Talk:List of Other Backward Classes

discussion and question

This list-article is under construction. It seems to me to be an obviously beneficial list for Wikipedia, and creating it is meant by me to facilitate improvement of related list-article List of Indian castes, which has heretofore included many scheduled casteother backward class items which more properly belong here, I believe. And it complements new List of Scheduled Castes. I am open to discussion, but would mostly value help developing this list. --doncram 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors, please be civil in your edit summaries and otherwise. Please discuss serious content here. In the development of this list-article, it will from time to time include links that are not to the correct caste/community group article. It is part of the development of the list-article to try and fix links that do link to the right article, or which point to a needed article (a redlink). I have tried and already fixed some links myself, and have now noted editor Sitush changing/fixing some. I welcome others adding and/or fixing links as appropriate. The point is to develop a useful and fully accurate Wikipedia list-article. This is an article in progress. --doncram 21:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor Sitush, please be civil. In this edit, Sitush called some work "crap" and proceeded to remove sourced mention of term "Dhobi" as an official name of an OBC in Goa. I believe it is important to hew closely/exactly to the official names. The column is labelled "Official name(s) as OBC". Sitush, do you mean to replace official names by some other naming of your own? Please reconsider that edit, and comment here, please. --doncram 22:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you add crap then I'll fix it. You are not even reading the sources correctly, let alone paying attention to WP:COMMONNAME etc. You are linking to the wrong groups, adding inappropriate content in the articles that you link to and generally making a complete balls-up of it. Honestly, you know nowt about this and your oily words are not going to help in the slightest. Why the fuck should people have to clean up your mess on such a big scale? You've done it with NRHP stuff and I'm blowed if you're going to get away with doing it for Indic community stuff and thus create even more toxicity in an already-toxic area. There aren't enough hours in the day to keep track of your mistakes, which will ultimately spread over several thousand articles and lead to a phenomenal amount of disruption. At which point, I'm willing to bet that you will have disappeared to do other things again. - Sitush (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your language is vile. I can probably ignore the nastiness in your approach here, and continue to contribute. However, I don't appreciate your tone and intent and what seems like arrogance here.

On point of content of this list-article, you have made a number of changes away from the officially provided names of OBCs as provided in official sources cited. I think that is dangerous, as it is based on your personal knowledge or beliefs, without sources. I think it is important to use the exact official language in the "Official names" column. If you have other notes to make, please do so in the Notes column which I have added (and, these notes should be sourced, too, either from the getgo or eventually). Okay? --doncram 22:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourced eventually? No chance: you source such claims immediately or make no claim. The only exception might just be if the claim is already sourced in the linked article. If you are going to make a link then you need firstly to take a proper look at the target: even if it appears to validate the link, is it sourced reliably, is there any puffery going on, are you 100% sure it is the same community etc. Since you are fairly new to the subject matter, I'd guess that exercise would initially take you at least 15 minutes or so per article. You might manage 10 minutes on some, I suppose.

If you do add to the articles that you link then you need to use a construct such as {{As of}} and relate it to the date of official designation: it is common with Indian sources to find that there are contradictory versions knocking around even on official websites, and the amount of ire that a mis-statement can cause will stagger you. You also need to be specific that this refers to the central list, which is by no means the be-all and end-all and, indeed, often has less impact than state lists (much of Indian politics at regional levels is based on what you would probably call castes, and corruption + nepotism etc is rife).

As far as naming goes, the official lists have no particular order to them and this reflects the chaotic environment that is India, an environment that quite a few who live there have told me is probably more confusing and depressing to visitors than the sights of poverty etc. Since our article titles are supposed to reflect the common usage, we should use that common name even if the lists show a different order. I accept that some articles may be mis-titled but I'd advise running against local opinion unless you have sufficient evidence to support a WP:COMMONNAME argument in a WP:RM discussion. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As was pointed out by me at the ANI proceeding, Sitush, 6 minutes after my last comment above, opened the ANI proceeding. And ten hours later, in the just-above comment dated 10:09, 9 December, showed an apparent key misunderstanding. Sitush apparently thought I was calling for unsourced information to be added. No, I was removing Sitush's deviations away from official language, and removing his phrasings to a Notes column, and asking Sitush to provide sourcing please. Given that Sitush, not recognizing what i was saying, proceeded to delete his own unsourced phrasings, and I agree the unsourced phrasings should not be left in, too, perhaps we have gotten somewhere. Great. And there were other things commented upon usefully in the ANI, by several editors.

