Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 25 January 27 >

January 26[edit]

Category:American football players from Arizona[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 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American football players from Arizona to Category:Players of American football from Arizona
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was created while the discussion to rename all the other U.S. state categories in this group was ongoing. Nominating this one now to comply with naming format agreed to in the previous CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per previous CfD. kilbad (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Would it be possible to add a new speedy criteria for cases like this (and, obvious omissions from large lists)? Neier (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Neier has a good suggestion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 27 January 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:Family of Paul Biya[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 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Family of Paul Biya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category about the family of a person with very limited expansion possibilities.TM 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The contents consist of Paul Biya and his two (successive) wives, of whom the first has a single line article. The second is notable only as his hostess for summits and for leading the youth wing of his party. Does this count as separate notability? I am not sure. The solution to this is either to merge the wives' articles into that of their husband, or add a navbox template for the family. This category is too small to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 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.

Women writers by century[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 all for consistency. A question on merging can be settled in a new nomination if desired. Kbdank71 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Women writers (16th century) to Category:16th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (7th century) to Category:7th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (8th century) to Category:8th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (9th century) to Category:9th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (10th century) to Category:10th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (11th century) to Category:11th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (12th century) to Category:12th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (13th century) to Category:13th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (14th century) to Category:14th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (15th century) to Category:15th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (17th century) to Category:17th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (18th century) to Category:18th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (19th century) to Category:19th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (20th century) to Category:20th-century women writers
Category:Women writers (21st century) to Category:21st-century women writers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In all of the by century categories that I have seen lately, this series is the only one that does not follow the suggested form. Unless there is a very good reason to keep the parenthetical form, these need to be changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 26 January 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:Muslim Shrines in Tamilnadu[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 contents to Category:Sufi shrines in India and Category:Buildings and structures in Tamil Nadu, with a hat-tip to choser for creating the list from the existing category commentary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Muslim Shrines in Tamilnadu to Category:Muslim shrines in Tamil Nadu
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article and the parent category give Tamil Nadu as two words. Adjust capitalization per WP:MOS. -Stepheng3 (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created List of Islamic shrines in Tamil Nadu. There are multiple conflicting transliterations of the names, so as a non-expert I was only able to do very rudimentary cleanup.-choster (talk) 23:12, 27 January 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:Diseases of skin appendages[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 15:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diseases of skin appendages to Category:Conditions of the skin appendages
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Diseases of skin appendages" category should probably be renamed to "Conditions of the skin appendages" as the scope of the category is not strictly limited to diseases, but also contains some conditions that can be considered normal findings, such as melanonychia and racquet nails for example (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Conditions of the skin appendages for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category, some of which are not necessarily "diseases"). There was a recent proposal for renaming that fostered some good discussion and agreement that renaming was appropriate, but no consensus was reached on the actual name. kilbad (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need "the" for it to be grammatically correct. Bojilov (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the other main participant in the previous fairly lengthy CFD, which was inconclusive. Rather than rehashing all the points that were raised there (which I do hope new commenters have read through), I simply want to pose two closely-related questions: 1) Is the word "Conditions" sufficient by itself for a category whose contents include diseases? 2) If you believe that to be the case, should we then consider renaming most or all of the other sub-cats of Category:Diseases and disorders? Cgingold (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your first question, yes, the word "conditions" is sufficient by itself to describe a category whose contents include diseases. However, the word "condition" also has the added benefit of being inclusive of other nonpathologic conditions (again, such as melanonychia and racquet nails).
  • In response the the second question, I think renaming should be done on a case by case basis. For example, if a category only contains disease articles, then simply using the word "disease" in the name is fine. If a category contains articles relating to pathologic and nonpathologic topics, "conditions" is a better term. It all depends on what the category contains. kilbad (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think categories should be renamed to "conditions" not only if they contain nonpathologic conditions, but also if they could contain them. For example, there can be no "nonpathologic infectious conditions of the skin" if I am not much mistaken, but "nonpathologic genetic skin conditions" are perfectly reasonable – or at least conditions which might or might not be pathologic, see the Sickle-cell disease example in the old discussion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think using the term "disorders" would exclude any nonpathologic items. Take the two examples I gave above, melanonychia and racquet nails, there are times when both of these can be considered nonpathologic variations of normal anatomy (though not always); therefore, the term "disorder" does not seem inclusive of them, whereas the term "condition" may include pathologic and nonpathologic states. kilbad (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes sense. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with the nominator, conditions is is more encompassing than diseases and since the category contains non-disease states it should be renamed. --D.c.camero (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For reasons given, but I worry that all medical speciality categories will become "Condition ..." and there is a usefulness of consitancy, such that I can make a guess as say "Category:Diseases of X" and get a hit. What is WP:MED overall scheme for naming its categories ? David Ruben Talk 14:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, David - that's exactly why I posed my questions. This may be a pretty minor category in a far-flung corner of the Wikiverse, but the name chosen has implications for the whole category structure. If you haven't read thru the previous CFD, I even raised the possibility that, following the logic of this nomination, the super-cat, Category:Diseases and disorders -- whose name was ratified in a recent CFD -- might wind up being renamed to Category:Medical conditions. Cgingold (talk) 04:34, 2 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.

