< August 7 August 9 >

August 8

Category:Fooian magazines

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: close, categories not listed. This discussion was about listing the categories, not about the merits of the rename. As noted, people deserve the right to know exactly what they are discussing. And with due respect, Pichpich, if you had spent half the time you did arguing why you didn't want to list the categories, you could have just listed them. Kbdank71 15:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fooian magazines to Category:Magazines published in Foo
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not a huge fan of the Newspapers published in Foo categories but it probably makes sense to be consistent. The disadvantage is a somewhat clumsier name. The advantage (beyond consistency with the newspapers subcats) is absolute unambiguity, even for magazines that have readerships that are not specifically confined to one country. (Extra note: I will add a bot request so that all subcategories are properly tagged to point to this debate) Pichpich (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They've now been tagged by a bot, but I don't think it would make sense to list the 67 cats here. Pichpich (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're concerned about "comandeering" the page with such a huge listing, I've got good news for you: check out the template that was used in this CFD, which permits the list to stay hidden. I, for one, do think they all need to be listed here in order to be given official consideration. At least you've already got them tagged. Is there some way the bot can help with the list? Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would still add a few kb to the page for no apparent benefit: they are the subcategories of Category:Magazines by country, I don't think anyone will be confused. As for being "given official consideration", no offense but whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? Pichpich (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the size of the page. You need to list them here. Even it this is closed as rename, nothing will happen unless they are listed here. With no list you are not likely to receive support. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I need to list them here? The list is right here. Bureaucracy bad. Common sense good. If you want to deny support for a reasonable change on the grounds that you need the list, go ahead. Better yet: list them yourself, I have better things to do. Pichpich (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please believe me when I say that I sympathize with you on this. Let's be clear, though, that what we're talking about isn't "bureaucracy" -- it's about the CFD process, which is to say, "due process". But it certainly is awfully burdensome to re-list so many categories when they're already listed in full somewhere else. Perhaps we can devise a formal procedure to substitute for such listings in specified circumstances. But that would need to be discussed and agreed upon, presumably at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Cgingold (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pichpich, assuming the proposal for renaming is successful, you're essentially shifting the burden of creating the "OLD CATEGORY to NEW CATEGORY" listing to the administrator who will close this discussion. The admin usually copies this list from the listing when they have to list the old and new categories at WP:Categories for discussion/Working for the bots to make the changes. So if you don't do it, the closing admin would have to do it from scratch. I can't speak for all admins, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to close this discussion when the list has not been created by the nominator, especially when the reason is you just felt that you felt you had "better things to do". Admins have better things to do than to do the work that was rightfully the responsibility of a nominator. In other words, this is more than just a formal bureaucratic requirement. It's kind of needed — in practical terms — to carry out the rename. Somebody's got to do it, so the thinking is that the burden is best placed on the nominator. If you're not going to list them, I don't really see the need to even keep the discussion open, frankly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to find a way to make use of the "categorytree" function to display all of the sub-cats:

Magazines by country

The problem, of course, is that it doesn't display the proposed new names -- which is no small thing. Unless somebody knows of a clever way to accomplish that... (but I'm not holding my breath). Cgingold (talk) 12:51, 9 August 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:Songs about fashion

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about fashion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Totally subjective category, no clear inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:25, 8 August 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:Motion City Soundtrack

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 16:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Motion City Soundtrack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Only contents are already covered in the Motion City Soundtrack article and template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Members category would be useless, there's a user that is hellbent on deleting at least 3 of the articles, i think a couple have been proposed for deletion recently, so a category for only 2 members with articles is kind of not necessary. kiac (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created it - it's part of the established Category:Musicians by band; the band of a notable musician is certainly a defining characteristic, and so the members category is justified (even with just the 2 founder members). If some of the articles are merged the redirects can go in the category. I'm not familiar with this band but I don't see why these articles are being queried. Occuli (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes two of us. There's thousands of articles which are worse, these offer way better notability, i just don't understand their intentions. kiac (talk) 10:10, 10 August 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:Luftwaffe Wings