Proposal Can we therefore agree:

1. no, zero (exactly and approximately) unsourced information is to be allowed
2. the list should include, in the column labelled "Official name", exactly and only the naming given in the official source document
3. that value added by this list-article will include that it covers, in one searchable list, what no known official Indian document covers in one place, i.e. a complete listing of OBCs from the linked source lists. So for example one could search and find every regional instance of a people named Koli being an OBC (I am not asserting that each such instance is referring to one and the same community)
4. that value is to be added by wikilinking from items here to corresponding articles about communities/groups...and wherever a link is made, the linked article should gain a properly sourced statement that the group is named an OBC since a given date, in a certain region.
5. that value is to be added by showing redlinks, where no corresponding article yet exists
6. that each item should include date (which it did in the last version edited by me). About use of "as of" template, I think that is not correct to use as has been introduced, because it seems to suggest that a given group was designated OBC only as of the very first date, say 1996, that it was designated. When in fact the relevant "as of", in common meaning of this phrase, would be the current date. I.e., the official website states, as of right now, the given group has been designated an OBC from 1996 until the current date. I think the dating, with dropping of the "as of" template use, is and was clear in each row. I do take it as a good suggestion that the entire article can and should be labelled in its lede as being valid "as of" a certain date, i.e. the date at which some amount of editing is completed and the list is done for a while.

Okay? Comments? --doncram 02:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read the above quickly, as I about to go out. From that quick reading, I object to some of your proposals. I'll explain later. - Sitush (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your items numbered (4) and (5) are largely unattainable within our current framework. You see, despite appearances to the contrary and common misconceptions in the West, there is no system, be it called a caste system or something less pejorative. Equally, there is no official definition of what constitutes an OBC, just as there is no definition of a "tribe". Sometimes, it is also problematic to determine the geographic scope. There are lists, sure, and we can reproduce those lists and perhaps add a little value through sorting ... but we cannot link them to articles about communities that, generally speaking, are referenced to anthropological and often-dubious historical studies. Basically, something is OBC if it is listed and if it is OBC then it is listed: it is circular and without any certainty of external meaning, although with some practical effect. I've got issues with the sorting point but will return to that.

There were 1646 identified communities in 1901, 4147 in 1931 and 4635 in the 1990s, although the latter figure was self-admitted to be on the conservative side. It is impossible to correlate these identifications because communities in India come and go as a consequence of both fusion and fission, often at a very localised level, and the methodology of classification is variable. The NCBC was formed in 1993 in an attempt to bring some order to the chaos of a reservation system that makes up definitions, membership etc on the hoof without any valid reference point beyond useless data from 1931 and "who shouts the loudest". The NCBC is supposed to oversee the addition/deletion of communities to the OBC lists but "This mandate of the commission is not taken seriously due to non-availability of data on castes belonging to the OBCs". (Caste Census: Looking Back, Looking Forward - R. B. Bhagat - Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 21, pp. 1902-1905). The 2011 census became a "caste census" almost at the last minute, due to pressure being applied by self-interested communities. The results are as yet unpublished w.r.t. the OBC issue and they may never be published.

