< January 21	January 23 >

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 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area, Alaska to Category:Petersburg Census Area, Alaska

Nominator's rationale: As referenced in its article, Wrangell has been separated from the old Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area, and the census area's article has been moved to reflect this. Better to have a category for a currently-existing entity rather than a past one. See the similar situation for the old Category:Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area, Alaska on 5 June 2008. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Doesn't exist as of last year, will have new census data next year. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 23 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.

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 for consistency with the other subcats and to match the parent cat. If someone, perhaps one of the people here (hint hint), wants to nominate the whole bunch for a rename to remove the ", Ontario", that can be done at any time. Kbdank71 14:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Thunder Bay District to Category:People from Thunder Bay District, Ontario

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form of the all of the other categories in Category:Thunder Bay District, Ontario. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Adding 'Ontario' superfluous - there are no other places named Thunder Bay District. Other pages should lose 'Ontario' Mayumashu (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for now. If there is a desire to change them all, they may be nominated, but for now rename for consistency' sake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As opposed to what? If this is to distinguish it from the city, the "District" already does that. Any upper municipalities or districts on Ontario with ", Ontario" in their names should have the ", Ontario" removed unless there are similar named counties or districts elsewhere. vıdıoman 13:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should—perhaps. But who's going to nominate them for renaming? I could support a rename of them if someone nominated them, but unless there's some commitment from someone to do so, I can't understand the rationale for having one category remain inconsistent. It makes the system look scattershot and junky (kind of like Thunder Bay.... I MEAN....) (that last part was totally a joke—I've been to T.B. and it's not scattershot nor junky—a lovely, lovely town ....) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you really need to justify why this one needs to be a different form then all of the other categories under Category:Thunder Bay District, Ontario and to not match the name of the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They should all be renamed the other way too. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will any user commit to nominating them? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 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.

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. (Note that some of the subcategories still use "Imperial Russia" and could likewise be nominated for renaming.). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Imperial Russia to Category:Russian Empire.

Nominator's rationale: The main article (Russian Empire) used to be titled "Imperial Russia" at the time this category was created. While the article was later renamed, the category had not been. This CfD aims to fix that. The vast majority of this cat's subcats and articles already use "Russian Empire".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:24, January 22, 2009 (UTC)

• rename per nom. There is no reason why this category should be named differently than the main article. Also matches most of its subcats. Those that do not match also need to be re-named Hmains (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how about renaming both to Empire of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Category:Empire of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But what would be the point? "Empire of Russia" is not nearly as common a term as "Russian Empire", not to mention that the latter is a more accurate translation of "Российская Империя".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:23, 24 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dark Angel (band) albums to Category:Dark Angel albums

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to pre-emptively disambiguate. The only reason album categories are ever disambiguated like this is when there are numerous bands of the same name, or when it may be otherwise confusing (country names, etc). However, I doubt any of the other Dark Angels will be releasing albums. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Right now the name matches the article for the band Dark Angel (band), which is probably the reason the disambiguated name was used in the category name. Also, there is an individual album (Dark Angel (album)) of the same name by a different artist, so technically there could be confusion that the proposed name is for albums named Dark Angel. A bit of a stretch, but all things considered, I think keeping the DAB would be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - "Dark Angel" with no dab lends itself to ambiguity. Otto4711 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This seems like disambiguation for its own sake, rather than for any value.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 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.

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 (was empty at close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Executive recruiting firms to Category:Executive search firms

Nominator's rationale: Merge, the same subject: Executive search, which is defined as recruiting of executives. Xuz (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 22 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.

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) 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Samoan State Senators to Category:American Samoa Senators

Propose renaming Category:American Samoa State Representatives to Category:Members of the American Samoa House of Representatives

Nominator's rationale: American Samoa is a territory of the United States, not a state. Convention for US state and territorial legislative houses is to use the actual name of the body, and to use the name of the state or territory rather than its demonym (i.e. "California State Senators" rather than "Californian State Senators".) Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom as 'State' does not not match the facts in this case. Also to match subcats and sister/brother/cousin categories--every other cat I looked at in American Samoa Hmains (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:23, 24 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.

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 14:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tin Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unnecessary category with only one article, and one subcat which only has three articles (all currently up for deletion). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tin Man characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete I am adding this, which is the subcategory referred to above to the nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC) --- voted before second item added[reply]
• Delete both -- The best solution for a TV series is to have a single article. If a list is needed as well, it is sufficient to for that to be linked from the main article: if more is needed a template serves well. A subcategory serves no useful purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete highly ambiguous name in the first place. This isn't about the original character. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note also this is about a TV miniseries, not an open-ended, ongoing series, so there isn't any real expectation for future expansion because there will never be more content to write about. Postdlf (talk) 18:33, 25 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.

