Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9[edit]

Category:Arsonists by nationality[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: keep except for English and Scottish, which are upmerged to British. Kbdank71 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Arsonists by nationality to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:American arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:Argentine arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:Australian arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:British arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:English arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:Scottish arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:Canadian arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:German arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:Japanese arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Propose merging Category:Norwegian arsonists to Category:Arsonists
Nominator's rationale: Merge because of overcategorization. There are only ~50 Arsonists total, so I don't see why it needs to be split into nationalities. Tavix |  Talk  23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. If these are merged, they cannot be placed in their proper national categories where they currently are and where they belong to reflect the criminals in their country. Read their parent categories. Hmains (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All (except as noted below) as a valid and useful category scheme for people/criminals by nationality. However, there's no real need for the English & Scottish sub-cats, which should be merged into Category:British arsonists. Cgingold (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmrge "English" and "SCottish" to "British", as there are not enough to need subcategories. Keep the rest. The American category is certainly big enough to keep, and we do not usually categorise people by continent, which would be the alternative, once we keep the British and American categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the exception noted just above. This facilitates identification and browsing. DGG (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All to allow navigation through the structure of criminals by nationality, though UK categories should probably be combined. Alansohn (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (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:Belgium–Soviet Union relations[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. Kbdank71 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Belgium–Soviet Union relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. We don't need a bilateral category linking to the ambassadors category when there isn't even a Belgium–Soviet Union relations main article. Tavix |  Talk  23:27, 9 April 2009 (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:Future maps[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. Kbdank71 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming Category:Future maps to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Upmerge, Delete or provide an introduction that makes the purpose of the category clear. From the introduction, it is not clear that we need this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is a relist, as the category went through an entire week of discussion without any input besides the original nomination. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or as a second choice rename. Implying that the maps in this category represent how things will be in the future would be original research and speculation. Perhaps a revised category name could be something like "Maps of proposed countries" or something like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2009 (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:EastEnders villains[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. Kbdank71 13:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:EastEnders villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category:British soap opera villains was recently deleted here for being POV and subjective, and this is exactly the same, only specifically for one soap opera. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, a more limited category solves no problems. Rodhullandemu 17:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, who is to decide which characters are villans? It's slightly pointless and serves no purpose. Cutekitten05 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cutekitten. (Quentin X (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per Anemone GunGagdinMoan 16:07, 10 April 2009 (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.

Nazi concentration camps[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camps to Category:German Nazi concentration camps
Propose renaming Category:Nazi extermination camps to German Nazi extermination camps
Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camps in Germany to Category:German Nazi concentration camps in Germany
Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camps in Norway to German Nazi concentration camps in Norway
Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camp personnel to Category:German Nazi concentration camp personnel
Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camps in Poland to German Nazi concentration camps in Poland
Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors to Category:German Nazi concentration camp survivors
Propose renaming Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps to Category:People who died in German Nazi concentration camps
Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors to Category:German Nazi concentration camp survivors