The census enumerators nowadays insist that if someone wants to be categorised as an OBC then they must declare themselves to be one of the communities on the list, even though those communities are artificial, arbitrary, bureaucratic creations that may bear little relation to what the individuals think of themselves or, indeed, how anthropologists deal with the issues. The lists are so poor in quality that they do not even indicate whether they are referring to synonyms or sub-communities when they show multiple names under one heading and, indeed, this has already caused us problems and it causes problems in real life. There is no way for us to reliably determine the intended target and, in the case of redlinks, there may never be an intended target because the community may not be documented anywhere except in the OBC lists, rather like the Jedi census phenomenon. If we link then we would be engaging in synthesis and original research, however well educated our guess may be in a few instances. Effectively, we would need to create a one- or two-line stub for each item in the lists, ignoring any existing articles as they may or may not be the same community. The only reference in the stub, which could never be expanded except to note if/when the group is denotified, would be the OBC list itself. Ans we would have to monitor all of those stubs to ensure that no-one creates a link to the existing articles in violation of WP:BLPGROUP etc. There would also need to be a large number of disambigs, of course, although we've no idea whether the names are synonyms or sub-groups & thus the naming schema will need some thought. Those disambigs would also need to be monitored. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is only semantics, I think, Sitush for you to assert you object to items 4 and 5 in the proposal. You elaborate how hard you think it is both to link to any related article or to identify that there is no suitable article to link to. Assuming it is completely as hard as you assert, then still, the points 4 and 5 stand: Value is to be added by linking to suitable articles or identifying that there is no suitable article. Yes, the area does seem to need a lot of disambiguation pages probably.

It is besides the point to assert that the OBCs designated by the government are too fleeting or amorphous to identify or name. Obviously, they have been named. And they are not so fleeting...the ones listed so far have been named OBCs since 1993 or 1996 until now in 2012. They could change, yes, and when they do their entry can be updated easily. It is subjective, external commentary to point out that the Indian governmental system is stupid or anything else...not sure whether you want to pass judgment that way or not. It is what it is. The OBCs are designated groups that persons are identified as being in, or not being in. That is all fact.

Whether or not anyone will have a cow if anyone dares to link to any other article from this one, this list-article can clearly proceed by editors adding all the OBCs named by the government, per the sources. Sitush, if it helps you, consider that these could be added without links at all, and that bluelinks and redlinks could be added gradually, later.

So, if you don't mind, let me assert we are all in agreement, there is no disagreement to what is stated in the proposal. I'll pause again. --doncram 21:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've not finished stating my objections yet, so please do not misrepresent me yet again. You seem to be making a habit of it. I made it clear above that there are other issues, asides from the ones that you so naively want to gloss over. I am drafting further comments. However, if you add blue- or red-links to communities named in list then the chances are pretty high that I will revert you because you simply do not understand the issues. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you are being deeply uncivil here. In your edit, your edit summary is "you misrepresent me, yet again". I do not believe I misrepresented you in any way. I don't think you did make it clear above that you were done stating your objections; are you suggesting that I was lying/misrepresenting you as being finished when it should have been clear you were not? I don't see any point on which you can stand, to show how I "misrepresent" you above. And you call me naive and you threaten me. Grow up, and stop with the incivility, please. Seriously.

I will wait, however, to see your further objections to the proposal. --doncram 21:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How is So, if you don't mind, let me assert we are all in agreement, there is no disagreement to what is stated in the proposal. not misrepresenting me? If you think I'm being uncivil then you know what to do. Semantics is everything in caste etc articles. - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it simpler for you. That was (obviously) an attempt to secure agreement, i.e. to ask you to acknowledge that tho you say 4 and 5 are hard to achieve, the principle of 4 and 5 is still something you agree with. In plain English, you have not stated how you disagree in any way that I can understand. In plain English there is no misrepresentation in anything i said. Let's not split hairs, though, okay?

I don't see how you can seriously disagree with anything tho, unless you turn around and want to add unsourced information after all. All I understand is that you insist you will disagree, when you explain yourself. I await your explanation, if you wish to continue to insist that you disagree. --doncram 00:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That you cannot understand probably demonstrates, as I've said elsewhere, merely your ignorance. I am at a loss regarding how to explain the linking issue any better. I'll see if I can come up with some better explanation and I can hope that someone else makes a better fist of it than me. This stuff is a nightmare and it is not helped when people who know nothing about it just jump in there and think "well, it is an official list and so it must work". I'll admit that I do not suffer fools easily and perhaps do not communicate my thoughts particularly well but, honestly, it is not merely one person who has issues with how to deal with this. And the absence so far in this discussion of people who really do understand the system speaks loudly: it is messy, it is far more difficult than you imagine and it is something that most people prefer to avoid. This is a huge can of worms. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I honestly appreciate that you seem to acknowledge something, that you are may not communicate your thoughts particularly well, at least here, now. That helps; that is different than simply badgering and insulting which was the level before.