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 the ones that were empty prior to this nom, no consensus on the others. Kbdank71 15:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Update: The categories that the nominator said were "empty" were actually just cat redirects. When adding the cfd tag, the cat redirect was overwritten. Given the no consensus close, I restored the redirects and put back as many articles as I could find into Category:South Tyrol and Category:Monasteries in South Tyrol. --Kbdank71 15:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alto Adige (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Part of a naming dispute over the formerly Austrian region of Südtirol/Alto Adige/whatever, now part of Italy but still with a German-speaking majority. The name of the main article Province of Bolzano-Bozen has been stable since 2007, so this toponym is more likely to be accepted by both factions. The categories Category:Province of Bolzano-Bozen and such already exist and are widely used.Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:South Tyrol
• Category:Monasteries in South Tyrol
• Category:Monasteries in Alto Adige
• Category:People from Alto Adige
• Category:Cities and towns in South Tyrol
• Category:Cities and towns in Alto Adige
• Category:Lakes of Alto Adige
• Category:Districts of Alto Adige
• Category:Districts of South Tyrol
• …possibly others.

• Keep, and bad way to nom by removing all articles in those categories. I have undone some of that. Poor method on your part. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: see previous CFDs: 2008 September 20, 2008 February 16, 2007 November 28, 2007 August 29. All categories nominated were emptied by the nominator before starting the discussion. --jergen (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: wrong, I emptied only "South Tyrol" and "Monasteries in South Tyrol", all the others were already empty when I found them. I have read all the previous noms, and discussion was centred on the name of the main article in every case. Now there appears to be a shred of consensus about it. Also, nationalistic concerns aside, I think we all agree it's stupid to have three different categories for the same political, linguistic and cultural entity.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, in fact, I think we should triple the number of categories, and include a Bozen-Bolzano, a Seudtirol/Alto Adige, and as many other permutations as possible. :) Icsunonove (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into equivalent categories for "Province of Bolzano-Bozen", leaving the old forms as category redirects. I know this naming is a contentious issue, but we do not need duplicates. Nevertheless, Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso should not have emptied them, and should immediately reinstate the conmtent he removed, so that the rest of us can see what was there. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: I agree that the present multitude of categories lefts wanting, and, unlike earlier nominations by other users, I can see that this one was done in good faith. But it should be remembered that the 2007 decision to switch from "South Tyrol" to "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" was a close-run thing. South Tyrol is definitely still a common name in English (I am just reading a peer-reviewed scientific US article which does not even bother with the Fascist invention Alto Adige or the administrative "Province of Bolzano-Bozen", which means nothing to most English speakers). And many official documents from South Tyrol/Alto Adige feature that name prominently: Oscar Benvenuto (ed.): "South Tyrol in Figures 2008", Provincial Statistics Institute of the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol, Bozen/Bolzano 2007. Still, we may ultimately settle on something like Südtirol/Alto Adige, if there exists consensus, but for now I just don't see it happen. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but you are wrong :) Alto Adige is not a "fascist invention", and all you do is misunderstand something which is much more complex. :) The term Alto Adige has been around for centuries, just as Alto Po, Alto Ticino, etc. It is used in the Ladin language that predates both German and Italian (Tuscan) in the region. The French applied this name Haut-Adige as a political term in the 19th century. The fascists abused this term during their reign, just as Berlusconi abused "Forza Italia". Silvio didn't invent this term anymore than the fascists invented Alto Adige. :) So, just trivializing this name as a fascist invention is actually ridiculous, and can certainly be offensive culturally. South Tyrol itself is an invention of only the 20th century, as there was never a "South Tyrol" in previous history; there was only the County of Tyrol. Next, you are making grand assumptions and statements to say what the US scientific community chooses to use or doesn't -- and why -- from reading one article. I've witnessed much more often the use of Alto Adige in daily English, simply because in the United States (and other English-speaking countries) the products we most associate with this region are Wines from Alto Adige. :) Even the German wineries use your infamous Alto Adige -- go figure. ^_- There were obvious reasons to locate the page at Province of BZ, because it matches up with all the other provinces of Italy pages on Wikipedia. Trying to switch it to Südtirol/Alto Adige will smack again of bias, because it doesn't even match the name used in the constitution for the overall region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol -- unless you think we do some service to the population by simply placing German first..... Icsunonove (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not help when the usual suspect(s) moves around all the while, italizing names and even references in municipalities with a clear German-speaking majority. These people even show total disregard for discussions and votes, when they move pages. Their edit history reveals that they do little else on Wikipedia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is really nice of you to come here, sneak a few jibes at other editors along the way.  :) You are not aware that at one point there was no balance what-so-ever in these articles and they were heavily biased towards a German POV; or is that preferable to you? You know you are really out of line coming after me or Supparluca or anyone else that helped pound out the agreement that now uses multilingual titles. At one point the articles were Trentino-South Tyrol and just South Tyrol, even though in English most often we say Trentino-Alto Adige for this region. Would you like it this way instead, to remove the German all together? The usage between Alto Adige and South Tyrol is split 50/50, and what you state above is nonsense. For the name of the province in English it is usually simply Province of Bolzano; just like Province of Milan, Province of Venice, etc. We could of easily pushed for those Italian-only names, but we did not. So are we anti-German or anti-Italian? Both? Neighter? @_@ We purposely went for multilingual names that had a basis in the constitution and Brittanica; and that solution indeed had large acceptance. So, why don't you give a little bit of credit before throwing your stones on here; something you've done from the get go.  :( Icsunonove (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full list of all the articles I removed from the categories. All those marked with "·" were already in either "Category:Province of Bolzano-Bozen" or one of its subcategories:

In "South Tyrol":

• Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Optanten für Deutschland·
• Italianization·
• Ulten Valley·
• Passirio·
• Passeier Valley·
• Communes of the province of Bolzano-Bozen·
• List of castles in the province of Bolzano-Bozen·
• Category:Monasteries in South Tyrol·
• Prontuario dei nomi locali dell'Alto Adige·
• Pustertal Pied Cattle·
• Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft·
• Rundfunk Anstalt Südtirol·

In "Monasteries in South Tyrol"

• Marienberg Abbey·
• Säben Abbey·

All the other categories were already empty. You don't have to take my word for it, you can check my contribs if you don't believe me.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just do what you're supposed to do, and put the cats back.HeartofaDog (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - on this occasion, mostly because this looks like a badly-thought-out attempt to force the issue, which comes with a huge amount of baggage, and therefore needs to be treated cautiously and correctly. There are procedures, which the nominator has ignored for no good reason. If someone (else) will address the question properly on another occasion perhaps we can resolve it. In the meantime I'm inclined to replace the remainder of the prematurely removed cats. HeartofaDog (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I also agree with merging Alto Adige and South Tyrol into the Province of Bolzano-Bozen, but I really DO NOT CARE either way, keeping them all is just as well -- it just leads to confusion -- but whatever. All the accusations and innuendos on this simple category discussion are already quite enough. What about assuming good faith in your fellow editors?? I don't think the nominator meant to do anything wrong, force issues, ignored things for no good reason. Geez. Icsunonove (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez yourself. Procedures matter, and if the issue is as contentious as this one is, they matter a lot. Your man made an error in not troubling to follow the procedures here, but a far worse one in not bothering to fix his mistake when it was pointed out: instead, the gang turns up all together to try and push the thing through anyway - this doesn't create an impression of good faith. Instead of making such a song and dance, perhaps one of you just solve the problem by redoing the nomination correctly, and in an appropriate tone. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect - of course we can't have multiple categories for the same subject. All the reasons given by the opposers involve the name of the main article and/or the procedure used by the nominator.--Supparluca 10:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the categories related to the Province of Bolzano-Bozen should contain the words "Province of Bolzano-Bozen". It is defintely better to avoid "Alto Adige", "South Tyrol", etc. --Checco (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by jergen and Chris.-Phips (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per HeartofaDog; --noclador (talk) 19:41, 25 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.

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 Redirect categories are supposed to be empty. Kbdank71 14:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football kit templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Redirect category which has been empty for long enough. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirects are harmless. However, this should be in User CFDs, not here. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like a plausible category redirect. I don't agree with Peter's comment about User CFDs; this is not a user category. - Stepheng3 (talk) 22:39, 24 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.

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; creator request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fireside chats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category is serving no real purpose, with only two articles in it after more than two years since its creation. Both articles have a full set of other categories, so no merging is required. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As creator, Delete, (Consider it ((db-author)) if it helps) as when I created it, the ongoing discussion on the fireside chat Arsenal of Democracy, had me thinking there would be other chat articles to follow. Since I had and have no plans in that direction, I concur with the nomination. Two in a category is inordinately short here, though is the low end of the keep threshold on the commons. Does no harm, but have to agree, it's doing no little currently. Different strokes for different folks, errr... needs. Cheers! // FrankB 23:07, 22 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.

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:United States presidential inaugural addresses to Category:United States presidential inaugurations

