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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:Overcategorization. They won the award, but that's not their defining characteristic. The list and navbox are sufficient to identify them as Johnny Bench Award winners. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"OCAT by AWARD"? What does this mean? Sorry, I don't know the secret handshake. Doprendek (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed:Wikipedia:Opening up a can of worms and I'd also say Wikipedia:Does deletion help and there's probably other stuff if I was up to looking for it. FWIW, I created the category that's proposed for deletion. Hope I am allowed to reply to something I created.
.
In the Massachusetts criminal code there's a section called "Crimes Against Chastity" (at least, it was there 20 years ago) that went back to colonial times. It was on the books but was never prosecuted because it didn't correspond to the way people actually acted and, in fact, pushing for its prosecution would have opened up its own set of problems. Well, I feel like I committed the Wikipedia equivalent of a Crime Against Chastity except, y'know, a Crime Against Chastity sounds a lot more fun than Overcategorization.
.
I admit, until I got this notice of deletion, I wasn't even aware of WP:Overcategorization. When I first moved into adding and then creating categories, I followed what it looks like other people are doing--and I don't mean just a few people, I mean an easy majority.
But then there's Jeremy Brown. Maybe the Johnny Bench Award *is* defining for him, unless it's that "Moneyball" thing that gets precedence. But the JB Award is only in par 2... hmmm.. good enough?... well, OK, let's leave the category for the JB Award in for Brown, but not for Posey... but then how about someone who wonders why Posey isn't in that category? why not just include everybody? oh wait they must not have read WP:Overcategorization... better monitor it so that we can remove JB Award if it's put in for Posey... but not for Brown, because it's OK there...
But really, I had better stop focusing on this one set of categories surrounding the one I created, in case it seems like I am special pleading, and I'm not... what I am arguing is that the criterion given here is not only unenforceable, *and that's a good thing, too*, it shouldn't be enforced, because it (I would think obviously) goes against the practice of most (damn near all?) creators of categories, whose criteria are something more like, "Does a category that uniquely describes trait x exist?" and, "Is it interesting, or just something in the article I hadn't thought of before and maybe someone else would want to see some previously unconsidered connections and maybe add to them in the Wikipedia way"? And I would also argue that this actual practice is in fact a better, more sensible, way of doing things than the strictures of "WP:Overgeneralization."
.
Oh, and is it worth pointing out that WP:Overgeneralization does not describe overgeneralization, or even generalization, at all? What it describes is a kind of overspecificity, although only after creating a difficult-to-pin-down ideal ("definability"). And I think there are plenty of people on Wikipedia who sense that, too, because even though "Overgeneralization" is put at the top of categorization Wikisins, it is relatively rarely invoked as a category deletion criterion (I checked, admittedly quickly), and when it is, it is generally used to delete excessively, dare I say ridiculously, fine-grained *overspecificity* (just fine, IMHO), or as a handy rhetorical bludgeon, because it can be brought out to attack just about any category if one looks at the category the "right" way (bad, again IMHO, although I would hope in some others' HO as well). If you really want to delete a truly overgeneral category, better go after Category:Living People. (Yes, I'm kidding.) BTW, it seems that proper subcategorization, not deletion, is the answer to most instances of this presumed Wikisin.
.