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. It would be best to discuss this elsewhere and come to CfD with a solution rather than trying to come up with something here. Geschwader is certainly translated as Wing, Gruppe as Group and Staffel as Squadron, but is it necessary to have any category below "Military units and formations of the [whichever air force it is]"? Anyway, perhaps the great and good of WP:AVIATION and WP:MILHIST could help? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Luftwaffe Wings to Category:Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) squadrons whatever results below.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. (1) Sentence casing; (2) The "(Wehrmacht)" disambiguates from the present-day Luftwaffe; (3) "Geschwader", the German word relating to this category, is more akin to "squadron" than the potentially ambiguous "wing". Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's make that Luftwaffe Geschwader (squadrons) of the Wehrmacht, though; there's more than one and improper (non-proper?) nouns not capitalized in English (unless starting a sentence). Whatever the outcome here, should I bring the other category names affected as uncontroversial changes? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unsure what you mean by improper nouns. However it just happens that the German orthography dictates that all German nouns are capitalized. So if the consensus is to use the German terms than we should also adhere to the German orthography. Due note that it is Wehrmacht not Werhmacht. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typo corrected -- thanks for spotting. I mean that "Squadrons" should be "squadrons", as it's English, not German. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use: World War Two Luftwaffe (German Air Force): Geschwaders (Air Wings) if you want an explanation in both German & english. Do not use Wehrmacht, it is a dfferent organization than the Luftwaffe. That would confuse the issue. Most people are looking for information on World War Two air units, versus current units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint77 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term Wehrmacht is often confused with the German land based army (Heer), which it is not! The Wehrmacht is comprised of the three branches Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy) and Luftwaffe (Air Force). MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Wehrmacht" is being used to distinguish between the Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr Luftwaffen ("Luftwaffes"?). Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the above is true in a technical or legal sense, it is without a doubt not accurate to say that the word 'Wehrmacht' was used (in WW2 or currently) when referring to the German air force or navy. The term 'Wehrmacht' is used then and now by vitually all historians as to mean the German Army of WW2. Post-war reclassifications or clarifications (not based on a untrue facts) are not practical and ignore the reality of the situation at the time. The term 'Luftwaffe' was and still is the commonly used term (by the Germans & english speaking historians) to refer to the the German air force since the 1930's. Let's use a current example: what terms are you more likely to see used? the "U. S. Department of Defense's Air Force" or the "U.S. Air Force". Obviously the second term is used. To use the first's terminology, would imply that the United States has another Air Force outside of the Department of Defense (which it does not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.174.17.194 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's back up. Currently we have two proposals

  1. Luftwaffe Geschwader (squadrons) of the Wehrmacht
  2. World War Two Luftwaffe (German Air Force)): Geschwaders (Air Wings)

I favor the first. I am not disputing that Luftwaffe is correct term for the German Air Force. I am only trying to argue that the 2nd choice was made on the misconception that the Wehrmacht only refers to the German land based Army, which it doesn't. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think I understand the point that MisterBee1966 is trying to make, however is this page the proper place to make the point that the Wehrmacht "is more than just the army"? I propose that that point be made only at the main pages of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe & Kriegsmarine, and other high level pages of the German military for WW2. Otherwise this 'Wehrmacht' would have to appear everywhere that Luftwaffe units or the Kriegsmarine is discussed, and would confuse more than it would illuminate. Let's not create a monster, remember the people that fought this war (on both sides)and those of us WW2 historians have rarely used the term 'wehrmacht' when talking about the German airforce or navy. I'm tired enough already of the current dogmatic battle over the term Bf109 vs. the term Me109 (its OK to use both terms), let's not do that with this subject.

Another 2 points: The post-war German Geschwaders should be on a different page from the WW2 Geschwaders.