I'll try to set aside your new insults ("your ignorance","fools"). But do you feel compelled to insult persons that you are talking to? Why do that??? Surely you understand that makes it harder for anyone to understand whatever you want to get at???

Anyhow, I guess you are meaning to convey that finding appropriate Wikipedia articles to link to, is a long process? If that is what you mean, yes. And that comes back to: points 4 and 5 are hard to achieve, but would add value, and, sorry, I don't see you disagreeing with that. If you do object to that, again I don't understand how or why. It sorta seems like you have come to this discussion with a commitment to find disagreement, and you insist it must exist. --doncram 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Why insult people is explained at WP:BAIT, and the objectives of being endlessly argumentative are explained at some essay on filibustering, IIRC. Will try to find a link.OrangesRyellow (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Here's the link WP:FILIBUSTERS, Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling is also relevant and the overall explanation (with hugely relevant examples) is at WP:OWN.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Size

I am working on a full table, it so far runs to about 1200 rows, and I am about halfway there. It may be better to break the list down by state and hive the larger sub-lists off into separate articles. Rich Farmbrough, 22:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. I have hoped that there could be one big list, to allow for searching and sorting so that a reader can find the multiple instances of the same named group in more than one state. Can you try keeping it in one big list, and let's not split it too quickly? Perhaps it will have to be split, I agree, but maybe it could be split into fewer, say, into two or three lists, and keep most of the searchability-functionality. Note, this could be a list with just a small amount of info on each line, so maybe 1200 rows would be fine. As opposed to lists of historic places, that get pics and descriptions and a lot more and become slow-loading after about 200-odd rows. --doncram 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

By having them all together, i am hoping (not necessarily expecting) that some groups will be defined the same, will seem to be clearly the same named group, in more than one state. So then those could be consolidated and there will be less than 1200 rows. --doncram 00:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your expectations are unlikely to fruit, doncram. Rich, thanks for taking this on and doing it in userspace or off-wiki or whatever. That is the best approach, and the same applies to lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The last time I looked, which is several months ago, there were around 1100 challenges to the NCBC list, some of which had been accepted and a lesser amount of which had been rejected. This is not a trivial matter, especially since the NCBC are reluctant to define whether the challenges are communities, sub-groups, synonyms or something else .... even when they determine in favour of the challenge. It is a huge hot potato and has been for half a century. Creating the list is no big deal, aside from the time required, but linking it is massively problematic. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking

Linking is a problem. I've said it before but the issue seems not to be sinking in. Those who still doubt me may care to read through just one of the 1200 or so adjudications issued by the NCBC here. It is also worth bearing in mind that those papers frequently contain a stock phrase along the lines of "castes/subcastes/communities/synonyms", as here without actually specifying which of those a particular word or phrase may be. Add into that mix the issue of homonyms, transliterations and common words such as koli, which us used not merely to denote a recognised community but also in the more generalised sense of "fisherman". Using these primary sources in articles is dodgy; linking to articles from this list is equally dodgy unless we have an article for similarly-named communities in each state/UT. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.OrangesRyellow (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And your point is? You'll have to explain that platitude in relation to this issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Sitush. I don't get the point of this discussion section, really, but if you just want affirmation, Sitush, that is okay. Finding appropriate Wikipedia articles to link to for OBC groups in this list is going to be a long process, I expect. It is good to begin. So far there are three links, to Budabukkala (a new article), to Rajaka, and to Kharvi. I think Sitush you have edited at the Rajaka and Kharvi articles recently. All three now have clear, sourced statements that there exists one or more groups sharing that article's title name, which have been declared OBCs. This is fine; there is then a correspondence. I think it is important to have, at any linked article, an assertion at the article that a group of this name has been designated an OBC, with clear explanation and source. So that you can't have a list-article making assertions about linked article topics, where the readers/editors/followers of the linked articles are unaware of the assertion concerning them. Continuing in development like this seems fine, right? Sitush, do you disagree with any of those articles being linked? Sometimes this Talk page, and sometimes the Talk page of the article linked or proposed for linking would be best for discussing any issue like that. Or, Sitush, if you have something else to explain, please do. --doncram 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be demanding the truth and the absolute truth and nothing but the truth (in other people's edits of course). It is a glorious proposition, but, fortunately/unfortunately, that is not how wikipedia works. We go by verifiable info. If you see some problem like Koli≠Koli, it is on you to produce a source saying something like Koli≠Koli. We do not sit back not writing articles, twiddling our thumbs, just because of the hypothetical possibility Koli≠Koli. I agree there may be some such problems. But they do not leave us paralyzed.OrangesRyellow (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, what do you think I've been doing for at least an hour or so of each day of late? Trying to sort out what can be unambiguously verified and what cannot. You may want to consider such things as WP:BLPGROUP and WP:PRIMARY. In Goa, there is a community called Kharvi. There are sources saying that the Koli are known as Kharvi in that place; there are also sources suggesting that they are distinct; and there is at least one that refers to them as "Koli/Kharvi". The OBC list helps us not an iota in this situation and finding a reliable source is even more difficult: most are just not good enough per existing consensus on caste/community sourcing.

