Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16[edit]

Category:Reign of Terror perpetrators[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:Jacobins. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: NOTDEFINING, OVERCAT, SMALLCAT. The three "perpetrators" are the three members of the Committee on Public Safety during the Reign of Terror. Those are the only people in this cat, and are likely the only three people that could be put in this cat, despite the fact that it is impossible for three men to personally kill 42,000 people across a whole country. I also believe it misrepresents what the Reign of Terror was about - it was a massive political issue, not the result of three men sitting down at a table one day. MSJapan (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are much better ways to categorize these people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Jacobins. That is a broader designation for the political party that was responsible for the Reign of Terror. The Reign of Terror was a phase of the French Revolution, perpetrated by that party. I see no reason why we should not have a category for the party. They did not personally kill 42000 people, any more than Hitler personally killed several million, but that does not exonerate them for responsibility. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That makes sense, and also has the benefit of being a larger category; there's twice as many names in the Jacobin article. MSJapan (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion Category:Reign of Terror perpetrators is part of the larger Category:Democide perpetrators. Also, I have added eight other articles to this category. They include officials of the Revolutionary Tribunal, and members of the Commitees of Public Safety and. General Security. This leads to a total of twelve articles in a category which formerly had only three. since this discussion began. I do admit, though, that I like the suggestion for categorizing members of the Jacobin Party. Kingstowngalway (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What the cat is a subcat of does not matter in the discussion. Now, interestingly enough, the article on the Reign of Terror itself names the Committee for Public Safety as the main cause, mentions the Revolutionary Tribunal in passing as acting on the Committee's orders, and says nothing about any Committee on General Security. So what cited references are you using to support the additions? MSJapan (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article Revolutionary Tribunal states that the Committee of General Security also had a role in selecting the Tribunal's defendants. Therefore, I examined the articles on those who served in the Tribunal, where defendants were invariably condemned to death, and the Committees of Public Safety and General Security. If the article texts and source citations described them as involved in the Reign of Terror, I chpse to add them to the category. In the case where the text was not clear, I have chosen to err on the side of caution.Kingstowngalway (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Democide category was just created by the user who tries to use its presence to argue for the continued inclusion of the category. I have serious reservations on whether Democide is even a standard enough term to use in a category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete better ways to categorize these folks exist; moreover, "perpetrators" is hardly NPOV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This especially applies with a name like "Reign of Terror". Maybe it is the recieved common name and thus workable, but do we want to accept that the "Reign of Terror" was perpetrated, as oppsoed to something manufactured by anti-revolutionary propagandists in Britain. The deaths occured true, but the specific designation of it is as much the result of porpagandists as those who did the executions. So we have to be clear about this, and not rush into labeling as fully to blame French officials.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2013 (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:Cashless Emerging Economy[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 deleted - part of a "Cloud Network Bank" promotion scheme, as was its content article. The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The whole premise seems to be the creator's own original research. Population of this category does not appear likely. SuperMarioMan 22:46, 16 August 2013 (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:Kriegsmarine admirals[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 Category:Kriegsmarine World War II admirals to Category:Kriegsmarine admirals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is redundant to Category:Kriegsmarine World War II admirals. All persons listed in this category are also listed there. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge given that the "World War II" qualifier is unnecessary and indeed isn't used in the parent category. Seyasirt (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge Germany must have had admirals from at least 1870. It is the narrow WWII category that is the redundant one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However the Kriegsmarine is a term used starting only in 1935. There are other terms for earlier navies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2013 (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:Cremations at Golders Green Crematorium[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 the main article. It currently has two lists, according to whether the ashes remain at this location, but those lists do not currently include everyone in the category. – Fayenatic London 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Cremations at Golders Green Crematorium to article List of cremations at Golders Green Crematorium
Nominator's rationale: Surely this would be better as a list article, rather than a category assigned to a person? Stephenb (Talk) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I went along with categories such as Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, burials exist after the event, cremations don't often. So, if you want to know whether someone is buried at a particular famous place, maybe it's worth a category added to that person's page (maybe). Not sure that applies in this case, though. Stephenb (Talk) 11:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There used to be articles on people buried in particular cemeteries, to which this is cognate, but I cannot remember whether we kept them or deleted them. Can any one else? Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey is now a mark of distinction, only given to a select few. Any one in the area is entitled to have their body cremated at Golder Green, or to be buried in the cemetery there, making it relatively trivial. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To my knowledge we have never gotten rid of a burial by place category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's happened a few times, but the cases were out-of-the-ordinary examples—general categories rather than specific: here and here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to: inurnment at XXX; merely being cremated somewhere isn't defining; having your ashes deposited there for good might be, at least we've thought that final resting places are heretonow, but this is akin to "funerals at" rather than "burials at" and I don't think we have a whole funerals at tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Surtsicna says, this was discussed for burials and agreed some time ago. A key factor is that the names of the associated people are defining of the site. For Golders Green has been a significant site for cremation - the first crematorium in London - and part of its significance comes through its 'customers'. (This is regardless of where the ashes actually end up which can sometimes be complicated.) We have avoided creating lists for the major sites because of their extensiveness - see Westminster Abbey as an example. Ephebi (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom. The problem here is that being cremated someplace does not say that the ashes are interred there. The only article I checked just mentions the cremation and not the disposition of the ashes. If this was listified, then the disposition of the ashes could be a column in the table. Cremation is not the same as interment so that rename should be off the table. Now, if we want to rename the many Category:Burials at Foo to Category:Interments at Foo to allow inclusion of burying of ashes and bodies, then that is a different discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom. If kept, the category should be renamed to "People cremated at ..." as the category contents are articles about people, not articles about the cremations. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what happens to one's corpse is not defining of the person, who has no way of knowing or caring. Listify if desired. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This has already been converted to a list on the article itself, Golders_Green_Crematorium#Cremations. —  dainomite   06:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that this has been listified. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2013 (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:Information operations and warfare[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 both as nominated (to IO&W option), for now at least. This is without prejudice to a new nomination to propose renaming the new category to Category:Information operations, if desired. In any case, we can keep category redirects on both of the old categories. Do I have to state here that this was a really difficult discussion to read and assess? There's not a perfect consensus here, but a decent "rough consensus". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is substantial overlap between these terms, so it would make more sense to combine them into a single category. I just spent half an hour trying to sort things out, changing to better parent cats, etc. In the end, I reached the conclusion that they should simply be merged. It's also worth noting that we have an article called "Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare", which would seem to lend support to the basic idea behind my proposal. However, I am open to other ideas on how best to deal with this issue. Cgingold (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been noticed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Cgingold (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. However, if the (uncited) info in the Information warfare article is correct, "Information operations" and "Information warfare" are synonyms so we should chose one of these for the category name; my preference is "Information warfare". DexDor (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge IW into IO; Oppose other options - see my comments below. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nearly proposed merging Category:Information operations into Category:Information warfare, because that seemed to me to be the better of the two terms. But after reading thru both main articles my sense of things is that, while they are nearly synonymous, there are differences in how the two terms are used, depending on what country we're talking about. Ergo, the proposal to use both terms in the category name. Cgingold (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see my comments below. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal: Merge Category:Information warfare into Category:Information operations[edit]
  • Support merge IW into IO. Having worked in both of these areas for over a decade ... a) Chronologically, IW precedes IO. b) IW is more tactically oriented; IO is more strategically oriented. c) IW is/was primarily a US term originating in the 1990s; since the early 2000s, "the allies" (including the US) have tended to use the term IO. d) These days, IW tends to be a subset of IO. [Note: All of the preceding are generalisations - doubtless there are numerous exceptions.] I propose merge IW into Category:Information operations (preferred) OR, if absolutely necessary, Category:Information operations and information warfare (not preferred). I actually oppose use of the name Category:Information operations and warfare Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare": The author of this article had a barrow to push, and minimal knowledge of the subject matter. I advise against using this article or its title as an example of anything other than how single-minded people can behave when pushing their personal opinions on Wikipedia. (Yes, that probably includes me, too. But of course I knew what I was talking about, didn't I! Cringe - hindsight is 20-20 vision!!) In short, I advise examination of the article history, talkpage, and archives before drawing any conclusions and/or extrapolations from that article.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: No problem with highlighting your counter-proposal, User:Pdfpdf, but I had to reformat it and reword very slightly so as not to confuse other editors. Cgingold (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And I had to modify it to say what I intended, not what you thought I might have intended. FYI: I've learnt from experience that it's usually a very bad idea to change somebody else's words. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was exceedingly careful with what I changed, Pdfpdf. In fact, the only wording I changed was from "Revised proposal" to "Alternate proposal", so as to avoid causing confusing for other editors, who would have construed "revised" to mean that I myself had revised my original proposal. And as you can see, one of those editors was indeed confused by what you did. The other significant modification was removing the editable sub-section, which is rarely done here at CFD because it bifurcates the discussion. The only other thing I did was to convert your plain wording with "Cat" templates, which in fact improved the formatting of your proposal.
You, in contrast, removed 2 entire sentences from my comment below. Would you care to explain how that could have happened -- especially given that they were excised from the very middle of a paragraph, with the other sentences left intact?? It's one thing to make some mistakes here purely on account of "not knowing the ropes". It's quite another to delete a crucial passage from another editors remarks. Cgingold (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Note to closing admin: Just so there is no confusion due to User:Pdfpdf's restructuring of the discussion, the following comment was posted in response to and in support of my original proposal. Cgingold (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)][reply]