Nominator's rationale: It seems to me that these two categories overlap quite a bit.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Most of the "adresses" category don't even quote from the addresses. Changed to Keep per points below - clearly room for expansion. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Okay, I just finished a major expansion of the inaugural address section in Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933 presidential inauguration -- and I've gone through ALL of the articles in the category & cleaned out all of the stubs that don't address the addresses (as it were). Most of them were created yesterday by LinguistAtLarge, who for some reason stuck them all in the wrong category, rather than using Category:United States presidential inaugurations, where they now reside. Of the seven articles that remain, five have relatively substantial material about the addresses, one of them (William Henry Harrison 1841 presidential inauguration) is borderline, and I left Barack Obama's article because it has an audio link, although the speech is barely mentioned in the text. So there's enough to warrant a category, and very real prospects for expansion. Cgingold (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again with great hope for being able to keep, but Inauguration of Benjamin Harrison and McKinley 1 & 2 are still there - all 2-liners. There are 3 articles using "address" in the title, & these can be in the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, he is still adding, now to both cats - I removed those 3. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the words used in the title aren't what's important. The content of those articles that use the term "inaugural address" isn't radically different from the content of the articles that use "inauguration". The real issue is the presence of substantial content about the address itself, which is what justifies their inclusion in the category. Cgingold (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's another point that's being overlooked: this category is also a sub-cat of Category:United States presidential speeches, making it part of the category tree for speeches by heads of state. Cgingold (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Without getting into too long a debate, I think from the number of published resources available (not to mention all the newspapers that reported at the time), inaugurations as an event are all notable and will have articles eventually. Most of them the speeches could easily be covered in-article, but some (Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, etc) have significant scholarship on the speeches themselves, and thus could legitimately have articles separate from the inaugural event. Thus I don't think it would hurt to keep the speech cat for those exceptions. Joshdboz (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment At this moment, why are most of the articles in this category about inaugurations and not about 'inaugural addresses'? Is someone going to clear them out? Hmains (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh crap. Not again... LinguistAtLarge seems to be back at work, creating more inauguration stubs. For some reason, I assumed s/he had seen my remarks here and wouldn't keep putting them in this category. <sigh> Cgingold (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just left him/her a note - hopefully that will help. Cgingold (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I apologize for the confusion I caused by gratuitously and recklessly adding the inaugural address category to the inauguration stubs I created. I think I've got it fixed now. All articles in Category:United States presidential inaugural addresses now directly deal with an inaugural address. There are three inauguration articles that I left in since the address is discussed directly in the inauguration aritlce—Washington, Roosevelt, and Reagan. Category:United States presidential inaugurations now contains all the inauguration articles.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing nomination (if I can do that) — per above arguments and the fact that there is a distinct difference between an inauguration article and an inaugural address article. When I proposed this, I had the mistaken idea that both an inauguration and its address should be conflated into one.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  06:07, 23 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename per discussion here and the precedent from November 2008. I understand the desire to do fix all of them at once, but that isn't a good reason not to fix this one while we have it. Kbdank71 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eisenhower administration to Category:Eisenhower Administration

[Added] Rename Category:Eisenhower administration personnel to Category:Eisenhower Administration personnel.

Nominator's rationale: I do believe the "a" in administration should be capitalized: "Eisenhower Administration". Compare other presidents' administration categories. If changed, then Category:Eisenhower administration personnel should likewise be changed.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cf. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_16#U.S._presidential_administrations Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link Good Olfactory. I didn't realize there had been a previous discussion, and I had only seen a few other presidential administration categories, and they were all capitalized. After reading the other discussion, I don't have a strong opinion either way (whether "administration" should be upper or lower case), but I would prefer if it were consistent.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  07:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the desire for consistency. After the previous discussion, I'm a bit unsure what is appropriate. I suppose if it's a coin toss, I can go with either for the sake of consistency. I can support the nom. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both - May as well decide both together, so I just added Category:Eisenhower administration personnel. This makes it clear that it's referring to "personnel of the Eisenhower Administration" and not "administration personnel of Eisenhower" (whatever that might be). Cgingold (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both This is an issue that should not be dealt with one president at a time. Category:United States Presidential administrations has 19 categories for Presidential administrations, 12 of which use the lower case "a" while 7 use the capital "A". This inconsistency is rather consistent, leaving us with Category:George H. W. Bush administration and Category:George W. Bush Administration. We have heard here and before that there appears to be no consistent grammatical rule that requires capitalization or non-capitalization. Any decision here should be on a global basis for all presidents and not based on arbitrary educated guesses for this one category alone. I do agree that we should be consistent, and at this point the majority of these categories do not have the "a" capitalized. I thus oppose this nomination and encourage that the 7 upper-case administration categories be changed to lower case to match the most consistent rule being followed here. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the nominator here would like to add the remaining ones to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I agree with a desire for consistency, and I an neutral on the use of "a" or "A". What would be the best way to proceed from here? Withdraw this nomination?  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could add the other lower-case "a" categories to this nomination so they can be discussed together. Or you could withdraw and start a new nomination afresh with all of them included. That might be the simplest way for clarity purposes, and it would ensure a full-5 day discussion for all of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 23 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.

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 14:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTO member economies

Propose renaming Category:WTO member economies to Category:World Trade Organization member economies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Full name, per main cat and article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTO Directors-General

Propose renaming Category:WTO Directors-General to Category:World Trade Organization Directors-General

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Full name, per main cat and article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand abbreviation as nom, even though it is well known. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Main article uses full term, so it makes sense for categories to also. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 25 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.

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 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Capital Region to Category:National Capital Region (Canada)

Propose renaming Category:People from the National Capital Region to Category:People from the National Capital Region (Canada)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. National Capital Region is ambiguous. Rename to match main article National Capital Region (Canada). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support makes sense. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:03, 22 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.

