Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 23

< April 22	April 24 >

April 23[edit]

Category:Fluid dynamicists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Contains only one article on a living person. Crowsnest (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Question~~ Keep per below - to what category is it redundant? Otto4711 (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate - seems a reasonable sub-category of Category:Fluid dynamics, which has some individuals in it (Gino Girolamo Fanno, Sergei K. Godunov, Hermann Schlichting, Walter Tollmien, Bram van Leer - probably others in the stubs category, or who have eponymous concepts). Bencherlite ^Talk 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate - there must have been many notable Fluid dynamicists. "It has several subdisciplines including aerodynamics and hydrodynamics" so perhaps there are aerodynamicists and hydrodynamicists out there waiting to be subsumed. Indeed - Category:Aerodynamicists. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate per above. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Call me cynical (or grumpy if you wish), but why is it four days after the last "keep and populate", and there is still only one article? Who do you people think is going to populate this, me? Seriously, don't just toss this in the closer's lap and walk away. Either {{sofixit}} or accept that we can delete it to be recreated later if/when some other articles about fluid dynamicists are found or written. --Kbdank71 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really. I found a squadron of aerodynamicists and added them. Members of subcategories also belong to parent categories. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you first added yourself the category aerodynamicists to the category fluid dynamicists, a week ago. Looks like a circular move to me. It only shows that aerodynamicists has more grounds for being around here than is fluid dynamicists. Crowsnest (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 19 articles in the category, none of which based on cursory glancethrough appear to also be in the aero- subcat. That addresses the second half of your nomination. The first half is that it is "redundant." Yet you have not answered my question, to what other category is this category redundant? Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant was just an intro to the second half. It was not meant as redundant to another category. The second argument is not valid any longer since the category is populated now. As far as I am concerned, the category can stay. Crowsnest (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be late, as the discussion is already closed, but consider my "delete" a "keep", thanks to Roundhouse. --Kbdank71 13:12, 1 May 2008 (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:Articles with permission confirmed[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 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, superseded by Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed. Kelly ^hi! 15:19, 23 April 2008 (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:Falkland Islands Christian missionaries[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 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Proposed for deletion because the category contains only one member - a person who used the Falklands as a base for a mission to Argentina before moving there. Unlikely to have more members. Mhockey (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and the parent Category:Falkland Islands missionaries will then be empty & should go - could be added here now. The only article has plenty of other cats covering this area. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both categories as essentially empty, and likely to remain so. Terraxos (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (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.

Collaborators[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 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per results of discussion. Notified category creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm totally open to suggestions; here are some preliminary thoughts:

One possible formulation: Category:Collaborators with Imperial Japan and Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany.
Another possible formulation: Category:Collaborators with Imperial Japanese occupation and Category:Collaborators with Nazi German occupation.