Propose renaming Category:Nazi concentration camps in Austria to Category:German Nazi concentration camps in Austria
Nominator's rationale: Proposal to change the name of categories to another one with national connotation. All these camps were founded by Nazi Germany in Germany or in soil conquered or subjugated by Nazi Germany. Problem is that current names are misleading, presuming that did exist international movement of anonymous Nazis. German Nazis used to presecution of Jews etc. some collaborators (Ukrainians, Frenchs, Austrians etc.) but it was regime of German NSDAP party which organized internationally these crimes. Contemporarly those deceptions guided to misinterpretation of history in massmedia. Lack of more detailed information misguides to frequently repeted errors about so called lie of Polish (Nazi) concentration camps [1], [2]. Majority of German Nazi death camps were on Polish soil but there were no Polish Nazis, constructed these factories of death. So we must rename these categories like German Nazi concentration camps in Poland etc. After an action of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affaires UNESCO has just changed name of Kl Auschwitz on World Heritage Site to Auschwitz Birkenau, German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)[3]. Mathiasrex (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Polish death camp controversy. Mathiasrex (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Nazi," in a World War II context, means "German who follows the Nazism ideology." So appending the word "German" in front of "Nazi" is redundant. If Polish Nazis didn't exist, there's no need for us to make sure there isn't confusion between them and German Nazis.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is that word Nazis is no so much distinct and many extend its meaning to group of followers of Nazism ideology all over the world. Hence is a problem with Polish concentration camps. Mathiasrex (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in this case. Nazis didn't have concentration camps in any time period other than World War II, and at that time "Nazi" meant "Nazi German." There's no need for a change here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not truth. National socialism ideology was shared during WWII by many parties in many countries exemplum Arrow Cross Party in Hungary, Rexism in Belgium, Iron Guard in Romania etc. So we must differ Nazi Germany as a spiritus movens of holocaust and death camps. Mathiasrex (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Sympathetic to Nazi ideology" and "Nazi" are not synonyms. The word is clear in its context. Anyway, I'm just repeating myself now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not only sympathetic but Nazism was a core ideology of these parties. Mathiasrex (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: the category classification system at Wikipedia does not exist in order for you to score nationalist political points. Start a blog. T L Miles (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The Nazism article begins: "Nazism, officially National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers to the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945." Hence, adding "German" to all these category names is unnecessary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather agree with the opinions above. However, I would suggest renaming the categories into "Nazi German.." not "German Nazi..". The difference is "Nazi German" distinguishes which Germans – Nazi Germans (same as it is in article Nazi Germany or template  Nazi Germany), unlike "German Nazi" that distinguishes which Nazis – German Nazis, which is unnecessary as people above have said. Delta 51 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is: The word German, whether before or after the word Nazi, seems redundant. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. If against all odds someone is actually confused by the term "Nazi concentration camp", s/he either lacks the mental skills needed to make use of the category, or gets the information s/he needs by doing so. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - but to Nazi German, unfortunately there is a growing number of young people to whom "Nazi Camp" is not immediately associated with Nazi Germany.--Jacurek (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename. I could not stress enough that this nomination has nothing to do with nationalism, and everything to do with knowledge. The Institute of National Remembrance called on media last year to start adding German before Nazi in all monuments and tables that remember the victims of the Holocaust. Why? Because apparently young people learning history are still confused as to who did what, where and when? [4] --Poeticbent talk 15:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Nazi German. Loosmark (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nazi explains everything, let's not insult reader's intelligence.--Adi (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adi, just ask few average high school students "who were the Nazis and were they came from?". You will be shocked with some of the answers. It has nothing to do with intelligence but with the education systems of certain countries. Students in Poland, Germany or Israel will know very well but ask students in America for example (I did) and be prepared for some shocking answers. Even the ones who knew answered back with a question " they were from Germany or something?"--Jacurek (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why encyclopedia has articles on this and other subjects. Articles educate. Categories, on the other hand, don't. They classify, sort, arrange articles but please tell me how can a category listing educate some "American student"? NVO (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rename. I don't think its a major issue of confusion, but it is far from crystal clear, per jacurek. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename, although to Nazi German. 1)Being more precise and more accurate is not the same as being reduntant. 2) What exactly is nationalistic about this? Where did this comment come from? Please explain? IS there any dispute that it was German Nazis who organized these camps? 3) As Jacurek says, Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, is not just for the experts, but also needs to educate and correct ignorance - and that means being precise.radek (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's either German or Nazi, but two together are redundant. NVO (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So once those Germans became Nazis they stopped being German? According to this logic it was "Nazi state" also and no Nazi Germany? Sorry, no offence, but this is so ridiculous that is funny...:)--Jacurek (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all We all know tha the Nazis were German, so that is redundant. However some concentration camps were in German-occupied lands, one on what (save under the Vichy regime) was French soil. Accordingly the proposed renaming is misleading. While I have no time for neo-fascists, describing them as "Nazi" is a term of abuse, and POV, but that is the only other legitimate use of the term Nazi that I can think of. Furthermore, some of the perpetrators will have been of Austrian nationality before the anschluss and after WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly we know.... are you creating this encyclopaedia for yourself ?? What about the people who don't know,? and there is plenty of them, especially the young ones. It was the Nazi German state which build, maintained and is responsible for all the death camps in Europe. (Not the Austrians or the French.)--Jacurek (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that the nominator has notified a WikiProject of this nomination, which is appropriate, but he stated that a motivation for this nomination was to "avoid many errors in international media about so called Polish concentration camps or Polish death camps". However, the category is not currently called "Polish concentration camps" but rather "Nazi concentration camps in Poland". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. True. The categories are as they are and we all agree that Nazi death camps or concentration camps were established by the Nazi Germany in occupied countries. They were financed and operated by the Nazi German state. So what is the problem here? Well...sadly this is not true to many around the world who read this encyclopaedia. Ignorance and national stereotypes are the main causes that the history is being forgotten. Some people even mistakenly think that because Auschwitz is in Poland, that it was a Polish concentration camp. For the sake of the historical truth and accuracy, these categories should be renamed to include German in their respective titles. I feel very strongly about it.--Jacurek (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep It is not only redundant, but it also suggests that "German" is a variant of Nazi. Auschwitz officials might not care, but groups and individuals on the far-right, though they can act similar to the Nazis and embrace Nazi ideas - are not Nazis...Nobody can be a Nazi except for the Nazis themselves, so the only Nazis there are are now are old Nazis. The question we want to ask ourselves is could there be camps during the Nazi period that were not both controlled by Germans and Nazis? If not, then it is silly to disambiguate like this. --Npovshark (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My final comment. I'm so sad to say that even many simple comments of the editors who voted "keep" above are only confirming how important it is to rename above articles. I'm so sorry to say that, but many of you just don't understand and are totally unaware how crucial it is to maintain historical accuracy on this subject. How dangerous is it? Well...maybe one day some of you will find out.--Jacurek (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Nazi German. First:Not only Germans was nazis in II world war. There was many nazis from other countries. What nazis erected concentration camps? There was Hungarian National Socialist Party, Nasjonal Samling from Norway, National Movement of Switzerland, National Social Movement (Bulgaria), National Socialist Dutch Workers Party, National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands, Greyshirts from RPA, ESPO from Greece, Nationalist Party (Iceland), Danish People's Party (1941-1943), Swedisch National Socialist Blocetc. etc. Some people should think that was also the National Socialist Party Of Poland for example who erected "Polish concentration camp" in Oświęcim. There are people who say nonsense like that. I heard many times about "Polish camps" not "German camps in Poland". So what Nazis erected this camps? Polish nazis or German nazis? Maby Hitler fans from England members of British Union of Fascists do it on vacation in Poland in 1940? We should precised this because some historic ignorant just don`t know. Encyklopedia is for people who generally are ignorants and they search corect information about something on basic level. Second:In modern times are many neonazis around all world. We have German nazis, American nazis, Russian nazis and Polish nazis too. Nazism is international ideology. "Nazis" not precised who really erected this camps infact. Precision is generally Deutche Eigenschaft. Pernambuko
