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: There are only two members and they are producers in their own right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this, as I didn't realize that the individual members' production categories existed when I created this category. Trivialist (talk) 02:04, 21 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.
Support Per the nominator's rationale. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:08, 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.
Category:Members of the Institute of Directors[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.
Nominator's rationale: The article contains a large amount of BLP articles, many of which make no mention of the individual being a member of this organisation. The ones that do, I have yet to find a reference to prove they do. It seems to me to be Overcategorisation anyway - surely not every business and trade organisation can have a "members of" category? But none of the information is verifiable anyway. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Many directors of large public companies are members. This is not a defining charactieristic. We might possibly have a categoiry for officers (or somne of them). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 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.
Nominator's rationale: Holding slaves is not defining unless we're talking about a certain era when it is considered unacceptable. Regardless, these two things should be split. JFH (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the slave trade itself was not deemed unacceptable, and in most places slave ownership was still acceptable after the formal trade was outlawed. We shouldn't impose modern morality onto historical figures as they had an entirely different set of values to our own. Anyway, away from history, I'd support the change. --Rushton2010 (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. No need to classify slave holders, esp 400 years ago. Sad, but not defining of that age. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps, but again, not really defining. E.g., we don't say Thomas Jefferson, who held slaves, drafted the declaration of independence. It's a fact about his life, but it doesn't really DEFINE him. On the other hand, a slave trader, this is basically their occupation, so obviously more defining. If we start categorizing slave holders, then why not have egyptian slave holders, and put all the pharaohs in that, etc. If we wanted to demonstrate famous figures in history that held slaves, perhaps a list could be generated, but as a category I don't think it works.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Obiwan: Its not defining. And you seem to be thinking only of the American slave system - remember this category is English and British slavery, which was VERY different to what happened in America (get thousands of slaves toiling in cotton plantations out your mind- slaves were mostly domestic servants in Britain) And slavery has been been around since the very ancient times; Are the Romano-Britains or Anglo-Saxons defined by the fact they had slaves? 10% of the population were slaves at the Norman conquest of 1066- does that define the era? Are we classing peasants as slaves under the feudal system? What about the pauper workhouses of the victorian era? And you are wrong to think it suggests wealth: I have found through my volunteer work transcribing census returns that even very very modest people could have several slaves or domestic servants. Small time farmers, green grocers etc. People you would never think of as wealthy. So if you're looking to categorise wealth, you're better to create a specific category for it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then split -- There is no need for a separate English category. The two target categories should be Category:British planters in West Indies (or plantation owners) and Category:British slavetraders. Since all plantations were cultivated by slaves, saying that a person owned a plantation inevitably meant that he owned slaves. It needs to be born in mind in the 17th and for most of the 18th century both were respectible trades. Part of my reason for saying this is that Pinney was a Bristol merchant and commission agent, owning plantations in Nevis, but not a slavetrader. I similarly object to investors in the South Sea Company being tarred as slave traders. From 1713 to c.1732, the company did trade in slaves, but the largest part of the company's turnover was interest paid by the British government on debts incurred during the War of Spannish Succession, which were exchanged for company securities. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You see my point. You are using the word "tarred" because we are attaching modern moral judgements. At that time there was nothing wrong with it and no one would blink an eye- as you say, it was respectable trade. Categorisation needs to be done in a manner which does not slander those who find themselves within the categories. I would support the Category:British plantation owners in West Indies option --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming and rescoping for consistency with the parent Category:Slave traders and as described by Peterkingiron. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to solave traders. We do not categorize people by merely having owned slaves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 27 July 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.
I scanned Everman's "what links here", and didn't find any additional people that could be filed in here. Upmerge per nom; if we ever get up to four or five or ten people from Everman who have Wikipedia articles, then maybe this can be recreated at that time, but at the present time this isn't needed. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 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.