  • Please Note: The proposal has not changed: My original proposal still stands (the one that you responded to). However, User:Pdfpdf has offered an alternate proposal. Unfortunately, in doing so he created some confusion as a result of where he inserted it and how he formatted it. Thanks for adding your own note of clarification. Cgingold (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary reason for using the combined name is so that editors will understand that there is no need for a separate category for "Information warfare", because all pertinent articles are in fact included in this single category. Cgingold (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but there are (at least) several ways that "problem" could be addressed within the "merge IW into IO" solution if required / desired. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, you haven't yet offered any explanation as to why it is that you are so strenuously opposed to the wording I've proposed. (Please note, I had already settled on that wording before I noticed that it was quite similar to the name of the Chinese article -- so that particular issue is entirely tangential to this discussion.) Cgingold (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm. Errrr. Well, I wouldn't say I was strenuously opposed, but: a) It's too long; b) It's bad grammar; c) IW is a subset of IO - they are not equal or equivalent; d) IW is a US term - IO is a more global term; e) etc. I can probably think of others if you need them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply. My response, point by point: a) As category names go, it's not anywhere near being "too long", in fact, it's of quite average length. b) And the grammar is perfectly acceptable -- very common usage/construction, and as I pointed out in the passage you deleted (see below), it's a commonly used solution for category names. c) & d) These are actually reasons for using both terms in the category name, because most readers and editors will either not be aware of or may not agree with those assertions. Putting both terms in the name eliminates the issue. Cgingold (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the crucially important passage that you deleted from my last comment, regarding the use of a "combination term" for the category name: It's actually a commonly used formula for dealing with this sort of situation. For example, when we had two overlapping categories for "Civil liberties" and "Civil rights", after a discussion we merged them into Category:Civil rights and liberties. Cgingold (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Cgingold, I have no idea what you are on about, and have lost track of the path that has got us to where we are now, and have no idea where we are now. So the following is a summary of what I understand.

I have the impression that your understanding may be different - if so, please clarify the differences.
Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • <shakes head> Oh for crying out loud. You have "no idea" what I'm talking about?? How is that possible, when I laid it out with absolute clarity? If what you are really saying is that you don't believe me or that I am "full of crap", you needn't take my word for it. All you have to do is go to the edit history for this page and look at the diff for your own edit, which shows plainly that the passage in question disappeared as a result of that edit. Cgingold (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pdfpdf's understanding of the situation:
  • User:Cgingold proposed IO and IW be merged into IO&W
  • Everyone who has commented (including me) has expressed the opinion that a merge is a good idea.
  • I've suggested that EITHER: IW be merged into IO (my preferred option) OR: they both be merged into IO&IW.
  • I've stated I don't like IO&W. I've implied that although IO&IW is not my favourite, I prefer it to IO&W.
  • Different people have expressed different preferences for different options, and others have simply stated that they think a merge is a good idea, without being specific.
So, I think I've identified that there are 3, possibly 5, options under consideration:
1: Status quo - i.e. no merge - two separate categories: IO & IW
2: Merge both IO & IW into IO&W
3: Merge IW into IO
4: Merge both IO & IW into IO&IW
5: Merge IO into IW
Of those 5, to me it looks like there is support for 2 of them:
2: Merge both IO & IW into IO&W
3: Merge IW into IO
To me, it looks like there is no support for the other 3 options:
Option 1: Everybody seems to think a merge is a good idea, so I deduce there is NO support for option 1.
Option 4: No-one seems to be supporting this as their first preference.
Option 5: It's not clear to me if anyone is supporting this option.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Pdfpdf (talk • contribs) I signed it above, but if it keeps you happy: Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary breakpoint to facilitate editing[edit]
  • Your summary looks about right to me. I would just add that as things stand, there appears to be more support for my original proposal than for your counter-proposal. Cgingold (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, and mine, are irrelevant. (As is the fact that you disagree with my opinion, and that I disagree with yours.)

