Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4[edit]

British Secretaries of State[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: Canada has gone missing? Oh dear. We shall miss your beer, hockey, and, um... uh... land link to Alaska? rename all, prefixing "British". Kbdank71 13:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Affairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Secretaries of State for Dominion Affairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Propose Renaming adding a DAB/clarifying term: either "British" or "(UK)"
Rationale: I was scanning the listings under Category:Foreign ministers and noticed that among the 39 sub-cats by country there were two - and only two - that did not indicate which country they were for: Category:Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and Category:Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I puzzled over this, er, state of affairs for a long moment, trying to guess which of them (as seemed fairly likely) was for the UK. I thought perhaps the other was for Canada, since that country was otherwise unrepresented (about which more, later). Well, imagine my surprise when I discovered that both of them were for the UK.
I next looked into their parent cat, Category:British Secretaries of State, where I found that most of the 27 sub-cats include a DAB term, either "(UK)" or in a few cases, "British". Among the minority without a DAB term, most deal with UK domestic affairs; however, I found two (additional) sub-cats that pertain to the British Commonwealth: Category:Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Affairs and Category:Secretaries of State for Dominion Affairs. As they are both parented under Category:Commonwealth of Nations, a DAB/clarifying term is again required.
Since the parent for all four of these is Category:British Secretaries of State, I would give the nod to simply inserting the word "British" at the start of each category name (Option 1). However, I would have no problem with adding "(UK)" at or near the end (Option 2), if that is deemed preferable.
Lastly: Canada. How is it that Canada has gone missing? Try as I might, I was unable to locate a Category:Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Canada (or any variant of that). Surely the Canadian foreign ministers are the equal of any others, so I find this very puzzling indeed -- especially considering the unbelievably extensive categorization of Canadian politicians. Notified category creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a change. I'd go with whatever is most typical for other British officeholders. I agree that there ought to be something for Canada. Perhaps the issue is that until 1993 they had a "Secretary of State for External Affairs" rather than "Foreign Affairs." john k (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: john k is the creator of 3 of the categories.) Cgingold (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support prefixing "British" in all cases. However did these posts subsist long enough to need categories? Could we not merge "Dominion Affairs" into "Commonwealth affiars", for example? We do that for other merging institutions (eg Alumni of merged or renamed colleges. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support prefixing "British ". I disagree with Peterkingiron's suggestion. Posts with different names should have different categories, even if they are related. --Oldak Quill 23:58, 5 February 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:Female Secretaries of State[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:Female foreign ministers. Kbdank71 13:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Female Secretaries of State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Tiny category, nation-specific, seems incongruous with WP:OC#SMALL. There have been three female secretaries of state; I hope there will be lots more, but I think having a category for it is premature. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:54, 4 February 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:Royal Academy of Music faculty[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 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Royal Academy of Music faculty to Category:Academics of the Royal Academy of Music
Nominator's rationale: The "faculty" category (created on 30th January 2009) should be merged into the (longer-established) "academics" category, as the whole category tree of Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom uses "academics" not "faculty". BencherliteTalk 17:43, 4 February 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:Jewish_skeptics[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: Speedy close This nom seems a little fishy given that it's the user's very first edit, and as Cgingold points out, it's part of a much larger family of similar "skeptic" categories. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion, skeptic is to objective of a term--Carl248 (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm sorry, Carl248, but your rationale doesn't make any sense. Also, I don't know why you're singling out this particular category when there are a whole bunch of other categories for skeptics. Cgingold (talk) 15:25, 4 February 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:Yugoslav footballers[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 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav footballers to Category:Pre-1992 Yugoslav footballers
Nominator's rationale: to have name of page reflect stated purpose for page. 1918 to 1941 Yugoslavia and 1941 to 1992 covered nearly the same area (I think it s Istria that was added and otherwise the two were the same) so lumping them together does not seem inappropriate, although I d support splitting these two too. Mayumashu (talk) 13:25, 4 February 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.

