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) 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale the place was called Basutoland from the mid-1880s until 1966. We should use the contemporary name for categories that are specifically by year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming without a concurrent discussion for Category:1932 in Lesotho. It makes little sense to consider renaming the subcategory but not the similarly named parent category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only content of the parent category. The objection just seems to be about making these discussions more difficult by making it so more things have to be nominated. It makes no discussion of the substantive issues at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not assuming bad faith intentions regarding my opinion, are you? This is legitimately my view: I would oppose renaming the subcategory but not the parent category. I don't see the sense of having them named differently. I think we should do it completely and consistently or not do it; otherwise, you're introducing inconsistencies into the category system where none existed before. I don't understand why they are not being discussed together—it's only one additional category, after all. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:16, 9 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.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Depending on the outcome of the RFC having both may be appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger (use both). As discussed extensively in other recent discussions, I support using establishments categories that use the current names/borders of states to allow (here) a connection to the overall history of Pakistan. These things were established in places that are today in Pakistan and therefore have a direct connection to the history of those places, and thus to present-day Pakistan. I have no objection to the items being simultaneously categorized as having been established in what was then "India", though "British India" would probably be more accurate, since the "India" in these category definitions links to the article about the Republic of India. (I think that perhaps it might be wise to have an informal moratorium on these sorts of nominations until some of the older ones that are still open for discussion are closed, but that's just my opinion.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The clear previous consensus was we should merge these categories, that there was no Pakistan before 1947, and that to have such categories is just plain false. There was no Pakistan in 1926 and to group things by it creates false sense of division and unity. It is just a wrong headed way to organize things. The previous discussion made it clear that we do not want to have these false categorizes imposing the present on the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have belittled my opinion as "wrong headed". I don't think stooping to that is your best argument. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally considering what people have said in the discussion of a possible renaming of Category:1891 establishments in Finland, it seems in general users favor using simple names for these categories when it is clear and unambiguous what the name refers to. In 1926 and 1928 people clearly referred to the place as India. The article linked to is named India, and in its history section includes mentions of things happening throughout the area that was considered India before 1947, it is only after 1947 that the article's history section confines itself to the present boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and British Raj is even more specific for the time frame in question. Finland is not a great analogue because here we are dealing with major boundary changes between now-India and then-India. This is not the case with the Finland situation. (BTW, I think the comment immediately above—if interpreted in a slightly broader way than I think you intended—inadvertently undermines the entire basis of your approach. To wit: If the article Pakistan contains information about the pre-1947 area that is now in Pakistan (which it does), then by virtue of your argument we may be able to have the category use the name "Pakistan" when referring to things that were established in territory that is now in Pakistan. Anyhow ... I doubt that's what you meant, but it can be read that way. With the dual issues it gets to be a complex argument because it lacks some internal consistency.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India is what the place was called in the 1920s. There was no Pakistan. To introduce Pakistan as a category name is to imply division that did not exist. It Especially since Bombay state at the time included what would later be Sind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we define the category from the perspective of the present rather than a perspective of the 1920s. It's just a change of perspective. That's my overall point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30 we decided to scrap the Bangladesh categories as well. This is relevant to the 1926 discussion, since two of the things in Category:1926 establishments in India, were established in what was Pakistan in 1947, so there is no easy way to say that they should not be in the Pakistan category if we keep it. It makes no sense to have the Pakistan categories for before 1947.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to have the Pakistan categories for before 1947. Unless, of course, we're purposively categorizing things established in 1947 in places that are now in Pakistan, which is the approach I have been advocating for these categories. This does not exclude the possibility of also categorizing them in the target categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I support this is in principle, but wonder whether the target needs to be "British India". The 1947 change is known as "Partition", when British India was divided into India and Pakistan. The description of the pre- and post-1947 polities as "India" may cause us difficulties over Pakistani sentiments, by implying that Pakistan had seceded from India, rahtfer than two polities resulting from the partition of one predecessor. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That problem also exists in the real world: for instance, after partition, India was permitted to keep the UN seat that was previously held by British India, but Pakistan was required to apply for UN membership, thus implying that Pakistan had seceded from India. If everything had been even-handed and the split was regarded as a true partition, both new states should have been required to apply for UN membership in 1947. But instead, India was treated as the sole successor state to British India. Good Ol’factory(talk)