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. I think the comments at the very end of the discussion about Congress Poland point that maybe there is more to this issue. I suggest the interested editors consider the comments here and then decide how to proceed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is an intriguing category. The things in it were not established in Poland. Where they were established is not now in Poland. They were established in Galicia, a province of Austria-Hungary. They were established in Lviv, which is now in Ukraine. It is very difficult to say they were established in Poland at all, especially when one considers that the Atlas of Ukrainian History shows Lviv as being within the area that had an ethnic Ukrainian majority at this time. With it not being in modern Poland, and there being no nation of Poland in 1903, it is hard to figure out how this could be called establishments in Poland by any means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be technically correct there were established in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. What is clear is that they were not established in a place then desiganted officially as Poland, and where they were established is not now in Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BuEV Danzig shows the difficulties of using the current names of countries, it was a German football team and only played in German leagues. Tim! (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as indicated by Good Ol'factory. These articles all need two cats to satisfy everyone, not the removal of one of them. Fram (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Calling the two things established by Germans in Germany "establishments in Poland" is just as egregious as it would be to call an organization established by Arabs in Nazareth in 1903 an "establishment in Israel".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Egregious" from your point of view. From another point of view—helpful and useful to someone looking for things founded in the past in a place that is within the current borders of Israel. Again, it's not an either/or situation—we can benefit from both and don't have to choose one in preference over the other. I think it could be helpful for all users to acknowledge that there may at least possibly be two sides to this coin. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not see why the labeling of something formed in 1903 in Nazareth by Arabs as an "establishment in Israel" would cause major outrage, you are ignoring that these categorization schemes have potential value. This application of Poland into places that were in every way and respect German is just as problematic. It is all the more problematic because there was an idea of Poland in 1903, although not one that existed clearly enough in reality that we could definitely say yes or no to something being formed there, as the Lviv articles show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overestimate how much people in general (including other WP editors) care about WP categories. I doubt very much that it would "cause major outrage", especially if the definition of the category were clearly set out and it were applied in parallel with a "historically correct" one, as I have suggested. As for the Poland category, I suggested above removing the Lviv articles; that is a situation of a different flavour and not parallel to the Israel/Nazareth situation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and my prior positions on 1913 and 1915. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Manually split accoridng to which country it was in in 1903. Delete when empty. Lvov (or Lwow) was part of Poland 1919-45, but is now in Ukraine. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on trying to close. OK, I tried to close this one and it is difficult to find the consensus. Where I think it is, is to keep the current category and also classify the articles in any number of the other categories mentioned in the discussion as appropriate. This would be a close as keep with editors free to add more categories as needed. If there are no objections, I'll close it that way. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator plus one user want to destroy the category on the grounds that there is no functional Poland in 1903. Another user wants to end by yea by country categories entirely. 2 want to leave things as is, without dealing with the problem that there is no functional Poland in 1903. I object to their plan as just as bad as calling an Arab association formed in Nazareth in 1903 an establishment in Israel. Calling Germans living in German majority parts of Germany in 1903 reisdents of Poland is just as bad as calling Arabs resident in Arab majority parts of Palestine in 1903 residents of Israel. Anyway, On what grounds do we exclude a group founded by Poles in a Polish majority area that would be within the next boundaries of an independent nation of Poland from this category? I do not think there is a workable way to keep this category. Since 2 of the articles are things that were established in what is not now Poland, we need some explantion of what definition of Poland is being used here. What is the definition of Poland that includes Lviv?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants to leave the things established in Lviv in the category?—no one, as far as I can tell. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram says that ALL the articles need two cats. I also have to say if we keep the cat, we probably should keep the Lviv articles in there, since if anything was an establishment in Poland in 1903 they were. They were clearly more established in Poland than the German clubs established by Germans in Germany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Fram did not explicitly say that one of those two cats had to be the Poland one—I don't think the user addressed the issue directly. He might well be OK with it being in a Ukraine cat (current) and a Germany cat (historical). I was just saying that if we are looking for common ground, I didn't think anyone would have objected to those articles being removed from this category, but it appears you disagree with that if the category exists. I think that approach would turn the category into more of an "ethnicity"-type category rather than one based on present or historic states, so I'm not sure that's a good idea if we're trying to narrow down how these are applied. So far, we've had two proposals for how the system should work—are we really wanting to add a third proposal that is based not on current or past borders but on ethnic connections of the topic in question? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only Poland in 1903 was an ethnically based one, which is why we should scrap the category. There was an idea of Poland in 1903, but it is not the type of idea we can categorize by. The attempts to apply the modern Poland on 1903 run roughshod over too much of reality to work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that Poland existed in 1903. That's just setting up a straw man that can easily be knocked down rather than focusing on the substance of the views you oppose. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Poland did not exist in 1903, then it is false to have a category that asserts things were founded there in 1903.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not if we define the category as meaning things established in 1903 in places that are currently in Poland. We've been over this before. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, technically Congress Poland existed till 1915, so there certainly were some clear estabilishments in Poland (and let's try to avoid the discussion of Vistula Land here...). Second, the proper solution would be do have categories such as XXXX in Russian partition (with a subcat of XXXX in Congress Poland)/Austrian partition (with a subcat in XXXX in Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria)/Prussian partition, subcats to XXXX in partitioned Poland, subcat to, well, xxxx in Poland (to keep the structure of some templates and such non-red). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Congress Poland did still exist in 1903, then we could rename and repurpose this to Category:1903 establishments in Congress Poland, but we would have to exclude both the Lviv and the in Germany articles. This was actually what I was originally going to propose, but at the time the article on Congress Poland said it was abolished in the 1860s, and I am still not convinced it existed enough after 1870 to categorize by. The argument Congress Poland exists in 1903 undercuts most of the above arguments to keep this category. If we do accept that as how to understand the past, we have to exclude both the Lviv and the in Germany articles. Also, to call some of the German articles in the "German partion of Poland" is questionable, because they are in Silesia, which was not part of the partition of Poland, but had been in Germany a long time before that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the articles in this category is SV Ratibor 03 which was established in a city that was in Prussia/Germany from 1742. Before that it had been part of Bohemia for at least 200 years, it was not part of pre-partition Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 19 July 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.