Feel free to tweak & improve on these suggestions. Cgingold (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer the first of the possible formulations, because some of the collaborators had nothing to do with the occupations - there were no doubt collaborators in unoccupied territories. One issue I have is of degree...Anyone serving in the Vichy government a collaborator? perhaps. Even in a minor role? well, people minor roles did inform, arrest, disrupt the resistance? Henri Giraud, Mitterand? hmmm... Same for those in service in numerous allied or puppet governments. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Renaming to Collaborators with Imperial Japan and Collaborators with Nazi Germany is acceptable, but I can't see much the difference. The second suggestion is too wordy IMO. As to Carlossuarez's question, the Vichy government as a whole - that is, the French state - was a Collaborator to Nazi Germany (this has been officially recognized by President Jacques Chirac). This does not imply that all civil servants were Collaborators. Furthermore, concerning Mitterrand, I would point out that it was not so much his short involvement in Vichy that has been stigmatized, but rather his work as a contractual for the Légion française des combattants from January to April 1942. Not much except for those who have an axe to grind. Finally, in France historians make a difference between Collaborators (Vichy, Pétain, etc.) and Collaborationists, who were more radical (those from the Milice, for instance). In any case, such a sensible subject can not be solve by automatic inclusion: the category surely need to exist, but inclusion of characters is and should be on a case to case basis. Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please outline the objective standards for inclusion. If someone cannot, these ought to be deleted as POV and subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the first of CGingold's suggestions. Terraxos (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (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:Collaborationists[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 Category:Stalinist collaborators, rename Category:Collaborationists to Category:Collaborators during World War II occupations. Kbdank71 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inherent POV problematic. Also, it is only subcat to WWII categories, but 'collaborationists' is not a term uniquely used for WWII. I would, personally, say that Hamid Karzai is a 'collaborationist', but it would be highly dubious to categorize him as such on wikipedia. The 'Category:Stalinist collaborators' subcat is also tagged for cfd, it is largely redundant to Category:Communists. Not sure what to do what the other two subcategories, but I think a rename might be in order for the Japanese subcat. Soman (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about renaming it "Collaborationists during World War II"? Tazmaniacs (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one way, since 'collaborationists' is a rather well-defined term in Western historical debate on WWII. However, the problem with the term is that history is largely written by victors, even more so in times of war. The term is extensively used to describe one side in the war, but theoretically it could equally used to describe others as well. I'm not sure what is the best solution here, but tagging Enver Hoxha (whose action during WWII was to organize Partisan struggles) as a 'Stalinist collaborator' is shows that there is an inherent pov issue here. --Soman (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just added the other two sub-categories so we can deal with these at the same time. Cgingold (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Stalinist collaborators: Very problematic, POV category -- not really consistent in use & application with the other sub-categories. I had spotted this a day ago, and removed Jacques Duclos, Gaik Ovakimian, Kim Philby, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg from the category pending further thought about how to proceed. Cgingold (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Collaborationists to either Category:Collaborators during World War II or Category:Collaborationists during World War II -- or possibly Category:Collaborators during World War II occupations. Further discussion is needed to determine which is preferrable, but it should be restricted to that historical era where the concept is well-defined and widely accepted. Cgingold (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Stalinist collaborators with Category:Collaborators with Stalinism. In creating this category, I attempted to draw together Communist Party officials in Russia and the Soviet Bloc, members of the Comintern, those involved in intelligence gathering abroad, and others who, by their actions made the themselves acomplices to one of the most murderous dictators in all of history. And as for Enver Hoxha, the article aboout him states quite clearly that he remained devoted to Stalin's memory even after Khrushchev's destalinisation in the 1950s. Kingstowngalway (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, and others who, by their actions made the themselves acomplices to one of the most murderous dictators in all of history seems like a good npov inclusion criteria. (irony) --Soman (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Collaborationists to Collaborationists with Nazi Germany. As to Stalinist Collaborators, the category is much more problematic (there has been no trial, in France for instance, about members of the French Communist Party during the Stalinist era being branded as Collaborators - although the party was outlawed at the end of the Third Republic). The notion of Collaboration implies first of all state collaboration, not "party collaboration" (and such a one would be indeed difficult to prove for the PCF, as many base activists were against Stalinism and did not obey to the party's recommandations). Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I assume you meant to say "Collaborationists during World War II", Tazmaniacs. But given the distinction you've drawn between Collaborators and Collaborationists, would it not be better to use the broader term, hence Category:Collaborators during World War II? Cgingold (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Stalinist collaborators as problematic - 'collaboration' is usually used in the context of one country being occupied by another, and it's disputable whether states like Communist Albania and East Germany should have been considered 'occupied' by the USSR. Keep Category:Collaborationists, but rename it to something like 'Collaboration during WWII' and restrict its scope accordingly. It's more or less uncontroversial who was a Nazi collaborationist, but the term is much more controversial in other contexts. Terraxos (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Stalinist collaborators" - POVed and vague; it could absurdly include anyone from André Breton and George Bernard Shaw (both of whom praised Stalin in the 1930s) to Gheorghe Tătărescu (a mainstream liberal whose alliance with the Romanian Communist Party helped bring communism to Romania) to Vladimir Lenin (who promoted the young Stalin) to the anarchist leader Buenaventura Durruti (who grudgingly created a popular front in Republican Spain). I can already hear people saying "it wasn't meant to include them", but wikipedia does not allow room for inherent POV and wishful thinking. The syntagm of "collaborators" does not in any way have the narrow sense its Nazi-WWII equivalent has acquired. And Rename "collaborationists" to what Tazmaniacs suggested, or even better, to Category:Collaborators during World War II occupations, as suggested by Cgingold - the syntagm is used in that case, and applies to a number of people - most of whom have been defined as such as a result of court decisions. Dahn (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rename according to the suggestions and logic of Tazmaniacs, Cgingold & Dahn. Biruitorul (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can articulate a NPOV objective standard for inclusion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2008 (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:Florida street railroads[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Nominated by another user but not listed here, relisting for proper comment; original reason given was "replaced by Category:Defunct Florida railroads and Category:Interurbans". Russ (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the category empty before the other editor nominated it? Kind of hard to make any sort of informed decision not knowing the contents. "Interurbans" is a non-intuitive name for a category as most people probably have no idea what they are. Otto4711 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at his contributions (from 05:40 to 05:46 on 2nd April), the editor emptied it of the nine or so articles in the category and then (incompletely) nominated it: e.g. Winter Park Company, Key West Street Car Company, Kissimmee City Street Railway. It's remained empty since. Category:Interurbans dates back to 2006 - I agree it doesn't immediately make itself clear as a category title, but it seems to follow the main article Interurban. Anyway, speedy delete as empty for more than 4 days. Bencherlite^Talk 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now it's been repopulated, I have no strong feelings. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Repopulate~~. There is no apparent reason to have removed articles from this category. It is a reasonable category and has several logical parents. It also retains the terminology used for these rail lines which probably were never called interurbans. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I repopulated the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Vegas. Reasonable category and has sufficient content. Should the name be changed to include the word "Defunct" to match the parent? Otto4711 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (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:Australian people by states and territories[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: relisted on april 29. Kbdank71 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian people by states and territories to Category:Australian people by state or territory

