olympic Games may be an exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2013 (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: That a university is (currently?) a member of a club isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a university. For info: Some of the articles in the category (example) don't currently even mention the ACU in the article text. This could be listified, but if such a list is needed in WP, it would be better to generate it from a complete list of the (currently 535, according to the article) universities and include year of joining. DexDor (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2013 (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.