Singers by location[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) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:New York singers to Category:Singers from New York
Category:New York City singers to Category:Singers from New York City
Category:California singers to Category:Singers from California
Nominator's rationale: Recent discussions indicate a consensus for categories of people from individual states in the US to be of the form Fooers from Bar which is less confusing, and more in-line with the stand-alone clause of WP:NCCAT. This is part of an ongoing series of nominations intended to bring all of the by-state categories into a common format, even when the chance for confusion is low. Neier (talk) 12:59, 26 January 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.

Rappers by location[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 as nominated. (Without prejudice to future proposal to add states to city categories as mentioned by Grutness.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Atlanta, Georgia rappers to Category:Rappers from Atlanta, Georgia
Category:California rappers to Category:Rappers from California
Category:Florida rappers to Category:Rappers from Florida
Category:Houston, Texas rappers to Category:Rappers from Houston, Texas
Category:Memphis rappers to Category:Rappers from Memphis
Category:New Jersey rappers to Category:Rappers from New Jersey
Category:New York rappers to Category:Rappers from New York
Category:Philadelphia rappers to Category:Rappers from Philadelphia
Category:Texas rappers to Category:Rappers from Texas
Category:Virginia rappers to Category:Rappers from Virginia
Nominator's rationale: Recent discussions indicate a consensus for categories of people from individual states in the US to be of the form Fooers from Bar which is less confusing, and more in-line with the stand-alone clause of WP:NCCAT. This is part of an ongoing series of nominations intended to bring all of the by-state categories into a common format, even when the chance for confusion is low. Neier (talk) 12:51, 26 January 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.

Actors by 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. (Without prejudice against a renomination to propose cleaning these out/redefining their use in the way suggested by Sam.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming (see drop-down box)
Category:Alabama actors to Category:Actors from Alabama
Category:Alaska actors to Category:Actors from Alaska
Category:Arizona actors to Category:Actors from Arizona
Category:Arkansas actors to Category:Actors from Arkansas
Category:California actors to Category:Actors from California
Category:Colorado actors to Category:Actors from Colorado
Category:Connecticut actors to Category:Actors from Connecticut
Category:Delaware actors to Category:Actors from Delaware
Category:Florida actors to Category:Actors from Florida
Category:Georgia (U.S. state) actors to Category:Actors from Georgia (U.S. state)
Category:Hawaiian actors to Category:Actors from Hawaii
Category:Idaho actors to Category:Actors from Idaho
Category:Illinois actors to Category:Actors from Illinois
Category:Indiana actors to Category:Actors from Indiana
Category:Iowa actors to Category:Actors from Iowa
Category:Kansas actors to Category:Actors from Kansas
Category:Kentucky actors to Category:Actors from Kentucky
Category:Louisiana actors to Category:Actors from Louisiana
Category:Maine actors to Category:Actors from Maine
Category:Maryland actors to Category:Actors from Maryland
Category:Massachusetts actors to Category:Actors from Massachusetts
Category:Michigan actors to Category:Actors from Michigan
Category:Minnesota actors to Category:Actors from Minnesota
Category:Mississippi actors to Category:Actors from Mississippi
Category:Missouri actors to Category:Actors from Missouri
Category:Montana actors to Category:Actors from Montana
Category:Nebraska actors to Category:Actors from Nebraska
Category:Nevada actors to Category:Actors from Nevada
Category:New Hampshire actors to Category:Actors from New Hampshire
Category:New Jersey actors to Category:Actors from New Jersey
Category:New Mexico actors to Category:Actors from New Mexico
Category:New York actors to Category:Actors from New York
Category:North Carolina actors to Category:Actors from North Carolina
Category:North Dakota actors to Category:Actors from North Dakota
Category:Ohio actors to Category:Actors from Ohio
Category:Oklahoma (state) actors to Category:Actors from Oklahoma
Category:Oregon actors to Category:Actors from Oregon
Category:Pennsylvania actors to Category:Actors from Pennsylvania
Category:Rhode Island actors to Category:Actors from Rhode Island
Category:South Carolina actors to Category:Actors from South Carolina
Category:South Dakota actors to Category:Actors from South Dakota
Category:Tennessee actors to Category:Actors from Tennessee
Category:Texas actors to Category:Actors from Texas
Category:Utah actors to Category:Actors from Utah
Category:Virginia actors to Category:Actors from Virginia
Category:Washington actors to Category:Actors from Washington (U.S. state)
Category:Washington, D.C. actors to Category:Actors from Washington, D.C.