Doncram, you'll gather from the above that I'm not even wonderfully happy with Kharvi but am still digging. This Koli/Kharvi thing is a mess because sources differ (and I've now found a source that says Gabit = Kharvi, which makes matters even worse). Sourcing just one or two statements in an article can take a week or more.

Budabukkala is fine because we've started from the other end, so to speak. That is, an article has been created based on an item in the OBC list. Anything added there will have to conform to the regional limitations of the list, and if another list shows a similarly-named community then we'll just have to create another article for that and set up a disambig. Unless we can unambiguously determine that they are the same. In all cases, we need to trawl through the advisory notices, not just the list: those notices provide the rationale, such as it is, & do sometimes say what are synonyms etc.

I've not really got round to looking at the ins and outs of Rajaka yet. Obviously, people do not have to wait for me but unless we keep on top of this process, it will fall apart very quickly. And I'm not at all happy with vague stuff along the well-worn lines of "this building may have had some importance in 1914 or 1921" variety. Best to leave the statement out than to stoke a fire. - Sitush (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is asserted here that Kolis are known as Kharvi in Goa, can we have evidence for the same? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What is asserted is that for Goa the Koli and the Kharvi are lumped together as one line in the national OBC list. The OBC list does not make clear what the relationship may be but the NCBC use a fairly standard formula that includes the words "synonym" and "subdivision". They do, for example, show the Gabit fishing community of Goa as a separate entry, IIRC. There are numerous sources that refer to the Koli being known as Kharvi in Goa but so far I've found none that say the reverse and since the NCBC are unclear, we have a problem. Indeed, we have precisely the problem I have been banging on about for weeks here and which others seem not to understand even now. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

(1)The entry is "Koli, Kharvi" which is clearly two different entities. (2) If this is the discussion you (Sitush) refer to at Koli talk page, please disregard my request for diff there. (3) "lumped" isn't a neutral word to describe content from a reliable source. (4) You are right "the OBC list doesn't make it clear". (5) The OBC lists are just that lists, that inform the inclusion or otherwise of communities as OBCs. It is SYNTHESIS to assume that because Koli and Kharvi are in the same clause, they are synonyms. You (Sithsh) have mentioned that there are various sources that inform that Kolis in Goa are also called Kharvis, may we please have them? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not clearly two different entities: as per my opening message in this thread, It is also worth bearing in mind that those papers frequently contain a stock phrase along the lines of "castes/subcastes/communities/synonyms", as here without actually specifying which of those a particular word or phrase may be. You are once again misunderstanding what WP:SYNTHESIS is about - I know several people have tried to set you straight regarding this at ANI/DRN etc and I'm at a loss to explain it any better than they have done. The problem here is not one of synthesis but rather one of WP:PRIMARY: we are having to interpret when it comes to linking and we are not supposed to do that. - Sitush (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh, do I really have to keep going over old ground when, for example, you have said yourself that koli is generic term for fishing people etc? Definitive proof of this thing one way or another is simply not going to happen because the sources vary and, in the case of this primary source, the definition is so vague as to appear useless for encyclopaedic purposes. Unless someone wants to email the NCBC and somehow wangle the horse's mouth through Wikipedia's miasma of bureaucracy. - Sitush (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is of "Koli" as a generic term in the general sense, however we have "specific" people for example who are called/ call themselves Koli, whom the Central government recognises as a distinct group in Goa, to warrant inclusion in a list about OBCs there. You (Sitush) are right regarding PRIMARY, that is why I contend that we use the list only to recognise a group for example Koli (Goa) as OBC in Goa, ( for which the source is the most accurate and exemplary) but not use entries like Koli, Kharvi to make further deductions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Separate tables for each state