Comment Since virtually all of Pakistan either by 1947 or 1975 standards was in India in the 1920s, there will be a temptation to make these categories a sub-cat of the India category, but Pakistan was not a recognized or functional division of India at the time, the term had not even been invented in the 1930s, so this will create a false impression of a division where there was none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. These categories are anachronistic. No comment on whether it is proper to rename pre-1947 categories en masse. Resolute 02:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the polity at the time was India. Pakistan categories can only be used from 1947 onwards, Bangladesh categories only from 1971 onwards. Everything else would be massive historical revisionism. --Soman (talk) 14:24, 13 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. The 1861 category may have different issues and anyone who wants to discuss that one is free to nominate if for a separate discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the "parents" just consist of these categories as content, and have no other content, that just seems to be a procedural complaint meant to make this whole matter more difficult. When all the articles are in these categories, I see no reason at all to make the nomination longer and more complex by adding an additional layer. For 1861 we should use the boundaries at the time, not impose present boundaries on the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not assuming bad faith intentions regarding my opinion, are you? This is legitimately my view; I would oppose renaming the subcategories without renaming the parent categories. I think we should do it completely and consistently or not do it; otherwise, you're introducing inconsistencies into the category system where none existed before. That is my reason. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The recent policy is that these categories should reflect the political situation of the time. The fact that the subject is now in Washington State, will probbaly be apparetn from otehr categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably not really that, either, if you judge by the related discussions from the past month. Some would no doubt disagree, but it's a debatable point, at least, and not particularly the type of thing one could use as the determining reason to rename. (Peterkingiron has been around long enough as a user and has been fairly consistently involved with WP discussions so I assumed he wouldn't use "policy" as a synonym for "consensus", but I could be wrong about that.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the developing consensus is, use the contemporary name of the place and contemporary borders, except when doing so ignores the fact that at the time there was a sense of a greater collective whole, in cultural terms even if not clear political ones (Germany), or to actually split by existing polities will eventually lead to bringing up Griqualand East and Griqualand West, and is a mess that we are not ready to work with (South Africa). Although no one has yet tried to do a test case on something like Category:1859 in West Virginia to see if that is where John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry goes, as opposed to its current location in Category:1859 in Virginia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 13 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.
Category:Volunteer Organizations in Bangladesh[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.
Question. This appears to be a new tree. So, is it really needed? Most of these are 501(c)3 organizations. So the proposed merge target likely duplicated Category:501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations or if there are any outside of the US, some similar category. In any case, is the Red Cross something that belong in Category:Volunteer Organizations? It has volunteers. Note that the top level category is at speedy since it was created with a bad name. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the US ones were not correctly classified in Category:501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations and I fixed that. Now, if the proposed parent here is needed, then all of the current categories for these organizations should be added and not the individual groups. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I specifically pointed out that this is how they are currently categorized for the US in our category structure. I made no suggestion that we should use that type of classification in the rest of the world. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- the category is now empty, presumably as a result of the one article Sandhani having been moved to the target. This is not satisfactory, since this is in nature a worldwide category. If we have this tree at all, the article should be in its present location. The 501 category is a US tax-status one and irrelevant elsewhere. However following up that tree, I found Category:Non-profit organisations based in Bangladesh, which seems to be the appropriate target. Both the subject and the target should either be deleted or redirected to that tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:08, 9 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 07:33, 17 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.
Category:Indian people of Bangladeshi descent[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category seems to be pure OR. The people, who have been listed under the category, cannot be termed as "of Bangladeshi descent", as no reliable sources term them so. Shovon (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—this feels very odd. Being of Bangladeshi descent implies multiple generations since 1971. Would Bengali descent be a more appropriate term given that Bangladesh (after 1971) = East Pakistan (1947 to 1971) = East Bengal (up to partition in 1947)? Alternatively, this could really be about Bangladeshi citizens who now reside in India (although I see that there's a subcategory for this). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How in the world do we put Bhanu Bandopadhyay, when he appears to have moved to Calcutta before India was partitioned, not to mention, not to mention before Bangladesh was formed. On the other hand does "Bengali descent" make any sense when there are millions of Bengalis who live in West Bengal, and thus have been part of India since its forming. The whole concept here does not really work, it avoids dealing with the fact that Bangladesh does not exist until 1971, and thus the people here have to have ancestors who lived in Bangladesh at some point from 1971 forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unmanageable "descent" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A person should only be "of Bangladeshi descent" if he or an ancestor lived there after Bangladesh became independent in 1971. I would accept "of Bengali descent", but would oppose the exisitence of such a category for Indians, since it would apply to the whole populateion of West Bengal. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 9 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I first thought that it meant 'literary techniques' and then misread the nomination and realised it was to do with chemical elements. It definately needs a rename. It probably needs to be grouped with Literary technique; how about rename to Category:Literary fictional elements ?? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe this was split from its parent category:Fictional in April 2013. I agree that "Elements of fiction" would be a better name, but I'm not clear on the distinction between this and its parent anyway. Maybe rename and then merge the parent into it? – FayenaticLondon 08:50, 16 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.