Category:West Virginia actors to Category:Actors from West Virginia
Category:Wisconsin actors to Category:Actors from Wisconsin
Category:Wyoming actors to Category:Actors from Wyoming
these two don't seem to be part of a large -by-state group, so, I'll throw them in here to avoid having to do it later
Category:California television personalities to Category:Television personalities from California
Category:California entertainers to Category:Entertainers from California


Nominator's rationale: Recent discussions indicate a consensus for categories of people from individual states in the US to be of the form Fooers from Bar which is less confusing, and more in-line with the stand-alone clause of WP:NCCAT. This is part of an ongoing series of nominations intended to bring all of the by-state categories into a common format, even when the chance for confusion is low. Neier (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This note will be removed when all categories are taggedNeier (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per yesterday's arguments. — CharlotteWebb 15:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments on writers cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Per established consensus. DiverseMentality 05:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Categorization is running amok. It makes no sense to me to have fully populated categories of actors by state, and at the same time encourage people to depopulate Category:American actors and even Category:Actors. Subcategories should have some functional reason for being. If these categories were for actors who perform in regional theatre it might make sense to have them. Many of the actors in these categories are famous internationally. I think it is far more likely that people would want to browse through Category:Film actors or Category:American actors than any of these categories by state. Can we have discussions at CFD about which categories should be fully populated and which should not? The big issue here is that even if we decide that a grandparent will remain populated as we create these microscopic categories, that doesn't stop users from deciding that the categories are too "cluttered" and work to depopulate the grandparent. Would it be reasonable to set up a bot to automatically repopulate selected categories and have discussions here about which categories the bot should repopulate? I don't know about others, but I have given up working on categorization because of this problem. It should be addressed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My own view is that occupations should only be intersected with subnational locales when those occupations are inherently local in practice. Politicians represent cities, counties, or states, lawyers are admitted to the bars of particular states...but actors worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia do not tend to have such localized careers, nor is acting inherently connected with a particular place (even stage actors may go on tour). This is particularly true with mass media such as television or film, which give actors a national, even international, venue and presence. I do support the rename because it reflects what these categories actually include: not someone who acted in a particular state, but someone who acts who also, at some point, had an association with a particular state that may or may not have coincided with that career. But this of course then makes it trivia, and many of these subnational occupation categories ultimately should be replaced by lists. Postdlf (talk) 18:45, 28 January 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:3GPP2 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 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:3GPP2 standards to Category:3rd Generation Partnership Project 2 standards
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym and to match name of main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:09, 26 January 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:List of films about mathematicians[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 in favor of already existing list. Kbdank71 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:List of films about mathematicians to Category:Films about mathematicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It seems desirable to maintain the distinction between categories and lists. Stepheng3 (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in favor of the existing List of films about mathematicians. Otto4711 (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no reason for "List of" to be in the category title. Films such as A Beautiful Mind and the many others included in the List of films about mathematicians should also be included here. The choice of mathematicians as a subject for a film, a rather challenging subject to portray, is a strong defining characteristic ideally suited for use of the category structure. I do question the inclusion of some films that are included in the list that are more tangential to the category. There is a weak link, but I wouldn't describe Jurassic Park as about mathematicians. Per WP:CLN, categories AND lists are intended to work synergistically, and this is certainly the case here. I will populate the category and develop wording for inclusion criteria. Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Mathematical films appears to overlap with this one. I would suggest a reverse merge into Category:Films about mathematicians. Alansohn (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how much about a mathematician must the film be? And what WP:RSes tell us that it is at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of list to resolve problems of how much is enough as highlighted by Carlos. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 1 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:White Star Lines Big Four[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:Ships of the White Star Line. Feel free to rename/expand the template at your leisure. Kbdank71 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:White Star Lines Big Four to Category:Big Four (White Star Line)
Nominator's rationale: This new title is more accurate in its description than the existing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - textbook small category with no chance of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. The new name emphasizes the important part of the name. I do not agree with Otto4711 on deleting the category. There is room for expansion. Many of the famous old liners have much written about them and much that happened on them, opening up the possibility of sub articles. (For an example, look at the uninvolved article SS Princess Matoika. It's a relatively minor ship but has two sub articles—Mutiny of the Matoika and American Palestine Line—that were written. All of the big four could easily have additional or sub-articles written for them to cover all of their activities.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteUpmerge to Category:Ships of the White Star Line, rename {{Big Four (ocean liners)}} to {{White Star Line}} and expand to include the fleet by category or class or whatever is correct. This is a much better navigation aid for this situation. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the company was commonly called the White Star Line (no s at the end) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vegaswikian, I'm confused… is the template up for deletion as well? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the template is not up for deletion. I'm just suggesting that the template be renamed and expanded as part of this deletion nomination. Categories and templates work hand in hand in some cases or one can be a better choice in others. In this case, expanding the template and deleting the category make the most sense to me. If the template is expanded, then it also needs to be renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:34, 26 January 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:Ministers of Cattle ranch, Agriculture and Fishes of Uruguay[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 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ministers of Cattle ranch, Agriculture and Fishes of Uruguay to Category:Ministers of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries of Uruguay
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proper name of the Ministry and the corresponding Minister is "Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 26 January 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:Economy and Finance Minister of Uruguay[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 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Economy and Finance Minister of Uruguay to Category:Ministers of Economics and Finance of Uruguay
