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: Only contains one noria from the country—not a watermill—and the article on norias in general. —innotata 21:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep article says noria is a watermill so its a watermill. Keep as part of an established structure of Category:Watermills by country. Hmains (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Norias aren't watermills, and the article doesn't say so. —innotata 02:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am corrected. Category should be deleted as nominated. Hmains (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2011 (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: Why are we tracking what articles used to be? I can see the point of the tracking category Category:Film projects, but entirely miss the purpose of this one. Xeworlebi(talk) 21:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, as Innotata points out, this (and Category:Film projects) should be moved to the talk page instead of in article space. Xeworlebi(talk) 11:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my view, we shouldn't even have "film project" articles, except in extreme circumstances where there is a wealth of information that cannot be housed elsewhere, as by definition they fail WP:NFF. Therefore I think that tracking them will only encourage these kind of articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this for a project, it should be added to the talk pages of articles, not articles themselves. —innotata 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, moved category to the talk pages. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still think that this is of dubious value. It's not clear that these articles followed a proper style anyways and guidelines change. If this category is kept, then it must be completely separated from mainspace categories to avoid both confusion and incentive to create more articles of the sort (as Rob pointed out above). Pichpich (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2011 (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 result of the discussion was:Rename. Most of the other year categories can be speedied but 1964-1979 (using the name "Rhodesia" predated UDI) may require a bit more thought. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why did the nominator not do a group nomination of all the similar categories? It seems to me that since the state of Zimbabwe came into existence in 1980, it is worth considering the possibility that all preceding by-year categories should use the de facto contemporaneous name. I am unsure how this has been handled in other former colonies, which is why I have notified WikiProject Former countries. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The discussion is really on Renamed Countries rather than Former Countries, and while some former colonies like (Southern) Rhodesia with a substantial history before independence could be changed, I would be reluctant to see “Years in Nyasaland” pre-1964 (now in Category:Years in Malawi, with only 2 entries pre-1964). And Southern Rhodesia called itself Rhodesia for 1965-79 after Northern Rhodesia became Zambia, though the name change was not recognised by Britain or internationally. NB: name change often associated with independence, though not necessarily so; eg Ceylon to Sri Lanka in 1972. The real problem is with countries (federations) with a substantial history before their creation eg Australia, Canada and South Africa which were created in 1901, 1867 & 1910 respectively (although Australia could be recognised as a continent/island before then). Their histories by year go back to 1788, 1700 and 1795 respectively (and Newfoundland/Newfoundland and Labrador did not join Canada till 1949. But I think it is pedantic to say that events in Newfoundland should not be included in Canada until 1949). Hugo999 (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2011 (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 result of the discussion was:Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Object as the article Moyen-Congo autonomy referendum, 1958 says that the title of the country/colony was changed on 28 November 1958 to Republic of the Congo (although this was internal autonomy and full independence came on 15 August 1960). NB: this article had a red-link to category “1958 in the Republic of the Congo", which I have rectified. The only years for category “Years in Moyen-Congo” may be 1946 and 1947. Hugo999 (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nomination withdrawn, RoC correct for 1959. --Soman (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2011 (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 result of the discussion was:Rename to Category:1946 in Moyen-Congo, noting this is the name used for the election articles for this period. The other categories covering the Moyen-Congo period can be speedied. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above at 1958. Tim! (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Republic of the Congo and AEF were not the same. AEF was a wider territorial unit, consisting of four French colonies (Moyen-Congo, Gabon, Chad and Oubang-Chari). Moyen-Congo changed name to RoC in 1958, as commented above. --Soman (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMoyen-Congo was the official title before the 1958 referendum (from the article), though there is no indication in the article of when this title was adopted. But rather than having categories of "Years in French Equatorial Africa" as well, it would be preferable to keep to the earlier title for each colony (even back to the 19th century?). And the CAR seems to have had the earlier spellings of either Oubangi-Chari or Ubangi-Shari. Hugo999 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2011 (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 result of the discussion was:Rename. See my comments under 1946. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above at 1958. Tim! (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See comment under 1946. --Soman (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2011 (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.
Done, moved category to the talk pages. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)