Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 14



Category:Building societies of Scotland

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Building societies of Scotland to Category:Building societies of the United Kingdom and Category:Financial services companies of Scotland.
 * Propose merging Category:Building societies of Northern Ireland to Category:Building societies of the United Kingdom and Category:Financial services companies of Northern Ireland.
 * Nominator's rationale: Single article categories, and will stay that way now only one building society exists in each country. No need to merge to other parents as these are parents of the other cats. QueenCake (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Scotland, support Northern Ireland upmerge, considering there is more than one Scottish building society, but Northern Ireland is so small I doubt very much there is scope to increase the numbers. Sionk (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is only one Scottish building society still operating (the aptly named Scottish Building Society), Nationwide swallowed up the Dunfermline brand last year. QueenCake (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Upmerge -- Back in the 1980s, there were about 450 building societies in UK. I doubt we will get articles on all the building societies that were amalgamated into others.  We ought to have Grays Building Society, which was taken over by Woolwich when Grays was found to have an unexplained deficiency of funds.  On the other hand, who is likely to write an article on Stourbridge, Lye and District Permanent Building Society or some hundreds of other former societies.  If they do, we may want a category for former building societies.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Harivamsa

 * 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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting harivamsa


 * Nominator's rationale: Harivamsa is a Hindu text that describes two legendary dynasties, the so-called solar dynasty and lunar dynasty. It is not a dynasty by itself and cannot be a category for that reason. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Harivamsa might be a text as well as Indian sages had a common practice of naming the text same as topic. But its also hari-vamsa meaning vashavali (generations) of Hari. In Jainism its a separate dynasty, few of the notable members being those already added. If I may add, in hinduism as well hari-vansh is a seperate dynasty. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  01:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's indeed a dynasty. It's the dynasty to which Krishana belonged to. Refer 'Philosophies of India' by Heinrich Zimmer (p.220).-Rtalk 04:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a book published posthumously in 1952. Early 20th century Indology sources are not considered reliable sources for Indian history or traditions. Modern scholarship, e.g.,, makes it clear that the Jaina traditions are counternarratives. The idea of an independent "Hari's clan" does not appear in mainstream Hindu traditions. It is at best a WP:FRINGE theory. It should not be made to appear as if it is the mainstream view. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdraw - I am happy to withdraw this nomination because I was able to remove the Hindu traditional figures from the category by WP:CATDEF. As long as this category is used for Jaina figures, there is no problem. However, I would advise the creator to create a proper article on Harivamsa so that the readers would know what this is all about. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Mythology is not required to be historically factual: it lies in a borderland between fact and fantasy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.