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proper name for the Ministry and corresponding Minister is "Economics and Finance". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:31, 26 January 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:Ministers of Public health of Uruguay[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 15:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ministers of Public health of Uruguay to Category:Ministers for Public Health of Uruguay
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In Uruguay there is a Ministry and Minister for Public Health, not "of" Public Health. Capital "H" also needs to be added to "health" as it's part of the proper noun of the ministry's name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 26 January 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:British people in Taiwan[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) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British people in Taiwan to Category:British expatriates in Taiwan
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow other category names such as Category:British expatriates in New Zealand and Category:British expatriates in Italy..etc. impactF=check this 05:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as diplomats are not included, who technically are not expats Mayumashu (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The diplomat argument isn't very strong: the idea of the category is to bring a group together under a simple heading, regardless of whether the strict sense of the category name would apply in individual cases. I couldn't find any support for the exclusion of diplomats in any case: see expatriates. Martinlc (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I agree diplomats (and their families) should not appear. This is not for a semantic reasons as to whether they are strictly expatriates, but a practical one: diplomats commonly only keep their post for a few years and then move on. They should not be categoried in every country where they served. In any event, there tend to be more specific categories for diplomats. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "current" category, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked both categories (this one and the one below). The people who are in the categories are not diplomats. I guess if someone created a diplomat article and that would be a problem. To User Carlossuarez46: These categories are not current categories, the people in these categories all passed away.impactF=check this 00:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its current use is not the issue, its the implication of who belongs in the category. Were the queen to visit Taipei, wouldn't she be among the "British people in Taiwan" or did she lose her Britishness en route? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the people in the category are not just "visiting" Taiwan. Plus, I am proposing to rename it so people won't put British people who visits Taiwan in this category. That is part of my reason to rename the category. Expatriate means they lived for years in a different country than where they were born. If this is deleted, does that mean that other categories like Category:British expatriates in New Zealand should also be deleted? impactF=check this 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. The new name correctly describes the contents of this category and is used throughout WP for this purpose. Hmains (talk) 03:48, 30 January 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:Dutch people in Taiwan[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) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dutch people in Taiwan to Category:Dutch expatriates in Taiwan
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow other category names such as Category:Dutch expatriates in Austria and Category:Dutch expatriates in Italy..etc. impactF=check this 05:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as diplomats are not included, who technically are not expats Mayumashu (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I agree diplomats (and their families) should not appear. This is not for a semantic reasons as to whether they are strictly expatriates, but a practical one: diplomats commonly only keep their post for a few years and then move on. They should not be categoried in every country where they served. In any event, there tend to be more specific categories for diplomats. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as my comments on the British people in Taiwan. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom as the new name will correctly categorize these people, as is done throughout WP. Hmains (talk) 03:38, 30 January 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:Abusers[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 15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Abusers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An undefined category. The category does refer to its "main article", abuse, which is essentially a disambiguation page that sets out the different "targets" and/or "types" of abuse. (These include animal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, spousal abuse, psychological abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, "self-abuse", spiritual abuse, verbal abuse, and—a bit of an outlier—drug abuse.) So which of these types does this category refer to? All of them, or one or more specifically? If it applies to all, the category is way to broad. If it applies to only some, the category name is not specific enough. While it may (or may not) be a good idea to categorize people who have committed some of the above types of abuses in more specific categories for criminals, etc., the name of this one is so general and ambiguous to render the category essentially useless. It reminds me a bit of the deleted category Victims of psychological abuse, which was deleted for being overly broad—except here we are categorizing the abuser instead of the victim and the scope here is potentially way, way more broad. I suppose I should also mention the obvious problems involving WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP, and WP:V that are implicated. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vague category and a POV and BLP nightmare. Otto4711 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is drawing together "sex offenders" and "harrassers" (which has just one subcategory, "stalkers"). Sex offenders and stalkers are both populated. We have discussed the existence of these before, and decided they should only have people convicted of them. It might conceivably the useful to have a Category:abuses to cover everything on the dab page abuse, and place stalkers and sex offenders in that (as subcategories), but that is the best idea that I can suggest. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-reasoned nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 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:Descendants of Kamehameha's siblings[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 15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Descendants of Kamehameha's siblings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We've never had Category:Descendants of Kamehameha, but if we did, I imagine it would have been deleted as were the other "descendants of royalty" categories below. The same considerations apply for a category for descendants of a sibling of a king. At time of nomination contains one article.
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_12#Category:Descendants_of_Lakandula
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_5#Category:Descendants_of_Queen_Victoria
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_15#Category:Grandchildren_of_Victoria_and_Albert
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_15#Category:Grandchildren_of_Paul_I_of_Russia