  • Strong Renameto Nazi German as other noted it is clear that Nazi refers to German so the name change won’t hurt/However there has been a trend to dillute the meaning of Nazi(Polish camps for example). And by renaming we will avoid confusing the tiny minority which doesn’t connect the Nazi camps to Germany and stop the fringe manipulations which aim to disconnect Nazi concentration camps with Germany.And of course there were non-German Nazi concentration camps-

Jasenovac concentration camp was made by Croatian Nazis. --Molobo (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The fact that the Nazi camps were set up by the Germans is not clear if such errors made by many people on this issue. Part of the Poles wanted to do something such as "Jews to Madagascar" and it is often equated with Nazism in Germany. (sorry but I speak English poorly) RoodyAlien (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, that Jews to Madagascar article is very very poor and seems to be based on a single non reliale source which is someone's personal blog. In reality the Polish Madagascar plan was originally a French idea that probably had more in common with the British Uganda Program or the Slattery_Report than the Nazi's version of the Madagascar Plan.radek (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • French Vichy regime participated in holocaust and French factories produced Cyklon B to exterminate human beings in German Nazi concentration camps, but Nazi Germany organized this. In fact many of Polish nationalists sharing antisemitic sentiments before WWII during war saved many Polish Jews. Thousands of Polish nationalists were killed in German Nazi concentration camps. [5] Mathiasrex (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Like Jan Mosdorf for example - director of the nationalist organization All-Polish Youth and member of the far-right political party National Radical Camp. Both are regognized as antisemite organizations but Mosdorf died in Auschwitz concentration camp in 1943, killed for helping Jews. And the second "Polish antisemite" - Zofia Kossak-Szczucka who wrote in her protest "Our feelings toward Jews have not changed," "We do not stop thinking of them as political, economic and ideological enemies of Poland." But, she wrote, this does not relieve Polish Catholics of their duty to oppose the crimes being committed in their country." She was founder of Żegota - polish organisation Council to Aid Jews who save many Jews. Most known activist of Żegota was Irena Sendler - head of children department. So, Polish antisemites was generally to catholic to be murders. Pernambuko
  • Strong rename to Nazi German in order to avoid misunderstanding the point. For most people in Europe Nazi camps means Polish camps and we have many examples in West Europe media who intentionally and interchangeable use both terms to write a new history. Patrol110 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. With current trends persisting, in a few years younger generations will think that the Nazis were some aliens from Mars or Saturn. These camps were not run by a Nazi government of some unknown entity. They were run by the German Nazi government and its functionaries, clear and obvious. These were not camps operated by the NSDAP only. They were controlled by the Third Reich, i.e. Germany. Tymek (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the common terminology. Though Tymek is correct technically, the German government of the time was that of the NDSAP. DGG (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current titles accurately describe the articles included. Alansohn (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - Do Not Rename - While I can understand the desire of our Polish colleagues to clearly disassociate their homeland from the evil deeds of the Nazi regime, renaming of Wikipedia Categories pursuant to that end simply is not an appropriate vehicle. These camps are rarely if ever referred to in English as either "German Nazi" or "Nazi German" camps. The current category names are, in fact, standard terminology. Moreover, as someone has already mentioned, there were more than a few Austrian Nazis -- including a certain A. Hitler. Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment that only proves the urgent need of renaming these categories....It was the Nazi Germany which established and maintained 20000 camps in Europe, not the Austrian Nazis. Also... this had nothing to do with your Polish colleagues desire to disassociate their homeland from the Nazi crimes because they were never associated with them anyway.--Jacurek (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UNESCO agreed to rename Auschwitz concentration and death camp on Poland`s request (see Polish death camp controversy ]][6]

So if emanation of United Nations can do this why en wikipedia is still indecesive? Mathiasrex (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2009 (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.

Still more media[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: rename, delete, upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 13:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Dallas-Fort Worth to Category:Radio stations in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Duluth-Superior to Category:Radio stations in Duluth, Minnesota and Category:Radio stations in Superior, Wisconsin
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Fargo-Moorhead to Category:Radio stations in Fargo, North Dakota and Category:Radio stations in Moorhead, Minnesota
Propose deleting Category:Radio stations in the Hagerstown, Maryland area
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in New York's Hudson Valley to Category:Radio stations in the Hudson Valley (or break up)