West German footballers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:West German footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:West German expatriate footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:West Germany international footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete All Does it necessary to divide West German footballer (1945-1990) from the original cat German footballer? (Ie, all German footballers in 1945-1990 have both cat, German footballers and West/East German footballers) It is necessary to have Est German footballers categories because West Germany is the succession but East Germany is not. Matthew_hk tc 11:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per comments below and that West Germany, despite being the Federal Republic of Germany as present-day Germany is, was for all intents and purpose a different country. Again though to dispute this needs to be an all-encompassing nomination, with Category:West Germany and Category:West German people and all sub-cat pages up Mayumashu (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your "intents and purposes" are, you are not going to get away with inventing "a different country". How many of these categeories have you created? These need to go. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that they are the same country, if you d read what I said. But the degree of change that the FRG underwent in absorbing the GDR, and that in English and this is the English wikip - I would argue that for the German one, there should not be this division - that in English the country that existed from 1949 until 1990 has been known as 'West Germany' and not 'Germany', are two reasons for maintaining a set of West Germany pages Mayumashu (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So not the actual changes within Germany, or lack thereof, do matter, but only the "degree of change" believed to have been perceived from abroad? The further away, the more accurate? Let's mirror the Klingon Wikipedia then, surely they got to know better than the 59 Million Germans for whom daily life did not change at all in 1989 or 1990. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We re talking considerable change to what constitutes the FRG nation-state, not change to people's (and extraterrestrials') lives at a personal level. And it s about the power that a name has, the sway (which leads into perception, granted). For many who are not German anyway, as the comments show, 'West Germany FRG' and 'Germany FRG' mean two quite different things. CHANDLER#10 puts it well, down the page, - it is how to differiate between GDR and FRG when they co-existed. Mayumashu (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything GDR-related is covered by "East German". All else was and is German, as the 80% majority of Germans luckily were not held hostage by the Soviets between 1949 and 1990 (or managed to escape before or after the wall had been build). Yet, now in hindsight we are subjected to bogus claims and categories from "our friends" from the western hemisphere. Thank you for that kind of friendship, please take it elsewhere. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this was discussed (as keep) in December 08. It is a fact that there were separate E & W international teams and separate leagues so I don't see any rationale whatever for a merge (even less for a delete). Occuli (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion, with only the nominator, you and two others participating, is pointless. German has a international football team with a continuous 100+ year tradition, while the Soviet puppet state GDR had set up a separate team of their for some 38 years or so. There never was a "West German" team, no matter what some believe and repeat. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this "West Germany" POV crap which rears its ugly head in too many places, with above Users Mayumashu and Occuli being the culprits in several cases. The present German state had expanded in 1957 and 1990, just like the USA has expanded several times in its history, e. g. in 1959. How about creating and adding categories for "50-State US-Americans" and "48-State US-Americans" in a similar manner, then?-- Matthead  Discuß   22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as I said when nominating one month ago: While I completely support German football between 1945 and 1990 being referred to as West German (this is not that debate, which we have had too many times, and the right answer is very clear), there is no need for separate articles for this period - in the same way that West Germany national football team simply redirects to Germany. Being 'West German' as opposed to 'German' isn't a defining characteristic, as there is no practical difference between the two. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - West Germany in football terms is certainly different to Germany and East Germany for that period. Peanut4 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, in that period, according to your certainty there were three states and nationalities?