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_18#Category:Natural_Descendants_of_Louis_XIV Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} — Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedents - looks like an excess of genealogical enthusiasm. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one article is already in Category:House of Kamehameha, the relevant royal house (in Hawaii). We do not need another categoiry to the same effect, but that is all this one is. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 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:Descendants of Black Refugees (War of 1812)[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 15:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Descendants of Black Refugees (War of 1812) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Quadruple intersection of descent, political status, time period, and race: (1) descendant of (2) a refugee (3) from the War of 1812 (4) who was black. We generally don't categorize people by being "descendants of" anyone, and I don't think descendants of this particular type of ancestor should be any different. Contains one article at time of nomination. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - the precedent seems well-established that "Descendants of" anyone is not an acceptable cat, and this one appears more difficult to establish with certainty than most. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent against categorization by family member, among other reasons. — CharlotteWebb 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have a single articel in this category on a black recipient of the Victoria Cross from Nova Scotia. The article does not even say how his parents or grandparents came to emigrate to Nova Scotia. I think this is actually only a triple intersection - descendant of refugee is only one item, but it is certainly over-categorisation, unless there is evidcne that it can gain a substantial population. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - wow, very broad, very ill-defined! kilbad (talk) 17:12, 27 January 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:Descendants of slave traders[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 15:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Descendants of slave traders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The current contents of this category are articles about the various Sherbo clans in Sierra Leone. The category is skewed to a particular POV as it labels entire clans as being descended from slave traders, which is not a defining aspect of the clans. Thankfully the category has not yet been applied to articles about individuals, but it certainly could be used in that manner as a type of attack category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for vagueness. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — CharlotteWebb 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the clan in each case has an English surname. This suggests that each has an English male ancestor, probably an English slave factor, who took an African wife (or mistress). This is potentially notable. Nevertheless, infamy is not inherited any more than notability. I thus have misgivings over the existence of a category with this name. Mnay families have skelteton in their cupboard - bankruptcy, illegitimacy, undesirable occupations, etc. Yet the descendants are not responsible for the sins of their ancestors. Accordingly, I would be reluctant to see such a category being applied to any modern individual. If we must have this category, I would suggest Category:West African clans founded by slave traders, but I would rather not have it at all. Has the creator been notified? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT, not defining, probably hard to verify. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 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:Descendants of Stephen Bachiler[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 (article fixed). Kbdank71 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Descendants of Stephen Bachiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another "descendants of" category, this one for Stephen Bachiler. A list of his notable descendants already exists in the article. In the past we've decided against having "descendants of" categories, regardless of the significance of the ancestor:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_13#Category:Descendants_of_Richard_Warren
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_4#Category:The_Beatles'_children
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_22#Category:Frank_Sinatra's_children
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_12#Category:Descendants_of_Lakandula
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_5#Category:Descendants_of_Queen_Victoria
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_15#Category:Grandchildren_of_Victoria_and_Albert
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_15#Category:Grandchildren_of_Paul_I_of_Russia
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_18#Category:Natural_Descendants_of_Louis_XIV
See also this cfd. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} —Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom (as a completely irrelevant aside, I would really have liked a cat for descendants of Queen Victoria... ) .HeartofaDog (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — CharlotteWebb 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listify in article, then Delete -- remote descent from a person 300 years before is a NN characteristic. If we took to this to its limits, 300 years=12 generations. Each person has 2 exp 12 ancestors of that generation, which I think is over 4000, and all those in the preceding 11 generations will be another 4000. We cannot have 8000 categories on an article! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote amended in the light of discussion below. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "A list of his notable descendants already exists in the article." - that list is this category, it's not a duplicate; it's automatically generated inline in the article with a CategoryTree. (That was the objective of the category, so that a single edit adding the cat can create a two-way link between both articles. It's really more of a Wikipedia maintenance category rather than an element of encyclopedia content.) I don't object to the deletion of the category if it's outside of policy but please substitute in a hard-coded list before you delete it so that the article content doesn't get messed up.
To be clear - if you delete the category without editing the article first, the list in the article will disappear. (So please edit the article first, thanks.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty cool, actually. I agree that the current contents of the list should be transferred to the article if the category is deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 27 January 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:Companies linked to Holocaust[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: Listify to List of companies involved in the Holocaust

(The target name is merely incidental to this closure, due to the target being in mainspace.)

What most comes out of this discussion is that this category may violate WP:CAT in several ways. (If not obvious, read the first two subsections of that page.)

There is an intent to include this information, but a question of how it should be presented. And since a key indicator of category inclusion criteria is often it's name, not being able to agree upon what the name should be, simply due to questions of accuracy and verifiability (and possibly even WP:BLP concerns), suggest that we should default to articlespace first, and then, if such a list can be presented in WP:NPOV manner, and referenced with verifiable reliable sources, then potential creation of such a category may be re-examined.

Due to the controversy of the topic, I suggest that, should the list be eventually found to be acceptable, that the re-creation of the category be nominated here at "Categories for discussion" first so that consensus can be determined for its creation. - jc37 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies linked to Holocaust to Category:Companies linked to the Holocaust or Category:OTHER or delete