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While it's true that people categories are generally pluralized, that requirement in this case is satisfied by the "people" part. There is no need to pluralize the rest, since each person is (in general) just from one state or territory. Similar categories are found at Category:People by Canadian province or territory; Category:American people by state; Category:United Arab Emirati people by emirate; Category:People by Uruguayan department; Category:People by province in the Netherlands; Category:Irish people by county; etc. — all use "people" with the singular form of the subdivision. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom in line with all the others in the snappily titled Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivisions (being speedily renamed to Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative rename Category:People by Australian state or territory as not everyone listed is an Australian citizen. Will nominate other equivalent pages for other countries to have list consistent (at present about a half follow each of the two ways of naming) should discussion here be favourable Mayumashu (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (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:Japanese style of gardening[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 15:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Japanese style of gardening to Category:Gardening in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Merge, consistent naming with similar cats and better cat definition. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Japanese garden and Bonsai for why. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and restore the previous parents for Category:Japanese gardens. To try and label the articles in that category as being 'gardening in Japan' is totally misleading. The articles in that category are in the 'Japanese style' or 'Japanese inspired' but clearly not in Japan. Also the previous parents for this category were correct and your changes probably need to be reversed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also consider the previous nomination that created this name. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What were the previous parent cats? Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the old category structure for those categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cat-page note that Category:Japanese gardens is only for those not in Japan, & tidied the cats a bit. A rename might make this clearer. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (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:Turkish footballers in Germany[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kbdank71's comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 14#Category:Brazilian footballers in Turkey, and discussion there, close amended to delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: nominate a deletion based on recent nomination to delete similar pages (Category:Brazilian footballers in Turkey) and a merge of the pages contents to Category:Turkish expatriates in Germany, Category:Turkish expatriate footballers, and Category:Expatriate footballers in Germany Mayumashu (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge per nom - no need for this sort of multiple intersection. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary intersection category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2008 (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.