Talk:Belgian Congo

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Belgian Congo

Tagged but not listed. Strongly oppose deletion — I don't even have to motivate why. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a dictionary, it doesn't need to list every possible former country. That's a weird proper noun people rather search in an encyclopedia. At least that's what I think. Also its sum of its parts.Leucostictes (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Leucostictes, practically all countries composed of Republic of X could be considered SoP, but they still have a place in a dictionary. Belgian Congo was the name of the country until recently, surely you understand why your proposal to delete this entry comes off as silly? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, when I was on Simple Wiktionary a few years ago Barras sent me a message criticizing me for creating entries on countries and said "Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia like wikipedia, we don't need large numbers of entries on every possible former country...we don't need large numbers of new entries on whatever part of the Soviet Socialist Republic" so I thought dictionaries avoided place names.Leucostictes (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand why you would believe that, but this is English Wiktionary — we have droves of entries for former, present and future countries. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, no legitimate grounds for deletion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As the name of a specific entity, Belgian Congo seems analogous to South Korea or Mountainous Karabakh. It is more idiomatic than the likes of Southern Africa, which is not the name of a specific entity but any section of Africa that one feels is part of its south, and which we include regardless. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep I personally do not think we need these entries on every possible former state. But I also think consensus is important, so keep the entry. Leucostictes (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I recommend expressing what you really think about the keeping the entry. It won’t be deleted unless at least 2/3 support deletion, and it is more important to know how the community really feels about its inclusion than to have artificial unanimous agreement. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally am against all former countries being included, I would want them all deleted. But that's not going to happen so I would vote keep. It only makes sense to delete if we also will delete all the other useless entries in the category "every possible former country". I don't think they are appropriate for a dictionary, they're weird proper nouns people rather search in an encyclopedia. Leucostictes (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Leucostictes: What about former countries and empires like Nubia, Burma, Babylon, West Germany, Weimar Republic, Wessex? Is it better that someone should learn not to look for a quick answer to Wiktionary (which usually has good links the right WP, or WSpecies entry), but to look to WP from the beginning? DCDuring (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Compare Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The names of countries are explictly referenced in Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Place_names. Former countries should not be excluded simply because they no longer exist. John Cross (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Should Congo Free State be deleted since its essentially a synonym? Because the Congo Free State was a Belgian colony in all but name, it was essentially the same state the Belgian Congo was, except that it technically was a separate realm of the Belgian King, but all of its administrators were Belgians, and its military and police were financed entirely by Belgium, and the Belgian King had to rely on his cabinet for political decisions in the country like when the Congo could go to war and things like that, so it was pretty much the same entity. Leucostictes (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't delete synonyms if they are attestable. However, if it is not as common as Belgian Congo it need not be a substantive entry. Instead, the template {{synonym of}} can be used on that page. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

From what I can assume from reading up on the Congo Free State and its history, rewriting the current entry as a synonym of Belgian Congo would be misleading at best. The difference between the two lies in the classification – while the former is considered a state in personal union with the Kingdom of Belgium, the latter is a colony of Belgium, thus stripped of independence. Minimalising this quite important distinction is how you end up infuriating people who are familiar with social sciences and history. I see no reason in changing the current definition. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct that since the Congo Free State was nominally an independent country the distinction should be kept. I find it irritating that we have large numbers of entries on every possible former country, even in cases where two defined countries are essentially the same state. But I suppose if we are going to have these entries we might as well keep the fine distinctions and not make them synonyms. Leucostictes (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Snow closed as kept. bd2412 T 15:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)