Nominator's rationale: Rename to something (or delete for vagueneses). As a minimum, the category needs to be renamed to add the word "the". I'm unsure if this is the best name we can come up with for the category, though, since "linked" is a relatively ambiguous and flexible standard. As it currently stands, I'm not sure of the degree of the required "link" for a company to be in this category. Any suggested renames are welcome. If there's nothing workable, then it could be deleted for vagueness reasons. (I'm loath to suggest a particular name lest someone disagree with the suggestion and I be accused of possible anti-Semitism but likely ignorance, Holocaust denialism, Holocaust revisionism, gross insensitivity, disgusting trivializations, despicable rationalizations, and loving pedophiles and all that they stand for. Happy days.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Perhaps Companies that profited from the Holocaust might be more accurate.Historicist (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this notable? Is it notable if the company was aware of this? What if they were not? Can this be populated without POV issues? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is established by the large amount of liteature published on the subject. Dobumentation is not an issue because all of the companies listed ( and a large number of additional firms not yet listed) have been sued and the legal/court documentation is extensive. The corporations on the list, moreover, have the information already included in their Wikipedia articles. It is a useful cagetory because anyone happening upon this issue in conneciton with one of these corporatins, can access parallel cases.Historicist (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I'm not sure if that name is going to work, mainly for the reasons Vegaswikian sets out. Also, we run into a bizarre temporal problem: there are many media corporations that have "profited" from the Holocaust by creating, marketing, and selling Holocaust films, books, etc. So does Universal Pictures get included for making a profit from Schindler's List? A silly example, but you begin to see some of the problems. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category at present sconsists of companies in existence during the War, that are still in existence today, and that are well-documented to have profited directly form such activities as manufacturing death camp components aor using slave labors (the slave labor camps are understood by scholars as slow-death camps in which the prisoners were underfed and treated as an expendable resource.) In other words, as it stands now, the gorup of companies included is narrowly circumscribed. Do you see a problem that cannot be solved by defining the category in this way?Historicist (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean renaming it to Category:Companies that existed during World War II that are still in existence today that directly profited from the Holocaust? Of course, we wouldn't name the category that, but even if not named that but just defined using that language, it seems like an awful lot of caveats. Why does it exclude defunct companies? And how direct does the profit-making have to have been? Does the company have to have been aware of the Holocaust or how it was profiting from it? If so, to what degree? Who in the company needs to have known? Or is negligence or wilful blindness enough? Who decides these issues? Seems like a POV trap. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or consider rename to other options. The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben rather directly supports one of the entries and this is a defining characteristic for these firms. It is sickening to see that disturbing Holocaust insensitivity in previous nominations is deemed a worthy subject for a joke in the nomination, and as it is irrelevant to the nomination it should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Companies that directly profited from the Holocaust. There is no problem of definition, as per comments above. There is no reason to exclude companies now defunct, if they are still thought notable enough to have an article - e.g., Topf u. Söhne - and in fact the word "directly" excludes post-war profiteering from the subject. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:HeartofaDog. In fact, yesterday I wrote this definition into the category page.Historicist (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not comfortable with this unless we can come up with something that wouldn't imply guilt by association. It might as well be Category:Companies whose employees are post-facto accomplices to genocide, which would very rarely be mitigated as very few people employed by Acme GmbH in the 30s and 40s would still be alive, much less still on the payroll, so this would mostly cast a company's current workers in an unduly negative light. While I agree that one should do their homework before accepting a job with just any old company, the spirit of BLP should to at least extent apply to the executives and corporate personhood of businesses which still exist. There are also some parallels to be drawn between this and the Category:Descendants of slave traders debate above, because even when provably true it involves smearing people for atrocities before their time and over which they had no control. I'm willing to hold my peace of nobody else shares my concerns about this, but I'd like to know whether it be acceptable to categorize Brown & Root as having directly profited from every armed conflict involving the U.S. from World War II onward (or would that be a transparent case of sour grapes?). Convince me. — CharlotteWebb 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I will agree there is no reason to exclude defunct companies if this is kept. — CharlotteWebb 16:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this a number of times I still have no idea if User:CharlotteWebb actually intends it to be taken seriously, or if it is some sort of adolescent humour. User:Historicist has made plain what definitions apply here; what sort of companies are involved in this cat; what the activities were that qualify them to be included; and on what basis of evidence; further, that their wartime record is already recorded in the respective articles. What purpose can it serve not to group them in a cat for ease of reference? No present employee of any of these companies, where they still exist, can be under any illusions about the history of their employers, and the idea that present employees of, e.g., ThyssenKrupp might suffer in some way because of a cat that grouped Krupp with other companies who also, beyond any doubt, directly profited from Nazi practices during the war 60+ years ago, is bizarre. What this is suggesting, possibly for want of careful reading of the foregoing, is a particularly silly and pointless whitewashing exercise - I regret that I am struggling to assume Good Faith here. HeartofaDog (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, there must be a thousand ways to call somebody a troll. No, I'm not trying to whitewash anything, or deny the holocaust or whatever you might be implying, and I'm not arguing that any information should be removed from the articles themselves. For hall-of-shame categories of this sort I think the context afforded by a "list of" article would be better (in fact I'll help create it). This would also offer readers a more nuanced perspective of each companies' involvement, without painting everybody with the same brush when this category expands beyond the actual killings, beyond the slave labor, beyond the production of cyanide, to include every company that knowingly profited whether they built the death trains or the punch-card readers, all the way to the Swiss banks. Even today as long as there are collectors willing to pay 3× for K98's bearing the infamous "bnz" stamp, people will unfortunately still profiting from it. Don't you think a list article would be a better approach? — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think a list prob has a lot to offer, as long as the list is set up before the cat is zapped - but it will still have the problem of where exactly the boundaries are set. I still think that if properly defined there is a role for the cat as well, and that it should be strictly confined to those companies with the greatest Holocaust, as opposed to merely war, involvement. For the rest, I just found your tone extremely puzzling - cultural wires crossing, probably: sorry for over-reacting. HeartofaDog (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am unhappy about this as it is potentially an attack category. Certainly there are existing German companies, which in an earlier period used (and profited from) conscripted slave labour during the WWII. However the actively anti-Nazis in Germany were few in number. Almost any German company operating during WWII was almost inevitably complicit in the Nazi totalitatian regime; they had little choice. However, I think a distinction needs to be drawn between the employers of slave labour, and those directly implicit in mass-murder. If we have a category of this kind at all (and I think it might be better if we did not), I think it should be narrowly focused on those directly linked to mass-murder. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia pages on these companies, like responsible histories of the era, do distinguish between producing gas chambers and employing slave labor. What User:Peterkingiron and everyone in this discussion needs to understand is that the distinction is between very, very dark shades of grey. The slave laborers in question were not slaves in thr Greco/Roman sense - who might look forward to freedom, they were not even slaves of the sense of the raceist, slave holding pre-Civil War American south, where the lives of slave were valued by their empoyers as breeding livestock are valued. These Unternmenschen were intended to be used up until they wore out and died - creating Lebensraum for the Aryan race. It was, in other words, a part of the intended genocide of all of the inferoir races of Europe. It is true that some races were slated for immediate genocide, others for slow-replacement genocide, but all of the slave laborers were form categories of people intended for extinction. The fact that some Germans at all times and some of the Nazi power holders realized late in the war that they could not win without keeping more slave laborers alive longer, and could not hold the Empire (The Third Reich) without keeping some large part fo the Slavic population alive as laborers until they could give birth to and rear sufficient Aryans to replace them, does not alter the fact that the design of the slave labor program was calculated to put the muscle mass of healthy, young members of the inferior races into the service of the Reich, but feed them just enough to keep them alive while useful, and feed them even less where more young, strong Slavs, Jews, Roma, etc. were available to take their places.Historicist (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy break
[edit]
  • Keep as is. I am the proposer of the category. The articles themselves make the link between the companies and the Holocaust. Disputes over the historicity the articles should be taken up on a case by case basis. There is no question that large numbers of companies, many of which are still in existence today, used concentration camp labor during World War II. This is a simple historical fact and the existence of a category to reflect this fact is well within the bounds of a reasonable historical approach. To do otherwise would distort history by implying there were no companies linked to the Holocaust, clearly NOT the case. "Linked" is neutral enough language, especially for I.G. Farben, manufacturer of Zyklon-B and Todt and sons, crematoria suppliers to Auschwitz inter alia.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you oppose even adding the word "the", as proposed? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we have Category:Holocaust in Norway, Category:Holocaust in Poland, and Category:Holocaust perpetrators but we also have Category:The Holocaust in France, Category:The Holocaust in Denmark, etc. I have tried to stick with the "the" convention, but this is perhaps a matter of style. Where the word "Holocaust" is capitalized in mid-sentence, I think there can be no confusion about what is referred to, whether or not the word is preceded by "the", and inclusion of unnecessary "the" may lead to increased redlinks, redirects, etc. Add "the" if you wish, these are only my small thoughts, and I can't say that I've always consistently followed them..Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • When "Holocaust" occurs at the end of the category name, as opposed to the beginning, as with those you cited, I think there's little doubt that the "the" is needed. In English it's a word that is preceded by an article, whether it be "the", "a", or some other one. Different considerations apply for categories that start with "Holocaust" as the subject, since in English the article "the" or "a" is sometimes omitted when the noun it normally precedes is the start of a title (or in this case, a category name). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regarding use of "the": it's not about the position in a sentence. It's whether Holocaust is being used in the usual sense, as a noun, which always requires "the" -- or as an adjectival, in which case it should not be used. It's no accident that both the main article, "The Holocaust", and the parent cat, Category:The Holocaust, use the definite article . The underlying issue is that as a generic term, "holocaust" isn't even capitalized, and is used like any other ordinary noun. But when referring to the World War II Holocaust -- the Shoah -- the definite article is required as an integral part of the term. Cgingold (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Btw, some of those sub-cats are improperly named -- so I'll comb through the parent cat and round them up for a group renaming. Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple suggestions: 1) place the companies directly in Category:Holocaust perpetrators (why a specific category for companies separate from people?), or rename to Category:Companies that participated in the Holocaust. "Linked to" is far too vague, and "profited from" is prone to an absurd slippery slope as noted above if taken literally (as categories ultimately always are in practice). At a minimum though, I agree that "the" should be added when "Holocaust" is not the first word. Postdlf (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am criticised above. My concern was that we should not have a category for those who may be regarded as guilty by association, which can lead to the inclusion of some very nebulous links. How about Category:German companies of the Holocaust? I presume they will all be German. If necessary the limited scope of the category can be deined by a short headnote on the category page. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as and when more are added, some may well turn out to be Austrian or based in other modern countries formerly part of the Third Reich (or even - controversially - Swiss, if a strong enough case can be made) - the Third Reich was bigger than Germany; and "Third Reich companies of the Holocaust" is absurd. How about Category:Companies of the Third Reich, for those in the right place and period but less directly implicated in extermination-related practices, with a subcat Category:Companies of the Holocaust, as per User:Carlossuarez46 above, for those where such involvement is beyond doubt?HeartofaDog (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if changed to any of the above suggestions, the inclusion standard is overly broad and vague. If one wanted to be exacting about it, any American company that made money during WW2, from defense contractors down to the Mom & Pop grocery, could arguably be said to have "profited" from the Holocaust or be "linked" to it. The problem with a category is that there is no way to explain how a company "profited from" or is "linked to" the Holocaust. "Companies of the Holocaust" is simply absurd. Companies did not perpetrate the Holocaust. Otto4711 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if a firm definition needs work to thrash out, there is a wide and meaningful difference, as has been pointed out several times, between companies (a) such as Krupp and IG Farben, who made a huge profit directly from the exploitation of slave labour on a vast scale, or (b) such as the manufacturers of the crematorium ovens, who thus contributed very directly to the extermination programmes - ie, "Holocaust", not "World War II" - as opposed to the masses of other companies who made some money out of the fact that there was a war going on - ie, "World War II" but not "Holocaust". (I have no problem at all with the idea of including American companies if their demonstrable involvement is on a level with IG Farben, etc). If you don't like Companies of the Holocaust, fine; perhaps Companies directly contributing to the implementation of the Holocaust is better? In any event, I don't doubt that there is some form of words that WILL do the business - but the cat remains useful, and there is no reason why a proper definition can't be reached.HeartofaDog (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete. I have read this and don't see a consensus developing. I think the opposing points are that we need to keep the information and that the category has problems. A listify here may provide a point of compromise. We keep the information and can add the qualifications that are needed and can't be adequately covered in the category or its introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I finally found the time & energy to give this a close and thorough reading -- and needless to say, there's no easy answer. I was mulling over the possibility of suggesting "Companies involved in the Holocaust" as an alternate proposal, and wondering if there was a slightly stronger term that might be used, when I remembered that Postdlf has already suggested "Companies that participated in the Holocaust". I think "participated in" may be preferable as it denotes a more active form of involvement. But either of these would be a real improvement over the current name, as "linked to" is clearly far too broad a term. (I'm sure Kevin Bacon can be "linked to the Holocaust" in some way...)