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the Cumberland, Maryland area to Category:Radio stations in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the Spokane-Coeur d'Alene area to Category:Radio stations in Spokane, Washington and Category:Radio stations in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the Wichita-Hutchinson area to Category:Radio stations in Wichita, Kansas and upmerge non-Wichita ones to Category:Radio stations in Kansas
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Burlington / Plattsburgh to Category:Television stations in Burlington, Vermont and Category:Television stations in Plattsburgh, New York
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Hartford / New Haven to Category:Television stations in Hartford, Connecticut and Category:Television stations in New Haven, Connecticut
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Johnstown/Altoona to Category:Television stations in Johnstown, Pennsylvania and Category:Television stations in Altoona, Pennsylvania and Category:Television stations in State College, Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Roanoke to Category:Television stations in Roanoke, Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Sacramento / Stockton / Modesto to Category:Television stations in Sacramento, California and Category:Television stations in Stockton, California and Category:Television stations in Modesto, California
Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Santa Barbara / Santa Maria / San Luis Obispo to Category:Television stations in Santa Barbara, California and Category:Television stations in Santa Maria, California and Category:Television stations in San Luis Obispo, California
Nominator's rationale: Still more radio and TV stragglers. No objection to condensing, deleting, or upmerging any of these.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (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:Victims of communism[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: Keep but rename to Category:Victims of political repression in Communist states. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victims of communism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete if we delete victims of capitalism – keep otherwise. WP:POV WP:POINT 32.178.60.41 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, incapable of objective assessment. Rodhullandemu 17:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only analogy is for category victims of Nazism. Mathiasrex (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:

Nazism is pretty much synonymous with Nazi rule in Germany, where it existed under the direction of its founder. Let's take the first sentence of the Nazism article from Wikipedia: "Nazism, officially National Socialism[1][2][3][4] (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers to the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.[5][6][7][8]" Communism, which did not and did not ever exist under its founder, is very, very, and very diversely interprted ideology – and one that easily runs the gamut from anarcho-communism to council communism to Luxembourgism to Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism and other variants. (Moreover, the article on Communism notes that communist ideologies existed prior to Marx, anyway, and points to groups such as Christian communists.) Communism per the Marxist definition itself refers to a socioeconomic system in which the state, to use Marx's conceptualization, "withers away" and is replaced by what by the social and economic stage that is immediately desired by anarcho-communists. It does not refer to any particular system of government – especially with a small "c". The Soviet Union never referred to itself as a communist state, but a socialist state that was progressing in the direction of communism (and it was Khrushchev, in the 1960s, who first announced that the stage of "building socialism" had been completed). Subcategories for Communist repression in individual countries (e.g., China, Yugoslavia, the USSR), where it differed greatly and was orchestrated by the state, rather than by a particular economic system, already exist and are identified as "Victims of Communist repressions in China", " Victims of Soviet repressions", "Victims of Communist repressions in Poland 1939-1989", and so on. To reiterate: these subcategories , which will be kept in any case, already exist – so the overarching supercategory is superfluous and POV. We might as well create an even larger category: Victims of socialism – and put victims of communism in there as well. The closest category (by analogy to communism) perforce can only be capitalism. – 166.217.224.60 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PS..:

"...Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels applied the term communism to a final stage of socialism in which all class differences would disappear and humankind would live in harmony." - The Scholastic citation of Grollier Encyclopedia

 – 166.217.224.60 (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above are argumenta ad absurdum. National socialist Adolf Hitler proclaimed Thousand Year Reich but it survived only 12 years so it wasn`t III Reich and it was`t nazism. Mathiasrex (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're claiming the Third Reich wasn't the Third Reich? Or that Nazi Germany wasn't Nazi Germany? That's interesting...
A far more suitable categorization would be victims of dictatorship or victims of the state. Incidentally, Moldova and Nepal happen to have democratically-elected Communist governments.
Do you have a concrete error in what I wrote to point out? Because "National socialist Adolf Hitler proclaimed Thousand Year Reich but it survived only 12 years so it wasn`t III Reich and it was`t nazism" is a bit too intellectually eccentric, even though I'm a philosophy major and all that.
