Category talk:National histories

Unnecessary category?

What is the difference between this category and Category:History by country ?

That category includes the national history categories, not the national history articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But why is it necessary to have both? - TheMightyQuill 03:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a necessary category for histories of "country-less" nations: Jews, Incas, Kurds, Gypsies, "History of the Turkic peoples", etc. nations that are not synonymous with contemporary countries, even if they may have had states of their own in the past. it should be a "master-category" for both "Category:History by ethnic group" and "Category:History by country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.189.88 (talk) 17:15, June 27, 2007 (UTC)

Then I think a name change is appropriate to make this distinction readily visible, e.g. "Histories of non-sovereign nations" or "Histories of diasporic nations" or something to the same effect. __meco 08:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this category should be deleted. There's already Category:History by ethnic group for national histories that aren't those of states. "History by country" and "History by ethnic group" should be linked by a see also link. --AdamSommerton 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some members of this category refer to geographic entities, so they cannot easily be merged into Category:History by ethnic group. For example, Category:History of Kurdistan is distinct from Category:History of the Kurds. Likewise, History of Tristan da Cunha, History of the Åland Islands, and many of the other entries do not refer to ethnic groups. On the other hand, Category:History by country includes many non-sovereign entities, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar, so maybe it's OK to put all geographic entities there. Goustien (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)