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 all of the subcats in this are already properly categorized. Kbdank71 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian-West Indians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete page lists immigrants to Canada, people who not (necessarily) 'Canadians' (as in citizens of Canada, as not all citizens become naturalised). Moreover, there already is Category:Caribbean Canadians, which correctly lists citizens of Canada of full Caribbean descent, as 'Caribbean' is a more common a term in Canada than 'West Indian' Mayumashu (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Believe it or not but they are two distinct groups actually. "Canadian-West Indian" is more historic and slightly more popular... See Google: "Canadian-Caribbean" has 42,600 hits vs. "Canadian-West Indian" which has 68,200 hits. Canadian West Indian covers Caribbean region plus Bahamas + Guyana + Belize for example which are considered "West Indians" as well due to similar culture. However the term "West Indian" tends to exclude non-English speaking nations. E.g. Dominican Republic, Cuba etc. See StatsCanada. where 12% regarded themselves as just "West Indian" born.

Quote: "The largest group of Canadians of Caribbean origin is Jamaicans. Of all those who reported they had Caribbean origins in 2001, 42% said they were Jamaican, while 16% were Haitian, 12% said they were West Indian, 10% were Guyanese, 10% came from Trinidad and Tobago and 5% were from Barbados." I suggest making one a redirect to the other. CaribDigita (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Canadians of Caribbean descent (whcih already exists -- This is now the usual form for these dual ethnicity categories; an alternative might have been Category:Canadians of West Indian descent. Category:Canadians of Jamaican descent (which also exists) etc. would be approporate as subcategories. This issue was discussed in relation to many other such categories a few months ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no defining: West Indians is not even the race/ethnic cats that people around here love. what does it mean? That someone somewhere in the past (lived, was born, visited, affiliated.. in/with/to) the West Indies? Not useful or defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 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.

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 14:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Western Province to Category:Western Province (Papua New Guinea)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Western Province is ambiguous. Rename to match main article Western Province (Papua New Guinea). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom Mayumashu (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as name is highly ambiguous. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to prevent ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, no question that there should be potential confusion, and it's best to have the article and its category named in the same way. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 23 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.

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 14:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Papua New Guineans by religion to Category:Papua New Guinean people by religion

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency: all subcategories of Category:People by nationality and religion use "Fooian people by religion". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 22 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.

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 14:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bougainville Province to Category:Autonomous Region of Bougainville

Propose renaming Category:Bougainville to Category:Autonomous Region of Bougainville

Nominator's rationale: Merge both together into newly-named category. These are categorizing the same thing: an autonomous region in Papua New Guinea. Bougainville alone is ambiguous. Also, Bougainville is not a province of Papua New Guinea, it is an autonomous region, the only one in the country. (It is a provincial-level jurisdiction, however.) The main article is at Autonomous Region of Bougainville. Some subcategories have already adopted this wording, like Category:Presidents of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article Autonomous Region of Bougainville. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as noted above: it wouldn't do to have "Category:State of Puerto Rico" or "Category:Kaliningrad Okrug" for the commonwealth and oblast respectively. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 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.

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 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Capital District to Category:National Capital District (Papua New Guinea)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. National Capital District is ambiguous and the category name should be disambiguated to match the main article National Capital District (Papua New Guinea). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to address ambiguity and match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 22 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.

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 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kazakh Nordic combined skiers to Category:Kazakhstani Nordic combined skiers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Kazakh" is the ethnicity; "Kazakhstani" is the nationality. This is for skiers from Kazakhstan, thus "Kazakhstani" is more appropriate. (The one individual in the category may not even be Kazakh—if I had to guess I would say he is of Russian ethnicity.) See precedents for this change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:29, 24 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.