Let's compare the first sentence from the Nazism article to the first sentence from the Communism article: "Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3]" I understand that you are Polish and very Catholic – at least your Wiki profile says as much. I myself am an American citizen, an immigrant from the Soviet Union, and I certainly lived under a brutal single-party, Communist Party-dominated system, about which I can be totally sympathetic with you. But I did not live under communism. I did not live in a society organized according to the principles of worker control. I did not live under an egalitarian, classless society run by the workers. Not in the democratic fashion advocated by Marx. Not in a communist society. There, my friend, is the rub. 166.217.224.60 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Reductio ad absurdum. Arguing that dozens milions of victims of communism aren`t victims of communism because neither in USSR nor in China, Vietnam etc. ideal model of marxist communism was developed is the same as arguing that III Reich was not a Nazi state because idealistic model of Hitler national socialist Thousand Year German Empire was not survived more than 12 years and has fallen. Mathiasrex (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that follows. Check the Nazism and Communism articles and compare what Wikipedia says (and feel free to check with as many external resources as you like) – that might very well help. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (it's me)[reply]
  • Delete: arguing that ideologies or economic systems have "victims" is, even when correct, a loaded statement. Note: this discussion is not to argue about your ideologies. It's to decide if the category violates Category naming conventions. I believe both of these violate WP:OC#OPINION: they make the logical jump from whomever jailed or shot person x ("victim") to the ideology or political or economic system in which the perpetrator lived. Regardless of the deeper truth, two people agreeing on the same information can honestly disagree if a person belongs in this category. Therefore, it's useless as a classification system. T L Miles (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a good parent category for the subcats it includes. The subcats are not being nominated for deletion nor should they be--unless WP is trying to remove another trace of truth and user helpfulness in its category structure. Hmains (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Victims of communist repressions. Communism can't kill anyone. Communists can.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no -- anything but that! (This repeats the spurious and grammatically absurd pluralization of "repression" which has found its way into a whole slew of categories.) Cgingold (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current name & scope are too broad, with unclear boundaries. In light of the contents, I suggest renaming to Category:Victims of political repression in Communist states, which would be a perfectly natural sub-category of Category:Communist states. We should also set up Category:Political repression in Communist states as the intermediate category between the head category and the one we're dealing with.
I will add that renaming it as I'm proposing -- which simply turns it into a grouping category for the existing sub-cats -- is such an obvious solution that it should be entirely uncontroversial. Cgingold (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So where is the place for victims of communism that did not belong to a tiny circle of political victims? NVO (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tiny circle??" You can't be serious. As for the notion of "victims of communism", the whole point is that -- as has already been explained -- that simply is not a suitable basis for categorization, because it is impossibly POV. Cgingold (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename as last few. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - "victims of Communism" is a well-established concept, but we don't lose anything by calling them "victims of Communist repressions" or a similar term. - Biruitorul Talk 22:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, as last few voters.radek (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per previous discussion. Madhava 1947 (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (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:Victims of capitalism[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victims of capitalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:POV WP:POINT OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but nb the tag on the category does not link here. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since there exists a category called Victims of communism. I support the existence of both. Should Victims of capitalism be deleted but victims of communism be kept, Wikipedia would fall into a clear ideological editorial bias. 32.178.60.41 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, incapable of NPOV assessment. Both categories should be deleted. Rodhullandemu 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ideologically motivated category. Per analogiam category:Victims of free market or Victims of traffic should be saved? Mathiasrex (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't the subcategories. American slaves and victims of American political repression are. Surely the American slaves were victims of capitalist forces?166.217.224.60 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: arguing that ideologies or economic systems have "victims" is, even when correct, a loaded statement. Note: this discussion is not to argue about your ideologies. It's to decide if the category violates Category naming conventions. I believe both of these violate WP:OC#OPINION: they make the logical jump from whomever jailed or shot person x ("victim") to the ideology or political or economic system in which the perpetrator lived. Regardless of the deeper truth, two people agreeing on the same information can honestly disagree if a person belongs in this category. Therefore, it's useless as a classification system. Also, this category is a clear violation of the ever holy Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man T L Miles (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This makes far less sense than the one above. "Beggars" and "Homeless people" aren't victims of a political system, at least not in any objective sense.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split: Some of the subcats should be moved to Category:Victims of political repression in republics. Others belong right here in Category:Victims of capitalism. Because beggars, homeless people, and enslaved Americans are victims of the capitalist economic system, not (necessarily) the democratic political system. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR at its best. Capitalism is not a political system, its an economic system... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this was clearly set up as a counterwight to "Victims of Communism", but it is tgrying to bring together a wide range of disparate things. Colonialism was not necessarily bad, only if it was exploitative. Some of the individuals named vere victims of anti-communism, rather than of capitalism, some of imperialism. Some of the topics are merely things that ought to be eliminated in a socialist society (but often are not).