Another, somewhat different approach would be to use a more restrictive name that builds on the fact that many of these companies have been sued over their direct involvement/participation in the Holocaust, with abundant documentation of their activities. (According to Historicist, "all of the companies listed ...have been sued".) This sort of category would be analagous to Category:People indicted for war crimes. Perhaps "Companies sued for their involvement in the Holocaust"?? (No doubt that can be improved upon.)
To recap, I'm suggesting three possible options (or some variant) for consideration:
I would not support placing these articles directly in Category:Holocaust perpetrators; I would, though, suggest making this category (however named) a sub-cat of Category:Holocaust perpetrators. Cgingold (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts. The close link between private companies and the concentration camp system is well established in historical literature. Please review Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp for a well-written article about how this worked. In the Mauthausen-Gusen system, there were a 150 satellite camps, generally located close to the private enterprise that was contracting with the SS to use the inmates as labor. I think the SS got some kind of cut for shopping out the labor of their prisoners. And Mauthausen-Gusen was just part of a much broader pattern of course.
My way of coming at the problem was by setting up Category:Companies linked to Holocaust. Now it may be that a broader approach such as Category:Economics of the Holocaust might be a better approach, with subcategories such as Category:War contractors using slave labor (that would be the Mauthausen-Gusen outfits for example, and category:Companies involved in concentration camp construction would cover I.G. Farben and Topf & Sons, etc..
I would not be concerned about abuse of Category:Companies linked to Holocaust. Abuse and vandalism is possible with every category. Currently there are about 10 or 12 companies in Category:Companies linked to Holocaust. I don't see anyone making any objections to that categorization, particularly since most of these have been listed for some time at Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp.
I don't like placing this category as a subcategory of Category:Holocaust perpetrators. To my mind, Holocaust perpetrators are individuals who have either been convicted of Holocaust-related conduct, or for whom extremely strong evidence exists of their involvement. I would only include organizations or companies if it were virtually certain that everyone, or at least a very great majority, of the employees or participants could also be deemed Holocaust perpetrators. An example of this would be Category:Nazi concentration camp personnel. There also needs to be some fairness to existing companies, such as Bayer and Siemens, and I think "linked to Holocaust" somewhat less perjorative than "Holocaust perpetrator". To my knowledge there is not a single private company which has been classified as a Holocaust perpetrator, so it would be something of a change to starting bringing in whole companies. On the other hand, individuals who worked for private companies, such as Bruno Tesch (chemist), the Zyklon B proponent, were tried and, in Tesch's case, even hung for their role in the Holocaust, and these people are of course properly categorized as Category:Holocaust perpetrators.
I like the idea of Category:Companies sued for Holocaust role or something like that, again, possibly with an umbrella category of Category:Economics of the Holocaust. Mtsmallwood (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reconsidered & struck through my suggestion re Category:Holocaust perpetrators -- a {{CatRel}} link would be more appropriate. As for the further sub-divisions that you've suggested, my sense is that we are probably better off with a broader category, so I would rather focus on that for the time being. I would like to know what you think of the first two name options that I suggested, as there is a clear concensus that "linked to" is not suitable. Cgingold (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: This should be relisted rather than closing as "no concensus". Cgingold (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to List of companies involved in the Holocaust; if no consensus to listify, then delete. Unlike categories, lists can provide sourced information to explain why a particular case belongs. In this type of situation, where inclusion is controversial—and, if done carelessly, potentially libelous—and none of the category titles suggested so far are without problems (admittedly, some proposed titles, such as Companies involved in The Holocaust, are less problematic than others, such as Companies that profited from The Holocaust), it is crucial to explain a claim at the same time and place that it is made.
Also, I do not think any form of Companies sued for X is a good scope for a category. Practically anyone can sue any company for any reason, so there is a high probability that this inclusion criterion will be non-defining for companies across various subjects. Conviction, not just accusation, should be the threshold for categorisation. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per otto, or if absolutely necessary, listify. --Kbdank71 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recap (keep) : I cannot agree with deletion of this category. There has been no dispute as to whether any of the companies currently in the category should be in the category. The historical record is replete with evidence of private profiteering from the Holocaust. While it may be unfortunate for Siemens, Bayer and so forth to have this history, it remains a part of history which cannot be expunged by pretending it didn't happen. Please note a major portion of the fine article Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp covers many of the companies described in this category and clearly establishes that the profit motive was a major factor in the Holocaust. If linked is still too broad, then I would agree with Category:Companies supplying murder and body disposal equipment for the Holocaust and Category:Companies using concentration camp slave labor, that would certainly solve any question of precision.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having or not having a category has no effect on the existence or lack of the real-world connection of these firms w.r.t. to the Holocaust. The entire point of the nomination is not to suggest that the "linkage" does not exist, but rather to suggest that a WP category is not the ideal way to explain and illustrate what the connections were. This discussion has amply demonstrated the problems with trying to pack into a category name the details that really should be explained in a list article or in the articles about the firms themselves. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:44, 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_January_26&oldid=1146670446"