Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johannes003 (talk | contribs) at 12:27, 19 June 2013 (→‎Category:South Indian films: edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 18 June 20 >

June 19

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:South Indian films

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]

Category:People from Belarus

Nominator's rationale: Category:People from Belarus seems to be a later duplication of Category:Belarusian people and I can't see a reason why the content shouldn't be merged. Sionk (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burma subdivision football templates

Nominator's rationale: The catgory is not about football, juist about subdivisions. Cycn (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1901 establishments in Malaya

1913 establishments in Poland

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]
  • Split to Category:1913 establishments, Category:Establishments in Poland and Category:Establishments in Russia (as per other discussions in the last couple of days) and open a discussion on how to get to a more consistent scheme or better solutions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1915 establishments in Poland

  • Rename Category:1915 establishments in Poland to Category:1915 establishments in Russia
  • Rename/purge Category:1914 establishments in Poland to Category:1914 establishments in Russia/Category:1914 establishments in Austria-Hungary
  • 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]

Category:Appalachian Trail Hall of Fame

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]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_19&oldid=560598185"