  • Delete - WP:POINTy in the extreme. To take a few examples: Salvador Allende was a suicide, brought on by men who at that time had no coherent economic ideology; Yan Song (Ming Dynasty) - well; Alexius of Rome lived well before capitalism was invented; Prudence Crandall's prosecution had nothing whatever to do with capitalism, etc. Let's not use categories as a platform for advancing political agendas. - Biruitorul Talk 22:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Mike Selinker and Piotrus above.radek (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious nonsense, see what's included there. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly? It sounds like you have an argument for moving some of the subcategories. 166.203.30.184 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2009 (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:Temptations[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: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Temptations to Category:The Temptations
Nominator's rationale: To match the article The Temptations, and for clarity. Occuli (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2009 (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:Madness[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: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Madness to Category:Madness (band)
Nominator's rationale: To agree with the article Madness (band) and for clarity. (Madness gives quite a few alternatives.) Occuli (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match title of parent article. I assumed that this category was about insanity. Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2009 (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:Players of Boston Breakers (WPS)[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: Merge to Category:Boston Breakers players. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Players of Boston Breakers (WPS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redudant - Category:Boston_Breakers_players already exists. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (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:Songs dealing with child abuse[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: rename. Please wait until the CFD has completed to let everyone interested to give their opinion. Kbdank71 13:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs dealing with child abuse to Category:Songs about child abuse
Nominator's rationale: Most categories of this sort use "Songs about foo", rename for consistency. Category:Songs about domestic abuse might work as well, as there are plenty of songs about that as well. Alternatively, delete as a potential WP:OR target. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The "Songs about..." tree is underpopulated, and can be very useful.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I just made a new category with that different name as requested. Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2009 (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:Alberta musicians[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: rename per nom, adding "the" to Northwest territories per WP:CANSTYLE#Territories and other subcategories of Category:Northwest Territories. If consensus for the "the" changes, this (and the other subcats) can easily be renamed to remove it. Kbdank71 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alberta musicians to Category:Musicians from Alberta
Category:British Columbia musicians to Category:Musicians from British Columbia
Category:Manitoba musicians to Category:Musicians from Manitoba
Category:New Brunswick musicians to Category:Musicians from New Brunswick
Category:Newfoundland and Labrador musicians to Category:Musicians from Newfoundland and Labrador
Category:Northwest Territories musicians to Category:Musicians from Northwest Territories
Category:Nova Scotia musicians to Category:Musicians from Nova Scotia
Category:Nunavut musicians to Category:Musicians from Nunavut
Category:Ontario musicians to Category:Musicians from Ontario
Category:Prince Edward Island musicians to Category:Musicians from Prince Edward Island
Category:Quebec musicians to Category:Musicians from Quebec
Category:Saskatchewan musicians to Category:Musicians from Saskatchewan
Category:Yukon musicians to Category:Musicians from Yukon
Nominator's rationale:

The American "Fooian occupations" categories were recently renamed to "Occupations from foo" (e.g., "Michigan musicians" became "Musicians from Michigan"). Why not fix the Canadian ones in a similar fashion? (If any of the other Canadian categories of this sort haven't been renamed, feel free to add them. Musicians was the only set I checked.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 11:40, 9 April 2009 (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:Books by Ellen White[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: rename. Kbdank71 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Books by Ellen White to Category:Books by Ellen G. White
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add middle initial to match main article Ellen G. White and Category:Ellen G. White. "Ellen White" is slightly ambiguous when referring to books, because there was an American novelist named Ellen Emerson White. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2009 (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:Playlist[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: rename to Category:Playlist compilation albums. Kbdank71 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Playlist to Category:Playlist (album series) albums
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, as "Playlist" has multiple meanings. "Playlist albums" or "Playlist (album series) albums" might also work, to match similiar categories such as Category:20th Century Masters albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I actually think the proposed title makes it clearer waht it about as many thing could fall under "playlist". --Salix (talk): 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking about this a little more, I've decided that "Playlist (album series) albums" would be best, as it leaves no ambiguity and matches the "____ albums" precedent. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. I will only support a move to "Category:Playlist (album series)", not to "Category:Playlist (album series) albums". — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 10:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't say as I see the need for this category. The albums are listed in the series article so are adequately linked to each other and the series, and the individual albums can certainly reside in the categories for the individual artists' albums along with the greatest hits albums categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto. Categorizing by artist and by "greatest hits albums" generally seems reasonable, but we don't need to break greatest hits albums down into album series, especially when they are listed in the article about the series. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_9&oldid=1138391787"