Category talk:1900s establishments in Poland

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland

Russia

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia

Years

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears

Chronology categories for Congress Poland

At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_26#Category:1908_establishments_in_Poland, I found sufficient consensus to rename the ten nominated categories (the sub-categories of this Category:1900s establishments in Congress Poland) from Poland to Congress Poland. These are currently outliers; no-one has followed up that nomination for the year categories, the disestablishment categories, or siblings for the remaining time period when the name "Congress Poland" was applicable.

Pinging the participants @WilliamJE, Marcocapelle, Greyshark09, Johnpacklambert, Peterkingiron, Fram, Laurel Lodged, and Piotrus: I suggest that one of three actions is required:

one of you might follow up that CFD with a group nomination;
I could reconsider my close and revise it to "no consensus", and revert these 11 categories to "Poland";
or is an RfC required on wider questions covering some adjacent locations and periods? – Fayenatic London 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pretty evident to me that we should rename all relevant categories to Congress Poland as a follow-up. A lack of rename action doesn't imply that the consensus is void.GreyShark (dibra) 12:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4: create child categories as originally envisaged. I've done that for the 20th-century categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I opposed the nomination. If any of the advocates of the rename is going to nominate the related categories for rename I won't oppose this time, for consistency reasons. But if nobody is going to react at all, reconsideration of the closure is appropriate, also for consistency reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

post by @Laurel Lodged moved from User talk:BrownHairedGirl, so that I can reply here per WP:CENT

My edits on Poland were requested by the closing admnin Fayanetic. See discussion here Category talk:1900s establishments in Congress Poland. If I've misinterpreted his request, please advise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged, that's not how I read that discussion. And it utterly perverse to have "Cat:YYYY in Poland" as a subcat of "Cat:YYY0s in Congress Poland". That making the narrow topic a parent of the wider topic, which makes no sense.

Either rename all the chronology cats for the whole period to "Congress Poland", or keep them all as "Poland"; alternatively have "YYYY in Congress Poland" as a subcat of "YYYY in Poland" But having the years as "Poland" and the decades as "Congress Poland" is perverse.

@Fayenatic london and Marcocapelle: we need a comprehensive solution to this. Either all "Congress Poland" or all "Poland". With respect, FL, I think that your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_26#Category:1908_establishments_in_Poland was mistaken, because it created these inconsistencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading of it, there was an imperative to create sub-categories and to populate them by year. I've done some more work on this as an illustration of what it looks like. I've not populated them fully. The double category direction for some articles (e.g. those in Category:1910 establishments in Congress Poland) might end up being a useful, permanent thing to do. I'll stop now with the "to be" examples until clearer direction emerges. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, @Laurel Lodged, we're discussing it here. Proceeding while it's all under discussion is disruptive, so I will revert thoseedits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said this earlier - this is a bad idea. Congress Poland was only a part of partitioned Poland. There were, for example, establishments in the Province of Posen (city of Poznan) which are both part of Poland and Germany, but this renaming scheme will remove them from the Polish category tree. Ex. H. Cegielski – Poznań was established in 1848 in Province of Posen which was both part of Prussia and of (partitioned) Poland, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a discussion a few years back involving a template for Irish TDs. Was it Template:S-par/ie/oi? Anyway, the discussion was underway as to whether it should be 1 politician "pre" or multiple politicians "pre", seeing as Irish constituencies are multi-seat, or not to use the template at all. Then in the middle of it all, you weighed with an idea and proceeded to change the structure of the template for a number of politicians. When I protested that this was outside of process for a live debate, you dismissed the objection saying that it was acceptable to make changes to provide illustrations of what the "to be" situation might look like. This is the same rationale for the additional mods that I mentioned above. Yet now I'm being scolded for making similar illustrations. Doesn't seem fair. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about (or who are you talking to)? I don't recall ever being interested in any Irish politician template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were directed to @BrownHairedGirl:. She's aware of the analogy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while to figure it out, because it's a very poor analogy.

@Laurel Lodged is trying to draw a comparison between this discussion about categories, and an earlier discussion about the structure of succession boxes. For some reason, LL thought that deleting the header template would cause the removal of other templates. I showed a different way of using the templates which offered a resolution to LL's objections.

In this case, we were discussing a common situation of a country changing names. The hows of that are well known, were not an issue in the discussion about whether to do it. LL created about a dozen new pages (including new templates), which created a perverse situation of "Poland" being a subcat of "Congress Poland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the analogy: in 1 case an admin makes substantial amendments to a succession box mid discussion as an illustration of a "to be" look and gets away with it; in this case an editor creates a new template as an illustration of a "to be" look and is admonished for it by the same admin. Doesn't seem fair. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, @ Laurel Lodged. Not so.

You wanted those templates removed. If there had been a consensus to do so, my changes would all have been removed as part of that.

In this case you created a dozen new categories when you knew that there was no consensus to do so.

You have done the same again this morning, so I have deleted them all again.

This discussion needs a reboot, but a unilateral imposition of one contested solution is no way to resolve it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. My preference is for option 2. Congress Poland categories should be subcategories to higher level, (partitioned) Poland categories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: To address your concerns about the Province of Posen, I have created Category:Establishments in Posen (Prussian province). Does this help? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Belated reply: I like this category, but I am glad we have implemented option 2 with regards to the wider issue, and thank you User:Fayenatic london for following up on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: I have listed that for speedy renaming to Category:Establishments in the Province of Posen. If that is done, I suggest you split the contents to Category:19th-century establishments in the Province of Posen and Category:20th-century establishments in the Province of Posen, as it's less useful to have "establishments" categories without dates. – Fayenatic London 09:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: It appears that all the contents are 19th-century establishments. Can we rename it accordingly? Speedy WP:C2E? – Fayenatic London 11:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented option 2 above, i.e. revised my CFD close to "no consensus", and reverted these 11 categories to "Poland". – Fayenatic London 20:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]