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. All participants are strongly cautioned to check your emotions and invective at the door. This is a discussion, not a bitchfest. If you find yourself commenting on the editor, you might want to take your edit elsewhere. I have here, and I will in the future, discount all ad hominem arguments. Kbdank71 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Holocaust survivors to Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The "Holocaust survivors" category was just created; the target category has been around for a long time now. I prefer the target category, since it is appropriately both more specific and more general. Appropriately more specific: because any Jew who lived in Europe during the Nazi-era could technically call themself a "Holocaust survivor", but I think what is worth categorizing is people who survived being in a Nazi concentration camp, not just being a Jew in 1930s/1940s Europe who managed to survive World War II. Appropriately more general: because the target category can obviously apply to non-Jews who were in the camps, whereas the "Holocaust" usually is in reference only to Jewish victims. Directly on point is this 2006 CfD, where it was decided against renaming the target category to Category:Survivors of the Holocaust. (Before merging, should check that the few members of Holocaust survivors were actually in camps; I'm not sure that all of them were.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Appropriate wording needs to be crafted to describe the inclusion criteria. Again, in the usual zeal to delete a category that is a strong defining characteristic, we have a repulsive and sickening excuse for deletion that trivializes the experiences of those who apparently want to call themselves "Holocaust survivors" on a technicality but are somehow cheating because they weren't in an official Nazi concentration camp while they lived in day-to-day fear of being hunted down like dogs by the Nazis. List of Holocaust survivors describes its inclusion criteria as "...residents of the parts of Europe occupied by the Axis powers during World War II who survived until the end of the Holocaust (and the war). The majority of these people survived incarceration in the Nazi concentration camps, but that is not strictly necessary for the purposes of this list" nor should it be necessary for retention of this category and inclusion therein. Any individual who was at substantial risk of arrest, internment and likely death in a concentration camp -- be they Jews, gays, gypsies, communists, partisans, etc. -- should be categorized and should be included here. Unfortunately, this is not the first example of a CfD where this nominator has used despicably offensive rationalizations to demand deletion of categories. While I think this more likely comes from plain ignorance than anti-Semitism, there is no excuse for this disgusting trivialization of a genuine life-and-death struggle for those Holocaust survivors, one which cannot be any more meaningful as a means of categorizing individuals. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note (nominator). The comment immediately above led to a temporary loss of editing privileges for Alansohn. While I invite debate—even vigorous debate—over the appropriateness of this proposal, framing a personal attack against a nominator or any other user in any discussion is inappropriate. The Holocaust can be a sensitive subject, of course, but please let's all remember to comment on the content proposals with civility and not direct comments against the users that advocate for or against them. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• COmment. See also Category:Holocaust victims. --75.34.31.194 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Holocaust victims, Category:Holocaust survivors and Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors are part of a rather well-defined structure, each of which highlights a different grouping of victims. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). The only one of the 3 mentioned above that is defined is Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. There is currently no linkage or cross reference between the Holocaust survivor and the Holocaust victim categories, and the survivors category only contains 5 categories, and List of Holocaust survivors is not included. All things considered, it doesn't appear to me to be a very "well-defined structure" at all—it seems scattershot at the present. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep in fact, I cannot understand the reasoning behind this proposed deletion at all. Both the category Holocaust survivor, and the category concentration camp survivor, are well-deliniated catefories of intense and ongoing interest not merely to historians, but to wirters and filmmakers, to psychologists, to political scientists and to the millions of people around the world who continue to make books and films about the Jews who survived the Holocaust among the best-selling ategories of literature, theater and scholarship. As fopr User:Good Olfactory's notion that "just being a Jew in 1930s/1940s Europe who managed to survive World War II." is somehow insignificant or unworthy of attention. (I am pausing in shock.) It is possible that Good Olefactory is merely ignorant. Ignorant of the fact that every Jews on the continent was hunted like a dog, and every survival required a miracle. If Good Olefactory is an educated person with some awareness of that the Holocaust, the Nazi regime, and conditions in Europe for Jews in the Second World War were like, then his soul is in need of our prayers.Historicist (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you missed my comment above. Please direct your comments toward the proposal and not towards individual editors. Suggesting that I am "merely ignorant" is uncivil, as is suggesting that I may be "in need of our prayers". (And if you absolutely must attack another user, at least spell the user's name correctly—it's the least you can do in such a situation. :) )Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Good Olfactory, while I have no idea what the logic was behind the nomination, I would hope that you have come to realize that being a Holocaust survivor, even without having been in a concentration camp, is an extremely strong defining characteristic, and I would be hard pressed to name many that are more defining in shaping the life of an individual. Not only do I feel that the wording of your nomination is grossly insensitive, but I am not the only person who feels that way. I will ask here that you withdraw your nomination, which appears to have no viable chance of success, but a far greater likelihood of becoming even more contentious than it has already become if it drags on further and other editors become aware of the nomination here. If you insist that the nomination remain, you should very seriously consider refactoring the nomination as soon as possible to remove the wording that has deeply offended me and others participating here, as I have suggested earlier. There is still no justification for what appears to me to be a trivialization of the genuine life-and-death struggle of those Holocaust survivors, one which cannot be any more meaningful and defining as a means of categorizing individuals. Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I generally don't seek or take advice on the appropriateness of comments from editors who are on probation for incivility, much less from ones who have been recently blocked for leveling multiple personal attack against me. But I have consulted a number of other editors and none have suggested that the nomination wording is out of line. "Controversy" over a nomination like this typically only exists where users want to create one. You seem to want to create one, but to me that's irrelevant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is truly disturbing that you cannot realize just how insensitive your grotesque trivialization of the experience of Holocaust survivors are. If you refuse to start dealing with the problem here, I am more than happy to pursue this issue through the RfC process, to address a rather disturbing and unfortunate ongoing pattern of utterly insensitive justifications for category deletions, this one only being the most unjustifiable, though your offensive trivializations of child molestation (see here) do also rank rather high. It is clear that I am not the only one repulsed by your distasteful tactics here. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, it's only an issue for those who choose to make it one. Most people don't really care, because they can probably recognise that a CfD nomination is not to be read as a commentary on the validation or invalidation of real-world experiences. The words in question are not being added as part of a WP article, so I think you're outrage is a bit misplaced and reveals maybe a misunderstanding of the nature of what we are exactly doing in this forum. In short: I've presented proposals for categories, which can legitimately be discussed and accepted or rejected, but I have not attacked other users. You can choose to continue to attack users and focus on issues surrounding personality and choice of words, but I am not interested in that aspect of the discussion you've introduced. I doubt anyone else will be either, but if there's interest I suggest you take it to the talk page, where it belongs. I suggest again (as above) that we focus here on discussing the substantive proposals at CfD and ignore petty issues of personality or choice of words. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. It's certainly "worthy" of categorization if an individual was the target of Nazi persecution but managed not to be interred in the camps. shirulashem (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with 75.34.31.194 and Alansohn above. This is part of a trio of categories that do serve a purpose. If your concern is that it only includes Jews, then find articles of Non-Jewish Holocaust survivors to add to the category. Perhaps similar categories could be created for survivors of other genocides as well, if they do not exist. vıdıoman 06:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that was a bit of a mis-reading of the reasons, since I explicitly stated that "Holocaust" typically refers to Jewish survivors/victims. Why then would I want to add non-Jewish victims to the category? Unless you are referring to the concentration camp survivors category—but it already does include non-Jewish survivors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the suggestion seems to be based on inaccurate information and unclear definitions of the history of the time since not all Holocaust survivors were in Nazi concentration or death camps. Many remained hidden all over Europe for the duration of the Holocaust and were even saved by righteous gentiles. Many took on aliases, or were taken into monastries and nunneries and remained in them after the Holocaust or escaped across international borders, as far as escaping to Siberia or Shanghai, managing to elude capture by the Nazi hordes. Some found refuge in thick woods and dense forests as they were surrounded by Nazis. There have been many books and documentaries about these documented historical cases of all these examples. It is hard to understand what would be gained by crushing people into categories they simply and factually do not belong in. IZAK (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification. To be clear, since this seems to be a recurring misunderstanding of what I did say—I didn't suggest that all Holocaust survivors were in Nazi camps. I did suggest that for those who were not, being a Holocaust survivor is not necessarily defining, in which case they should not be in either category (and thus not "merged" (or "crushed" in ..... not my choice of words, Alansohn :) )) with the rest. Everyone's free to disagree with that proposal, of course, but I thought it would be good if everyone understood what was proposed rather than what's being misattributed to the nominator's rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Good Ol: What you say is not the accepted consensus because the notion of what defines a "Holocaust survivor" is expanding over time and certainly not contracting as you allege here. Can you cite any historians or scholars of the Holocaust who say what you say? Otherwise it may seem that you are veering to violations of WP:NEO and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Thanks for looking into this. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi IZAK, and thanks for your tone, it's a breath of fresh air to me. I understand what you are saying. I guess the easiest way to express my point is that I personally don't think that every person who is qualifies as a Holocaust survivor in the historical sense (or in the eyes of historians) is necessarily defined by being one in a WP sense. In other words, some are primarily notable for other things, not for being a Holocaust survivor. I realise that can be a controversial position to take, but I hope it clarifies what I mean. Perhaps that should logically suggest that I'm not opposed to the existence of the category in the abstract (since someone could "qualify" for this category but not the camps one by (1) not being in a Nazi camp; and (2) by being defined by being a Holocaust survivor), but if the category is kept (which consensus is definitely trending towards) I did want to see some discussion on how we can define and apply this category most appropriately. Do you think it should apply to anyone who is historically seen as a Holocaust survivor in the broad or expanding sense you referred to, or should it be applied in some way that is more limited? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Good Ol: As Wikipedians, we cannot make up anything on our own. It would be a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NEO. In the wide world of Holocaust studies there is not, and has never been, a single definition of what constitutes "a Holocaust survivor" as far as I know. As you admit, you are also expressing a "personal" view, but that is very insufficient because we are dealing with serious history here with the Holocaust being the murder of about 6 million Jews and those who escaped it in Nazi dominated Europe are the survivors. So when one is trying to advocate new ideas, as you seem to be, there is always the danger of veering into even unintened Holocaust revisionism unfortunately. This is treacherous ground. The Nazis conducted the Holocaust in many ways, not just by sending people to concentration and death camps. Indeed before they discovred the "wonders" of Zyklon B poison gas they relied on the more "conventional" means of mass executions by firing squads known as Einsatzgruppen all over Europe. Hundreds of thousands perished that way and there were those who escaped and survived from that as well, in caves, woods, forests, even converting to Christianity to save their necks sometimes. They are genuine Holocaust survivors and there are so many books on these topics. No set of historians has set about to do what you wish to do here, so for now, it may be best to let matters stand and follow Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. I would say, that the term Holocaust only applies to those Jews who lived in countries occupied by the Nazis and their allies. Jews who served in the Allied armed forces are not "Holocaust survivors" but any civilian Jews who had lived in Europe when it was occupied by the Nazis and the Axis powers and who subsequently survived the occupation of Europe by Nazi Germany and its Axis friends, is definitely to some degree or other a Holocaust survivor because had the Nazis known about such living Jews they would have captured them and sent them to certain death, or kep them in caps where death woudl follow. So whether European Jews spent the Holocaust behind barbed wire or survived in hiding or starvation or death marches and lived to tell the tales, they are Holocaust survivors, what else can one call them? Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I suppose we just must have different ideas about how categories should be applied. My view is that I don't think that a category should be applied in each and every case a particular status applies to someone, even if the status clearly applies. I'm not arguing against people being called Holocaust survivors—on the contrary, I think the list is great. I think, however, that it's possible to acknowledge that someone is a Holocaust survivor but at the same time acknowledge that because it's not the principal reason they are notable, the WP category in question need not be applied to the person. I think your WP:DEMOLISH comment is apt, though; I will be interested to see how the category comes to be applied, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with everything that User:Izak has written. But I would like to add that [[User:Good Olfactory's extreme enthusiasm for trivializing the Holocaust and his practice of going to personal pages and attacking editors who perceive the Holocaust and its survivors with respect do indeed give the appearance of a mild form of Hlocaust denial. Pretty much everyone commenting here agrees that User:Good Olfactory's assertion that "just being a Jew in 1930s/1940s Europe who managed to survive World War II." is unworthy of a category, so good Olefactory has now shifted the debate to asserting that the categorry is poorly defined. It has a strong and clear definition, the definition is "being a Jew in Europe, during the War who managed to survive World War II." Mimimization of this even is so morally repugnant that it is not wrong to question the motivations of minimizers. I believe that User:Good Olfactory owes apologies to those whom he has insulted and blocked in the course of this debate.Historicist (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have attacked no one. I have repeatedly asked all users to refrain from such attacks, so I was reminding you to do so on your talk page. I again ask you to avoid discussions of me as a user as opposed to the merits of the category. It's irrelevant if everyone disagrees with my opinion or not—that is not a licence to attack me and say I'm engaging in what appears to be "a mild form of Hlocaust [sic] denial". If you are unable to restrain yourself and thereby comply with WP standards of civility, please don't participate in the discussion. IZAK's comments and the comments immediately below are examples of how you can participate and disagree without making the issue personal. P.S.: I personally have blocked no editor as a result of this discussion: it was the result of a neutral adjudication that the comments in question violated a pre-existing editing restriction on Alansohn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • While it is heartening to see that so many editors have repudiated this offensive Holocaust trivialization, the underlying problem is far deeper than this one nomination and should be addressed through the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process, which is designed to deal with problems of this nature. I think Good Olfactory could use some good old fashioned "neutral adjudication" in light of the ongoing pattern of problematic nominations which would hopefully lead to the type of "editing restrictions" he speaks of. Hopefully a rather strong lesson has been learned here by our nominator. P.S. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_15#Category:Pedophiles for User:Good Olfactory's rather disturbing insistence that "sexual molestation is often done for 'non-sexual' reasons, and even if it is done for a sexual reason, we don't know if the person's primary sexual interest is in children or if it's just an 'on the side' thing". Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my (unchanged) comments above, from the first comment stream you began. (This seems to be going over some of your same points again, so I'm unsure if you forgot or if you just feel the need to repeat.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm anything but forgetful. The post-Holocaust dictum is "Never Forget" and I certainly never will. Alansohn (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Terms do not overlap. Someone surviving Babi Yar would fit in this category but not the other. JFW | T@lk 10:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and better delineate the criteria for inclusion on the category page. They are very distinct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Victor Klemperer, the most famous German Holocaust survivor, never was sent to a camp whatsoever. Because he was living in a privilegierte Mischehe, he was confined to the Dresden Judenhaus. Thus, i think it would be justified to keep this category distinct from the others. --RCS (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - they are different, and the difference is a useful one - in fact Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors is a logical sub-cat of Category:Holocaust survivors, but I suppose I should not add it until this discussion is over. However, there is clearly a need for greater definition in this area. There is no agreement as to whether "the Holocaust" should only refer to Jewish persecutees, given that other groups/people(s) were also persecuted by the Nazis. Without wishing to take a position on that, for clarity I wonder whether these categories should either be renamed to make it clear that they are restricted to Jewish survivors/victims, or else redefined via scope-notes to make it equally clear that all victims of Nazi persecution can be included in them.HeartofaDog (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, close this discussion, and take the nominator out of his idiotic misery.--165.230.65.52 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 165.230.65.52 (talk • contribs) (a Rutgers University IP) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - It may seem like splitting hairs, but the Holocaust is a notable topic, and not every Holocaust survivor is a Nazi concentration camp survivor. An example in addition to Victor Klemperer: Ruth Westheimer. --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rudolf Schottlaender too survived, hidden in Berlin until the end. --RCS (talk) 15:18, 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.

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 14:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former pupils of Sullivan Upper School to Category:Alumni of Sullivan Upper School

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard terminology for categories of former students. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Per nom. DiverseMentality 05:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is the equivalent of a high school alumni category, which I believe to be overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. In only very rare instances if any (maybe Hollywood High School because of its strong connection to the studios, or the school that Fame was set at) is a person's high school part of what defines them. Listify if desired. IIRC we have precedent both for keeping and deleting these categories. If no consensus for deletion then rename per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. (I am not aware of any recent precedent for deleting UK school alumni categories.) Occuli (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not alumni categories in general, but alumni categories below the level of college/university. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 25 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.