-- Matthead  Discuß   11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peanut4. It's the same as having seperate Yugoslavian/Serbian or Soviet/Russian categories. GiantSnowman 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. It's like claiming that for seven decades, there was not a single Russian in Moscow, only Soviets. That is what is done here with the made-up nation and state of the "West Germans". -- Matthead  Discuß   11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Occuli says, East and West were completely separated in sports. They had separate leagues, separate national teams, separate federations. The two sporting structures became one after die Wende. Yes, West Germany is the predecessor of modern-day Germany. Yes, East Germany has died and ceased to exist. But it's historically inaccurate to treat West Germany as the sole heir to the long sporting tradition of Germany, as Matthead is doing, since both countries were established after WW2. Also, hit Matthead with a Wikitrout for clearing out these categories while this discussion is ongoing and for gross assumptions of bad faith. Aecis·(away) talk 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody doubts that the GDR, or East Germany as you guys call it, was a separate entity, as a state from 1949 to 1990, and in the Olympics from 1968 to 1988. That's why East German(y) is used here, even when "GDR" or "of the GDR" would be more appropriate. Besides, the Federal Republic of Germany is not a successor to the Deutsches Reich, it is the Reich, in reorganised form on a smaller area, but continuing its traditions and responsibilities (unlike the socialist GDR, which claimed to start something new). This is even more clear in sports, with most organisations having a 100 year tradition. Inventing a third country or citizenship separate from the German one is is utter nonsense and a shame to Wikipedia. Facts are not subject to discussion on Wikipedia, or elsewhere. Anyone may feel free to expose his ignorance, though. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's how English refers to these successors that matters - and the Federal Republic of Germany of 1949-90 was (and still is) overwhelmingly referred to as West Germany in English-language literature, and not as Germany. Whether that was logical, and whether you agree with that or not is by-the-by. English nomenclature is not always logical and sometimes misleading, we just have to live with that legacy. Knepflerle (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't have to live with nonsense, nor do we have to disseminate or aggrandize it it even further by inventing bogus categories. Once, somebody claimed that Borussia Dortmund had been a West German club in 1989 and is a German Club only since 1991. What next, Dortmund being added to the "category of defunct West German cities which were razed to the ground on the evening of 2 October 1990" and to the "category of German cities built from scratch in the early hours of 3 October 1990"? -- Matthead  Discuß   11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Disseminate or aggrandize further"? You do realise that the common name used by the majority of English speakers around the world is pretty widely disseminated already? If you read practically any English-language book or newspaper, or listen to any archive broadcasting from the period; the FRG of that time is always referred to as West Germany. Knepflerle (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These players were citizens of West Germany, not of Germany. There was no Germany to be a citizen of. They were eligible for the national football team of West Germany, not of Germany. The football clubs represented West Germany in UEFA competitions, not Germany, because there was no German league at the time, only a West German league and an East German league. By every definition of the word, they were part of football in West Germany, not in Germany. Aecis·(away) talk 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've overlooked this until now, and I'm almost falling from my chair. Putting this jewel in Bold face to highlight this incredible bullshit which seems to be accepted among certain others, too. Aecis, or Aec, sock or puppeteer or whatever you are, you want to strike this out and correct it asap. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising to see the temper tantrum you're throwing when you don't get your way. Do you really think this is getting you anywhere? Do you honestly think that the only reason why you haven't convinced us, is that you haven't shouted hard enough? Aecis·(away) talk 06:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Aecis. It makes sense to have this category distinction when there was a division of teams/leagues and so on. Camw (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "division of leagues"? While former East German teams/leagues like DDR-Oberliga have appropriate categories, nobody can claim that something has changed in the "Non-East". Bundesliga has a continuous 40+ year history as the German league, it was not a "West German" league that ceased to during the early stages of Fußball-Bundesliga 1990–91 season, to be replaced overnight by something that was identical save for the categories Wikipedia applies to it.-- Matthead  Discuß   11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep West Germany had the status of a separate football nation at the time. Jayen466 10:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Separate from what? East Germany was separate. Germany's DFB has a continuous 100 year tradition. There was no distinct "West German football" and such, no matter how often that claim is repeated. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German Federal Constitutional Court stated several times, that there is an unbroken continuity of Germany from 1871 (maybe even from 1866). The constitutions changed, the borders changed, the names changed, but it was always the same state. From 1949 until 1990 the authority of the German state was limited to the western part, while in the eastern part another government existed. International law agrees. All international treaties that Germany before 1949 was a signatory state to, were recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany. And the other signatory states accepted the Federal Republic as the partner in those treaties. The Federal Republic was not the successor (as it was claimed above), the Federal Republic of Germany is identical with the Germany before 1949. There never was a "West Germany" that is somehow different from "Germany". delete --h-stt !? 21:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: West German and East German were different nationalities at the time, both countries were members of the UN and of FIFA, UEFA and the IOC. It therefore seems relevant to differentiate between East and West German footballers of the relevant time period. As far as the perceived double categorization of players as both German and West German is concerned: This not an issue to be addressed by deleting the West Germany categories. Maybe it would be purposeful to remove this category (German footballer etc) from those players that had their career exclusively between 1949-90. However, this is not relevant for the discussion at hand. Madcynic (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is openly hostile and bad faith. You want to deny that German footballers were Germans because it serves your purposes? What next, do you want to collect their passports and burn them? -- Matthead  Discuß   17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Openly hostile, eh? Seriously. Maybe it is time you took a step back and look at what seems to be forming as a consensus here and think about why this consensus is not what you proposed. It might be possible that the other editors disagree with you not because they are hostile and acting in bad faith, but are convinced their position is the correct one, and yours is not. As I've tried to point out, the issue that you raise is a valid one, but the measure you propose will not help solve it. Madcynic (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anachronistic to say that someone who played for West Germany, played for Germany...This would be avoided if we renamed the West Germany and current Germany categories to the "Federal Republic of Germany", but there seems to be no stomach from them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever played for "West Germany". In football terms, it was and is the DFB the Germans played for, or its former East German counterpart. No matter what you guys want to make believe, there was no third German football association, save for the Saarland in the 1950s (which would be a fourth according to you). -- Matthead  Discuß   17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - during the 45-90 era it was known as West Germany to disambiguate from East Germany... If you use the word "Germany" when referencing something during that period many will think you mean both West and East for the same reason you don't say only "Korea" when you want to reference North or South Korea, and if they ever reunify one should not say "Korea" when referencing the state seen as it's predecessor. — CHANDLER#10 — 10:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@all those who suggest to keep the categories: We are an encyclopedia and we don't care what was known by which name among whoever. Fact is, there never was a "West Germany" that was separate from "Germany", so we can't build categories based on that fictitious separation. We do not invent countries for Wikipedia but use the ones that exist. --h-stt !? 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be taking West Germany to AfD next then? You seem to be heavily emotionally invested in this issue, and I admire your passion, but I do not agree with your assertion that you are the only one dealing in facts. Camw (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
West Germany needs to redirect to History of the Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990), see German Wikipedia's de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (bis 1990). And stop making personal attacks on others Camw. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no personal attacks. Camw (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, for the moment. First of all, User:Aecis is incorrect when he states These players were citizens of West Germany, not of Germany. The fact is, these players were citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, just as the German players are now. User:Matthead is not just splitting hairs when he makes the point that continuity exists between the FRG of 1949-1990 and the FRG now, it is a fact, due to the application of Article 23 of the Basic Law. User:Matthead is correct in asserting that the so-called "reunification" was, in legal terms, actually an annexation. (Had Article 146 been used, then this would not be the case.) So the argument that the German state of today is the same one as the German state formed by the uniting of the British, French and American occupation zones in 1949, is a strong one.
But that does not necessarily mean that these categories should be eliminated. I question User:Matthead's assertion that Germany's DFB has a continuous 100 year tradition. For while continuity from 1949-present seems clear to me, continuity from 1871-1949 is much less obvious. (I say this with all due respect to the Bundesverfassungsgericht, which, as a creation of the Basic Law, has a vested interest in establishing continuity of the German state, whether it is based in objective reality or not, as doing so enhances its own stature.) Two things to consider:
  • If it were so established in the body politik of the FRG that the FRG was the only legitimate German state (as it appears that Matthead is implying), then what was the purpose of even including Article 146 in the Basic Law? Had Article 146 been used for reunification, then the Basic Law itself would have been wiped out, along with the FRG. It seems clear to me that the FRG was viewed by at least a substantial number of Germans (if not a majority) of being a temporary state. And if the FRG was temporary, then its legitimacy as a state was not necessarily all that different than that of the GDR, n'est-ce pas? I mean, how does one explain Brandt's Ostpolitik other than as a tacit recognition of the GDR as something of an equal (albeit, "less equal", in many ways) state?