I suggest that separate tables be made statewise. Each state having two entries, one the state list and another the central list. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that splitting this list would be a good idea, offhand. I am inclined to think that Wikipedia providing one unified list would be a service, i.e. identifying for each state, all groups that are on both central and state lists, and groups that are on just one. Before deciding anything, could we consider what are the sources available for state lists? For example, for Andra Pradesh and for Assam, just working alphabetically?

Whatever is the direction going forward, the list is not yet so large as to require splitting. Another way forward for a while, would be to add state-sourced information, and to try to work out a unified treatment. --doncram 05:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, we could have tables that look like the ones below, also care ought to be taken to ensure that the lists are reproduced verbatim, including hyphens etc., though I have as an example provided a link, I suggest that due care be taken before linking to any article. As the linked article may not be appropriate.There are 28 states and 7 union territories in India that is a total of 35 entries, with two lists it makes 28 x 2 + 35 7= 63 lists and assuming 150 classes per state/ union territory we have 13650 9450 entries or cells as an estimate. Of course some classes may be found in multiple states, so, that reduces the number of cells. Mind-boggling is a word that is invented for a task like this one!

OBCs per central list

State/Class	Andhra Pradesh	Assam	State 3
Class 1	Included[1]
Class 2		Included[2]
Class 3

OBC per state list

State/Class	Andhra Pradesh	Assam	State 3
Class 1	Included[3]
Class 2		Included[4]
Class 3

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry Doncram and all for the bad mathematics. There are 35 entities in all 28 states and 7 union territories; union territories are directly governed by the union government so I am assuming they won't have separate lists. You ( Doncram) have told me that you have a proven record of dealing with lists, you have also stated that the heavens won't fall if the lists are not absolutely upto date. I am hopeful that you would complete this Herculean task. Once complete it would be the first of its kind. (related to Indian OBCs) I wish you the best. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mind-boggling indeed. The phrase "fools rush in" also rings a bell regarding this entire exercise. Has anyone managed to locate all of the state lists? I've never managed to find some of then online and on some occasions when I have found them it has been apparent that there are contradictions: one department lists a community that is omitted or differently classified in the list of another department. A trip to the various Social Welfare departments etc might be required. That will have to be done at least every six months because the things change and our wording at present is pretty absolute. My guess is the organisational issues may be precisely why the NCBC etc do not bother presenting the information in the way that is being attempted here. Plus, of course, it has no practical use on the ground. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, no need to keep insulting everyone. Be civil, just stop with the insults. --doncram 14:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no insult. Your touchiness is astonishing and your continued accusations of incivility are becoming uncivil in themselves. This needs planning, not rushing, and even you are intimating above that the structure might need to be changed. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to go back and forth with you Sitush. You don't need to use insulting language. You don't have to assert others are stupid or fools or naive or not-tough-enough-to-deal-with-tough-persons-like-yourself, or whatever. I requested: just stop. Thanks. --doncram 17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if the mediawiki software can actually handle a table with 13650 cells. If we are contemplating a table that big, we had better consult this with some technical minded guys first? I think there may be some technical limitations which could prevent us from building a table that big. However, if we are planning a smaller table, this may not be an issue.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing any need for splitting this list-article. No one seems to be actually suggesting adding use of any new specific source, any specific state lists. If someone wants to identify some state list information to add to this list-table, I expect we could accomodate it, if/when some source is proposed.

I also think it not is it possible to make any Wikipedia-reader-friendly table that would be 30 or so columns wide, with a column for each state. This list-article currently has a more regular list-table, a few columns wide, as started already here, with one state following another. We can continue to develop this. --doncram 17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)