That which is relevant, and useful, is that we both appear to agree that:

There is support for 2 options:
a) Merge both IO & IW into IO&W
b) Merge IW into IO

So what's the next step? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's next is we wait a couple more days for further comments from other editors. The closing admin reads thru the whole thing and either 1) relists it for further consideration -- which may well be necessary -- or 2) determines that there is sufficient support for one of the proposals to close the discussion with that outcome; or 3) decides to close the CFD as "No concensus". But in this case #3 is unlikely; if there isn't fairly clear support for one of the proposals it clearly needs to be relisted. Cgingold (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I removed the 2nd editable section that you added; it was quite unnecessary, and as I explained above, only rarely done in CFD discussions. Lastly, I hope you saw the follow-on comment I posted above regarding your deletion of two crucial sentences from my earlier comment. It's a serious matter, and I would like to know what your explanation is. Cgingold (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
off topic/Discussion re deleted passage[edit]
this is indeed off-topic here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
a) I have no interest in your off topic comments.
b) Please read WP:AGF
c) Please read WP:POINT
d) (Unlike you), I have not deliberately changed anybody's contributions other than my own. If something I haven't noticed has changed, I assume it is because of some sort of edit conflict, or some sort of error on my part, or some sort of error on somebody else's part. i.e. I do not have an explanation.
e) Please do not refactor another editors contributions.
Pdfpdf (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to be absolutely clear: AT NO TIME did I alter a single word of any of your remarks. The ONLY thing I modified -- out of urgent necessity -- was the poorly-worded section heading that you chose -- "Revised Proposal" -- because it was terribly misleading and confusing to the other editors, suggesting that it was MY "Revised" Proposal, when it was actually YOUR "Alternate Proposal". As I've already pointed out, I had to post an explanation for one editor was indeed quite confused as to what was going on as a direct result of the perversely unconventional way you posted your comments, etc. Trust me, you are not likely to find yourself warmly welcomed by editors in other CFD discussions if you insist on continuing with such a disruptive approach. Cgingold (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. (That's much more polite than what I could reply.)
out of urgent necessity - Oh come on! It was neither urgent, nor was it necessary. Nor was it "terribly misleading", nor was it "confusing to the other editors". And to use your own tone of expression, AT NO TIME did I even vaguely attempt to "suggest that it was YOUR "Revised" Proposal". This is all nonsense. I am forced to conclude that you haven't bothered to read WP:POINT yet. (Or WP:AGF.) As much as I wish to assume good faith, no, I do not trust you.
As I have said, I have no interest in your off-topic character assassination. I will not be responding further. (Which, I suppose, means you get the last word, and somehow, as much as I wish to assume good faith, I expect that you will, at great length, and with absolutely zero WP:AGF, do so.) Over & out. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of rubbish. You had better believe it was "out of urgent necessity", my friend. The fact that you are either incapable of understanding that or unwilling to acknowledge it speaks volumes. And your assertion that none of the other editors were confused by what you did is incontrovertibly refuted by the following comment, which I re-post in full:
I was obliged to post a response to that, assuring him/her that my original proposal still stood, and explaining -- in neutral, non-accusatory language -- what had taken place. Cgingold (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis

Version immediately before my edit was saved (at 20:53, 18 August 2013)

  • Meanwhile, you haven't yet offered any explanation as to why it is that you are so strenuously opposed to the wording I've proposed. It's actually a commonly used formula for dealing with this sort of situation. For example, when we had two overlapping categories for "Civil liberties" and "Civil rights", after a discussion we merged them into Category:Civil rights and liberties. (Please note, I had already settled on the wording I proposed before I noticed that it was quite similar to the name of the Chinese article -- so that particular issue is entirely tangential to this discussion.) Cgingold (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version after my edit my edit was saved (at 20:53, 18 August 2013)

  • Meanwhile, you haven't yet offered any explanation as to why it is that you are so strenuously opposed to the wording I've proposed. (Please note, I had already settled on that wording before I noticed that it was quite similar to the name of the Chinese article -- so that particular issue is entirely tangential to this discussion.) Cgingold (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm. Errrr. Well, I wouldn't say I was strenuously opposed, but: a) It's too long; b) It's bad grammar; c) IW is a subset of IO - they are not equal or equivalent; d) IW is a US term - IO is a more global term; e) etc. I can probably think of others if you need them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion

It would appear to me that between 20:32 and 20:36, I commenced editing this version:

Whilst I was editing it, you made four edits

I saved my edits at 20:53, 18 August 2013. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I accept your sort-of-acknowledgement that the deletion was the unintentional byproduct of an edit conflict. However, I am mystified as to why you went forward with saving that edit after discovering the edit conflict without checking to be sure that you weren't messing up what the other editor had posted. Please be more careful about that in the future! Cgingold (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is supercilious and arrogant. If you were to assume good faith, rather than assume the most negative interpretation you could possibly imagine, you would ask questions. (Rather than make negative assumptions.) Had you ever bothered to consider what "I have not deliberately changed anybody's contributions other than my own" and "I assume it is because of some sort of edit conflict" might actually mean? - Clearly not!
I am mystified as to why you went forward with saving that edit after discovering the edit conflict - Had you bothered to think that "I assume it is ... " might mean that I got NO notification of ANY edit conflict, and hence did not know of, or discover any edit conflict? No, of course you didn't! It didn't support your point of view, did it! Without any evidence, you had already made up your mind about what had happened. To assume otherwise just would NOT be consistent with the point of view you had decided to adopt. As "they" say, "NEVER let the facts get in the way of a good story".
"Please be more careful about that in the future!" - Ditto!!!
Over & out. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every single thing you've written here is utterly false -- as anybody reading it can plainly see for themselves. Contrary to your assertions, I have made no assumptions. Rather, I have noted the facts and asked you for an explanation. Furthermore, your claim that there was an edit conflict but that you received no notification of it stretches credulity to the nth degree. I have never, ever had that happen, nor have I ever heard of it happening to anybody else. Does that mean I think you're lying about it? No, I would much rather assume that there is another explanation. To repeat the phrase I used above, "I am mystified" as to why you (apparently) did not notice the edit conflict. At the same time, I'm not particularly surprised, given the other signs of carelessness that manifested in your edits here -- and your very evident lack of concern for paying heed to the basic norms for participation in a CFD discussion. The expression "Bull in a china shop" comes to mind. Cgingold (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion of options[edit]

It seems the options on the table are:

  1. Merge to IO&W or
  2. Merge to IO
  • Merge to IO&W A more inclusive term which will also help the reader understand what this category is about. Information warfare is used in places outside the US (see recent conference: http://academic-conferences.org/eciw/eciw2013/eciw13-home.htm which was previously called European Conference on Information Warfare and Security ECIW-2013). The overlap is fuzzy enough and we have very few articles anyway, so readers will be better served by a single overarching category. Specific categories for countries could be created in the future if enough articles merit such. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2013 (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.

Yugoslav Partisans members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. And after all that, the category was not tagged for discussion with Template:Cfm, so we couldn't have done anything anyways. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are basically the same thing.We don't need both of them.--Killuminator (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The parent Category:Yugoslav Partisans has several subcats, and it seems to me that placing individual members in a specific subcat is a good thing. Am I missing something? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge All of the immediate members are people, so it's pretty obvious that people are following the categorization directions, implicitly or not. If someone can come up with a new name for the inclusive category that might be a good thing, but I would still support "partisans" over "partisans members". Seyasirt (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I can see that the current naming is messy, but that can be fixed. However, there is no point in losing the distinction between the movement and its individual members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per the "resistance/partisans" solution. Seyasirt (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We have two differnet things in one category: the partisan movement and the individual people. It might be better to downmerge all the people in Category:Yugoslav Partisans to Category:Yugoslav Partisans members and rename the former to something like Category:Yugoslav Partisans movement. This may not be quite the right target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but adjust content - There is no article on the movement in the YP cat (it's tagged in the header only). I also note the only non-person in the YP cat is an article about a partisan hat, and the members subcat (at 202) is much larger than the YP cat (76). I would say to leave the YP cat as-is, but take the members out of it, put them all in the members subcat (if they aren't there already), and use YP for general articles on the movement. MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom It seems to me that this and several other South Slav categories could be organized as 'xxx Resistance' for the entire subject which would include its activities and include a 'xxx Partisans' subcategory for the members. In this specific case, it would be Category:Yugoslav Resistance and a subcat for members Category:Yugoslav Partisans. Same for the Category:Slovene Resistance and Category:Slovene Partisans and so on. Some articles just to be moved around among the categories to achieve this pattern Hmains (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like that solution of "Foo Resistance/Foo Partisans". However, it seems to me that merger is the wrong way to get there. Better to simply rename both categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment whatever works out is fine with me. Hmains (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Merge (which ever is simpler) per Hmains & BrownHairedGirl. The main category should be Category:Yugoslav Resistance, and Category:Yugoslav Partisans should then be used for members. Cgingold (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2013 (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/2013_August_16&oldid=1138397635"