  • Secondly, when Matthead speaks of this 100+ years of continuity of the German state, I wonder where that continuity was from 1945-1949. If "Germany" existed in that period, did "Poland" exist from 1795-1918? Sure, Germany was not divided and occupied for as long as Poland, but surely Matthead would not assert that such a thing as German sovereignty existed during that time. And if soverignty did not exist, did a state? And if not a state, whence comes this continuity?
Additionally, Aecis makes a salient point when he says it's historically inaccurate to treat West Germany as the sole heir to the long sporting tradition of Germany, because both the GDR and FRG were by-products of WW2 and the Cold War. Had the Cold War been won by the East, there might well be a united German Democratic Republic today, stretching to the Rhine. And during the Cold War, it simply was not obvious that the FRG would someday be seen as "the" German state. There were two German states for four decades, and they were referred to as such.
Which brings us to the issue of usage. Because all of this uncertainty existed for decades (regardless of what Matthead remembers or what the courts have proclaimed), the term "West Germany" became a reality. Despite Matthead's protestations, West Germany did exist, in the minds and mouths of the citizens—German and non-German—around the world. It may be necessary to keep the category, if only because that is how people associate the German states during the Cold War.
But I don't really know. I'm pretty sure that this is the first time I've entered into a CfD discussion, and to tell you the truth, I don't really "get" how categories work. I'm only writing this because I'm responding to things that I see both sides saying that are inaccurate, and I hope that I can add something to the discussion. Unschool 09:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no annexation in 1990, why do you make this false statement also here? The first democratically elected parliament of the GDR decided to accede to the FRG, similar to the Saarland joining in 1957, which in football terms was rather significant, as Saarland coach Helmut Schön later led the DFB team to success. And, as we discuss post-1949 football here, not general German history: the DFB has a continuity since 1908 as recognized by FIFA and UEFA, its post-1949 continuity can not be questioned at all, no matter if the players were or are called "West Germans", "the huns", "les boches" or whatever abroad. The three categories listed for deletion need to go, the first two as there was no "West German" citizenship, and the third as there was no "West German international team". These are all bogus terms, not backed up by anything real. Why not creating categories for "Angela Merkel's Germany", too? -- Matthead  Discuß   16:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Matthead, but I'm guessing that you're mistakenly thinking that "annexation" has a negative connotation. It does not; it is a neutral term, and does not imply that the GDR was taken in to the FRG against its will. As used in English, annexation can mean that one place takes over another against its will (such as the Anschluss), but it is also used to refer to peaceful, mutually agreeable mergers, if the state being absorbed agrees to become part of the larger state. You are absolutely correct, the GDR chose to become part of the FRG through a democratic process. Saying that the GDR was annexed does not make this not so.
As to why we don't have a category based on "Angela Merkel's Germany", it again comes down to usage. Merkel's Germany has not entered into the lexicon (nor, I think we can all agree, is it likely to), and therefore, no such category is called for. Unschool 19:49, 8 February 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:Serbia and Montenegro footballers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Serbia and Montenegro footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Simmiar cat has been deleted before, is that necessary to put a player to three cat, if he actively played in SFRY, FRY/SCG and Serbia period? Matthew_hk tc 11:31, 4 February 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:Bosnian Croats[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. Kbdank71 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Bosnian Croats to Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nominator's rationale: Three cat is uncertain usage, two of above and Category:Croatians of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent. There is notable number of Croats ethnicity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And these Bosnian Croat (may be along with other Bosniak) move to Croatia due to Bosnian war. So, Category:Croatians of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent may have some different with Category:Bosnian Croats and Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the latter two is one thing. Matthew_hk tc 11:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Agree with what the nominator says. (The tag on Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be removed - the proposed merger is to this page.) Mayumashu (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete race/ethnicity category. If they are BiH citizens, it's too much to categorize by race/ethnicity - and what about those who are mixed or not easily defined? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 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:3GPP standards[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 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:3GPP standards to Category:3rd Generation Partnership Project standards