As for that navbox business... here I naively thought that the existence of a navbox, which I thought by its essence would indicate (I'll use that word here) *definability*, is instead, something else... something that has to do with (to me) previously unknown rules regarding what are correct and incorrect ways to allow a user to navigate to a particular piece of information. And I hope you don't intend to kick this can of worms further down the road, I'll be forced to answer again, since it goes to some basic design issues that go to any interface for a computer-designed information store, not just Wikipedia. Doprendek (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"computer-designed": make that "computer-based" Doprendek (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is overcategorization by award. This is a rule that is consistently applied to remove these award categories that constantly grow and clutter articles. We need way less of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 22 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Ambiguous title: the category description says just this: "Webcomics about fandom". Must distinguish from webcomics created as fan fiction. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:00, 19 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per established convention of Category:Musicians by band: "Categories should not be created when only one member has an article." --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need a category for one member of the band, if they all had articles maybe, but clearly not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this really a category for a band with one member? I suppose that the rest are NN. If so the band may be NN too: I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 22 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete per G4; appears to be an attempt to do an end-run around the previous discussion. As I set out in the close there, there might be a justification for a Category:Dravidian-language films, but there is consensus against using "South Indian" as the descriptor. It is best to avoid accusing other editors of "Eurocentrism" or any other type of systemic bias.Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category "Indian film" already exists. The films have been categorized by respective languages too. Since South India is neither a country not a language, this category is seemingly redundant. Almost the same as South Indian-language films. Johannes003 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, South India and South Indian film industry have own articles of great notability. A google search for "South Indian film" provides over 18000000 results: Click and over 15000 google book references: Click. Also the description in the category is very precise in explaining why this category is particularly useful. There is absolutely no harm in keeping this category.--Dravidian Hero 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This really seems to be a way to get around the previous deletion of a very similar category. We categorize films by country and in a few cases by language. This is a not needed subdivision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People from South India are ethnically and culturally completely different. They are Dravidians. There is no need to artificially box them together with other Indian cultures. The term "Indian film" is not used in Indian media for the same reason, because films are defined by culture and language, not by nationality, in India. Like there is no language called "Indian", there is no film called "Indian". It's a very inaccurate and useless western perception based on artificial country borders. --Dravidian Hero 09:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment there was support for creation of Dravidian-language films - so we could rename to that. However, I think the creator has something else in mind - e.g. films done in two south indian languages. for that, I'm not sure if it's yet defining. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2013 (UT LC)
The purpose of this category is clearly defined in the category description: This category lists all films produced originally in more than one Dravidian language. (No dubbed films) --Dravidian Hero 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Sorry, but you already created this cat with the same scope, and it was deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted, because 95% of participants didn't even remotely understand the substance of the subject. It's because of pure Eurocentrism and Indian fantasy citizens. --Dravidian Hero 13:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understood very well the intention. I !voted to keep, but to rename, for a slightly different categorization, which would group all south-indian-language films together in a container category. But whatever, this particular category was deleted by consensus, and you've now re-created it, so it should be speedy-deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"slightly different categorization" doesn't look like you were one of the 5 percenters. Eurocentricm has no limits.--Dravidian Hero 14:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out the personal attacks DravidianHero. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 20 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Consensus was to merge. There was some discussion that this should be a reverse merge. But the majority were for the merge in the direction proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are belarusian people who are, e.g. from Poland. Of course there is an overlap, but these categories are distinct. They were miscategorized, and I fixed this: one of them is "by ethnicity", while another is "by nationality". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories like Category:Belarusian people have mainly been used as by nationality categories. If we want to repurpose it to a by ethnicity category, we will have to majorly rethink the issues involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:People from Belarus should be limited to people who came from Belarus, and not include people who died long before Belarus existed in any sense. It currently includes someone who lived in the 18th-century, when there is not really workably a place designated as Belarus until the 20th-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In WP, the meanings are synonymous because "Belarusian people" is purposively ambiguous. The phrase can mean (1) citizens of Belarus, (2) non-citizen nationals of Belarus, (3) people of Belarusian ethnicity, and (4) non-nationals of Belarus who are nevertheless "from Belarus". This is how virtually every one of these "FOOian people" categories exists in the scheme—we don't have Category:People from Hungary, Category:People from Bolivia, or Category:People from Laos—just the "FOOian people" categories. Some users don't like this ambiguity, but it actually retains necessarily flexibility within the category system, which is an all-or-none affair. (Categories are not scalpels, they are sledgehammers.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow. In terms of specificity, most of that would be the type of category that goes way beyond anything else in the category trees. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. People from Belarus are Belarusians, aren't they? It doesn't necessarily work the other way around. Sionk (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Good Ol'factory's well stated exposition on the matter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- obviously the same thing - or reverse merge - I do not mind which. Expatriate categories could properly be included as subcategories. Category:People of Belarusian descent already exists: we do not need to split nationality and ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 22 June 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:Burma subdivision football templates[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The catgory is not about football, juist about subdivisions. Cycn (talk) 09:24, 19 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename per nom. If category parents are needed in the Malaya tree they can be added after the rename. I will note the other discussions, but the comments here indicate a consensus. This close should be reviewed when and if we develop a policy on how to handle all of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational This will clearly link these categories to the article British Malaya. For the 1901 and 1903 categories it will also make it clear that only those parts of Malaya then under British auspices should be included, not those parts of Malaya that were then part of Thailand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but purge of any articles not within British Malaya - recategorising them according to their conemporary state. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell all articles currently in this category were established in British Malaya. No articles from those areas under the control of Siam have been added to the 1901 and 1903 categories yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 23 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. To match the 1903 close that I just did. There are many valid points raised in these discussions. I'm not sure how these will wind up, but clearly there are some issues with keeping or outright deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There was no Poland in 1913. The issues are very similar to the ones brought up at [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_2#Establishments_in_Ukraine_.282_categories.29. What is today Poland was likewise in 3 countries. To make things even worse, if people had tried to define a Polish area in 1913 it would have come out with much different boundaries than the modern nation. Polish and Ukrainian nationalists would both have claimed that Lemberg was within the boundaries of their country. On the other hand, there were section of Bradenburg and Pomerania that were without question or dispute German in every possible way, that are now within the boundaries of Poland. The only way we can avoid disputes about what place a thing was established in is to follow the boundaries that existed in 1913 and so categorize places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as in the discussion immediately below; keep as a natural subcategory of Category:1913 in Poland and of the extensive Category:Establishments in Poland by year; the category should be regarded as one that refers to the current borders of Poland. Also, please do not presuppose the outcome of how to interpret these categories by partially emptying the category immediately prior to nomination. Please combine this with the discussion immediately below. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The application of the current boundaries will not work. I do not think anyone would agree to putting Technische Hochschule Breslau in Category:1910 establishments in Poland, but that would be what we would get if people applied the current boundary plan. That was without question a German institution, and to stick the appellation "Poland" on it is an unacceptable POV-pushing. It would be bad enough if it was in the part of Silesia where a very controversial and heavily disputed pleblesite was carried out after World War I, but Breslau is in the part of Silesia that was in Germany at all times from 1871 until 1945, and so to try to call it in any way "Poland" is just plain unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can work. It has worked for awhile now with many of the cats in Category:Establishments in Poland by year and Category:Years in Poland. It's not POV to have a category that recognises and categorises by current boundaries, because boundaries are not POV. If users want to get shirty about a specific article, we can cross that bridge if and when it arises, but I doubt there would be many problems if the scope of the categories was made clear by use of written definitions. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact of the matter is that Poland in 1920 had very different boundaries than Poland does today. It would actually make a lot more sense to retroactively apply the inter-war boundaries of Poland than the modern boundaries of Poland. However even at that it is an unrealistic imposition of the present on the past to call anything in the German Empire "Poland", with the possible exception of stuff in Posen Province, but even that is disputable considering how intense the Germanization program of the German Empire was there. In a place like Brodica, I would dispute that it was in any sense Poland. There might be a workable argument to call areas of Austria and Russia Poland, but considering that at the time it was the source of major disputed whether Lemburg was within a Polish region or a Ukrainian region, we lack any clear yes or no answers, so we would be much better off following contemporary international boundaries instead of wading into potential POV-wars over what was and what was not Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the position that "we would be much better off following contemporary international boundaries instead of wading into potential POV-wars over what was and what was not Poland" suggest that the current category should be kept as part of that overall pre-existing scheme? Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To apply the current boundaries onto institutions that were in no way, shape or form at all Polish is going to create POV wars. It is just unacceptable to call institutions formed by Germans in overwhelmingly German areas "establishments in Poland".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it would—but as I said above, if users want to get shirty about a specific article, we can cross that bridge if and when it arises. I do doubt there would be many problems if the scope of the categories was made clear by use of written definitions. With very few exceptions, no one can contest in what state a place on the globe is currently. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per all the other similar discussions. Useful for readers, has a different approach than the purely historical one, but no reason that the two can't be had at the same time. Adding a "Russia" cat where needed doesn't mean that the "Poland" ones need to be removed. Fram (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These categories are not actually being applied according to the present boundaries of Poland as can be seen from Category:1903 establishments in Poland, where none of the contents are within the current boundary of Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; Poland was not a unity in 1913. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now until it and siblings are manually split -- The post-WWI state of Poland did not purely consist of Russian territory taken over from the earlier Grand Duchy of Warsaw. This and similar categories need to be split according to the contemporary country or lesser polity. Russia is a big country, and I see no objection in principle to it being split by province: I have recently voted to keep a Finland category, to be defined as for the then Grand Duchy, a Russian possession. When emptied, it should be deleted. Post-WWII Poland has different boundaries from Poland 1919-39. We should be using the categories according to the contemporary boundaries. No single merge target can be the right one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 22 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. To match the 1903 close that I just did. There are many valid points raised in these discussions. I'm not sure how these will wind up, but clearly there are some issues with keeping or outright deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale What is Poland? There is no workable way to apply the Present boundaries, because to try and call many areas within Silesia and East Prussia Poland would be unworkable. Beyond this, some of the things going on in what was then Galicia are as likely to have happened in the modern boundaries of Ukraine as the modern boundaries of Poland. Plus, it is unclear that the formation of units in the Army of Austria-Hungary designated as "Polish" occurred in place that were in any sense Polish. We should categorize things by what country they are in,, and here the stuff was happening in Russia, Austria-Hungary or Germany. Thus we should name the category to explicitly designate that place, and put the stuff in Austria-Hungary in the Austria-Hungary category. This is really clearly the case when the things involved are units of the Austria-Hungary army. I was going to propose use of Congress Poland, but then I noticed that Congress Poland was totally merged into Russia by 1867, so it is not a workable solution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, use both the "present-day borders" system and the "historically correct" system and don't disrupt the very extensive Category:Establishments in Poland by year/Category:Years in Poland by deleting two isolated categories. Apart from the fact that these are natural subcategories of Category:1915 in Poland and Category:1914 in Poland, I generally have no problem with keeping categories such as this that use current boundaries and/or names to group establishments by year. It's fine to have the "historically correct" boundary/name categories used in parallel, but there is no reason that I can understand that we need to delete this type which group establishments by year with reference to modern borders and names. Categories of this type can be quite useful for people who want to read about or research things that were established in a particular area during a particular era or timespan and they reflect quite well a fairly common practice in modern historical research and writing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you are ignoring the fact that it is not at all clear that these things were in some cases established in Poland. It is only clear that they were established in Austria-Hungary and made up of ethnic Poles. In the case of Austria-Hungary it is among other things likely some of these things were formed in what is now Ukraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, I am not really "ignoring" that—but frankly it's irrelevant to my argument—and to yours for that matter, since it doesn't justify deletion. It justifies re-categorization or upmerge categorization of an article. If you can't establish that something was established within the present-day borders of Poland, then that's a completely different issue of why the article is in the category in the first place. However, you might consider if maybe you are not understanding my point. I'm talking about a place on the surface of the earth—let's say it's Warsaw, just for this example. Something was established in Warsaw in 1914. The place on the surface of the earth—Warsaw—may not have been "in Poland" in 1914, but it sure as heck is "in Poland" right now. So someone is researching about things that were established in this particular place on the surface of the earth—Warsaw—in 1914. It would be helpful if there was a category that contained things that were established within the current boundaries of Poland in 1914. That's what we have. Please don't propose deleting the system if the problem is—after many of these types of discussions—that you still don't even understand why users might argue that it's helpful to have. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no workable, non-POV definition of Poland. You would apply the appellation of Poland to things established by Germans, within Germany, in totally German areas. That is unworkable POV-pushing. You are totally ignoring how complex and unworkable the Poland appellation is. You are ignoring that we did delete the equally unworkable Ukrainian category, we merged the unworkable Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan, and we renamed the unworkable pre-1948 Israel categories. These attempts to run roughshod over the reality that many places now designated "Poland" were inhabited by overwhelmingly German populations, and that many places in 1915 that had Polish majority populations are not within Poland, are ignoring the clear precedents to shy away from totally unworkable categories. Another relevant discussion is Category:1910 establishments in Slovenia, where we scrapped that category even if we came up with a somewhat similar category, but it does not include the same area. I was originally going to propose merging to Congress Poland, but then I realized that despite the claims in one of the Category:1915 establishments in Poland articles to the effect that the thing was established in the Kingdom of Poland redirecting to the article on Congress Poland, our article on Congress Poland says it no longer existed after 1867, so it was not workable to propose merging there. To superimpose post-World War II boundaries on pre-World War I eastern Europe is just an unworkable scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no workable, non-POV definition of Poland." Sure there is—the current boundaries. All of Poland's neighbours have signed treaties acknowledging the validity of the current boundaries. There is nothing POV about them—they are a well-recognised fact. That's why it's helpful to use it as a reference, even when dealing with historical times when the borders were different. If you could recognise—even a basic acknowledgment of the theoretical possibility would be welcome—that there could potentially be two separate and legitimate schemes or approaches to this, that would be great. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unworkable POV pushing statement to call things created by groups of Germans in German areas for German interests "establishments in Poland". They were Germans, operating in Germany, establishing in Germany, there is nothing Polish about what they did. In the case of the Technische Hochschule Breslau it was disestablished at the time the area became part of Poland. It is unworkable to categorize it with Poland at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No acknowledgment of the possibility that there is another approach? It makes me sad that you can't seem to bring yourself to do it. :( Anyway, The scheme doesn't make the thing "Polish"—it merely recognises that it was established in a place that is currently in Poland. You keep saying that is "unworkable", but that's apparently a POV because I find it very workable and understandable from my POV. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is ignoring that these categories say the establishment was in a specific country in a specific year. Technische Hochschule Breslau was in no way Polish, and should never be included in a Poland category. Next you will want to include Arab Christian organizations established in what is now Israel in 1907 in establishments in Israel in 1907 categories. These are just unworkable implications of national identity to things that had no connection with that nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definition and the name of the category do not say that. The definition says, "Organizations, places or other things founded or established in Poland in the year XXXX". You are adding interpretation to what it says, and there is more than one way to interpret the name and the definition. In fact, in the definition, "Poland" links to the article about the current state of Poland, suggesting that it could well be referring to the current boundaries. Can you acknowledge that this too is a valid (or at least possible) interpretation? Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet for example Category:1910 establishments in Germany and Category:1910 establishments in Russia do not use the modern boundaries at all. You are ignoring that at some level there was a concept of a potential area of "Poland" in 1915, but that it lacks clear enough boundaries to be a useable designation. The Russia and Germany categories have established that we are willing to use the contemporary name even when the polity had significantly different boundaries than the modern country. That is how we have been using Germany and Russia. That is how we sue category:1925 establishments in Poland. It leads to not having any workable way to use Category:1915 establishments in Poland, and so the best solution is to scrap the whole category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't keep those categories named as they are if they are using the "historical" model. I would rename them to use "Russian Empire" and "German Empire" and use the "Russia" and "Germany" cats for the current boundary scheme. That way, the names of the categories would correspond to the WP articles for the appropriate time period. But just because you regard categories a certain way doesn't mean everyone regards them similarly. By the way——Be nice JPL, and stop accusing me of ignoring things. Just because I don't write 3000 words ever time explaining my position in detail does not necessarily mean I have ignored something. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet when people do propose a renaming to better reflect the historic boundaries of the palce, such as from Finland to Grand Duchy of Finland, you oppose that as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes—because I favour having both. I have no objection to anyone creating a category for the Grand Duchy of Finland. What I oppose is someone suggesting that we should delete the Finland category and replace it with the Grand Duchy one. Seriously, what do you not "get" about my position? I can only write it so many times—I favour having both, and rename proposals by definition result in the deletion of one in favour of creation of the other. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history has some interesting points especially WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN eg "the first option—using modern countries—results in a category scheme that makes meaningless connections based on changes in geography centuries after the events discussed in the articles in question. The Siege of Königsberg in 1262, for example, would be classified as a siege in Russia, despite Russia not being involved in any way at the time". Among places where this should really apply is units created as part of a specific army, which is many of the contents of both these categories, and the army they were being created as part of was not the army of Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per all the other similar discussions. Useful for readers, has a different approach than the purely historical one, but no reason that the two can't be had at the same time. Adding a "Russia" cat where needed doesn't mean that the "Poland" ones need to be removed. Fram (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The general tenor of existent German and Finland discussions is to use the name of the place, even if the boundaries are different. It is most clear in the Germany case, where we have clearly used the name for all sorts of things, and not limited it to the modern national boundaries at all. Thus, I think it is clear that the Russia and Germany categories in 1915, 1914 and other close years are being used for the countries then so designated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Poland was not a unity in 1915 either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manually split according to the contemporary states. Delete when emptied. Poland was not a state from 1795 to 1918. Much of it was Russian, but parts came from otehr countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 22 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:Listify. Deletion would lose information, so the contents have been listified in Appalachian Trail Museum and the category can be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Seems to be categorizing people who have been inducted into this hall of fame, which doesn't have its own article separate from Appalachian Trail Museum. We seem to routinely listify and delete most hall of fame inductee categories per WP:OC#AWARD, so I'm proposing that. The list could be added to Appalachian Trail Museum. But if kept, rename to Category:Appalachian Trail Hall of Fame inductees to accurately reflect the purpose of the category. (By the way, how can we nominate Mark Sanford for induction?) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete -- As we always do with award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Appalachian Trail people, add the list of category members to Appalachian Trail Museum, and add the two people who are currently at the top level of Category:Appalachian Trail to the repurposed "people" category. The hall of fame members are people whose notability is related to the history of the Appalachian Trail, so "Appalachian Trail people" would be a good description of the category scope (with the addition of those two other people). --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 24 June 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.