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:10, 4 February 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:Sweetwater rescue[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 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sweetwater rescue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is defined as "those involved with the 1856 Sweetwater rescue of Mormon handcart pioneers." There is no independent article about the Sweetwater rescue; it is discussed at Mormon handcart pioneers#Disaster and rescue. From my judgment, with the exception of perhaps David Patten Kimball, participation in this rescue operation is not one of the primary reasons those included in the category are notable—it's not even mentioned in the other 3 bio articles. This is the kind of thing that could be much more appropriately dealt with through an independent article about the Sweetwater rescue or an expansion of the already existing section. As a point of comparison—Zion's Camp is a much more notable "event" in Latter Day Saint history and the category for Zion's Camp participants was deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added involvement in the rescue to the individuals' respective articles (and cited a reliable source). I agree that the Sweetwater rescue should be carved out of the Mormon Handcart pioneers article. Also, I disagree with the assertion that Zion's Camp is a 'much more notable event'. Slightly more? Maybe, maybe not. But certainly not 'much more'. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those of us who aren't intimately familiar with the details of Mormon history, could somebody suggest an incident or episode from non-Mormon history that this would be comparable to, at least in terms of significance if not in other respects? Cgingold (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, that's a good question—it's a bit difficult for me because in my opinion even within Mormon history participation in this rescue is relatively minor. How about the recently deleted Pilots That Attacked Pennemunde? All these people were Mormon pioneers, and to some extent Mormon leaders. They became prominent for other reasons but they happened to participate in this rescue operation. Just like the pilots in the category—they were all WWII pilots, and they happened to participate in this particular attack, but that participation alone is not why they are notable. If you want to try to evaluate the notability of this even within Mormondom, I suggest this official student manual on LDS Church history. Zion's Camp has an entire chapter (Chapter 12) dedicated to it. The Sweetwater rescue is not mentioned by that name at all in the manual, as far as I can find, though Chapter 28 does have a short section on the rescue of the handcart companies. "Sweetwater rescue" certainly is not in the Index, whereas there is a large Index entry for Zion's Camp. (To restate, the Zion's Camp category was deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still a very small category. While the event did happen, the articles don't support this being defining for the participants. So delete as not defining and OCAT as a small category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 11 February 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:Operas by year[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:Operas by century but don't delete. Use Category:Songs by date as a guide, move the decade categories into Category:Operas by decade and the year categories into Category:Operas by year, and put them all under Category:Operas by date. Kbdank71 13:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Operas by year to Category:Operas by century
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Only contains century subcategories and the name should reflect that. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly oppose. It may only contain by-century top-level subcats, but those subcats have by-decade subcats, and they in turn have by-year ones. As such, this does contain operas by year, albeit at the bottom (top?) of a tree. Grutness...wha? 07:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Songs by date & similar are another way to go - that contains only by century/decade/year subcats & seems the neatest approach, but the name could be used without that extra work being done yet. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about "Operas by decade". Annual categories are likely to be poorly populated; century categories would be over-populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at other century categories, they are populated with by year or by decade categories. The content varies by topic, but the parents are by century. Vegaswikian (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate suggestion: How about renaming to Category:Operas by century and decade, or possibly even Category:Operas by century, decade, and year? (though I not sure the year-categories are very useful in the earlier periods) Cgingold (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are suggesting is a significant change in naming of these categories. There are many questions from going through these trees. We have foo by years and foo in years. We group by years and centuries but have numerous decade categories. Would also use periods and time periods which can be for years etc, or for a limited number of years. I think that we probably need to take this question to a talk page and try and resolve questions. For now, adding another naming convention to the mix does not seem to be productive. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, repopulate. Move contents to new Category:Operas by century. Add the sub-sub-categories by year up to the existing Category:Operas by year. This would fit with the structure of Category:Works by type and year and Category:Works by date. Somebody with access to a computer that can run AWB could freely continue the process, adding Category:Operas by decade within the structure. Then there are Ballet premieres and more... - Fayenatic (talk) 20:00, 9 February 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_February_4&oldid=1140239302"