Also a Geschwader is an air wing that contains several staffel (squadrons), sometimes up to 12 staffel. The discussion on this page is really about the air wings not squadrons. The WW2 German practice is different from British and American practices of specifically & individually numbering and tracking each squadron. US/British wings & groups could have a different set of squadrons from time to time based on circumstances. On the other hand, for the most part, German staffels stayed with their gruppes and their geschwaders. The main point is that this page lists and links to the Geschwader, not to gruppe or staffel sized units.

So I propose the page name of [Luftwaffe (German Air Force)): Geschwaders (Air Wings) of World War Two]] or World War Two Luftwaffe (German Air Force)): Geschwaders (Air Wings). --Saint77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.174.17.194 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced for the following reasons. First, if we choose to introduce a category "... of World War Two" then it seems unnatural to introduce a category "Luftwaffe Geschwader of the Bundeswehr". Semantically equal would be something like "... of post World War II" which sounds strange to me. Secondly, the German armed services were called Wehrmacht between 1935 and 1945, a period starting a bit before WW2. A number of Geschwader, J88 for instance that fought in the Spainish Civil War, would hardly fit into a category of "... of World War Two" but were part of the Wehrmacht (Condor Legion). Besides a number of Geschwader had a history preceding WW2.

I think the term squadron was introduced due to lack of a better suited English term.

I gladly take this is offline. Please visit my talk page. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 6 is inline with the changes you made to the Jagdgeschwader and Kampfgeschwader templates. Personally I would omit the English terms like wing and squadron from the category name. I would add an explanation of the German terms on the category page itself. So my latest recommendation would be Geschwader of the Wehrmacht Luftwaffe and Geschwader of the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget Geschwader of the Luftstreitkräfte MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr B. The editor that suggested the Wehrmacht is a different military organisation than the Luftwaffe is not well informed. And his point about continuing this error on wikipedia just because a significant amount of poor historians make this mistake is rather silly. I suggest he sits out the debate! Dapi89 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "vote" is to abstain, as I can see benefits/drawbacks either way. So far, there's one vote for (a), from MisterBee1966. Anyone else? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:16, 19 August 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:United States elections by state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:United States federal elections by state. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States elections by state to Category:Federal elections in the United States by state
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarify elections that happen in the United States versus those that are actual federal elections. By "federal" I mean elections for positions in the United States government, and not those to state or local governments. Basically, this would include elections to the United States Senate, to the United States House of Representatives and for President of the United States. Even though these are national government positions, the races are run within the states. —Markles 13:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there need to be 50 subcategories. There already are about 20. Most are called "Federal elections in FooState" but some are called "United States elections in FooState." I think they should all be "Federal elections in FooState."—Markles 14:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want those at the state level renamed to match this, you should include them in this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Awww… that's 20 cfrs! But you're right. I'll wait, however, until the this CFR is closed and then I'll move on them.—Markles 17:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support "United States federal elections by state" per Cgingold's suggestion.—Markles 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to change your proposal, you should strike through the original and insert the new wording, just so it's clear to everybody else who comes along. Cgingold (talk) 03:24, 9 August 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:Rwandan Genocide people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People of the Rwandan Genocide. Kbdank71 16:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rwandan Genocide people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • I suppose this is, in large part, a matter of personal taste. I mean, the formulation just bothers me. But consider also that none of the other genocide categories have an analagous sub-cat (eg. Category:Cambodian Genocide people or Category:Bosnian Genocide people). And needless to say, there is no Category:Genocide people -- now that would really be bizarre and creepy! I guess we'll just have to see how other folks feel about it. Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think consistency is of much importance in this case. Yes, there is currently some uniformity in "Rwandan Genocide foo" but that's largely due to the limited number of subcategories. Take for instance Category:The Holocaust which is similar in topic but much richer in subcategories. You have Category:Groups targeted in the Holocaust and not Category:Holocaust targeted groups, Category:Infrastructure of the Holocaust rather than the less euphonious and more ambiguous Category:Holocaust infrastructure, Category:Jewish resistance during the Holocaust not Category:Holocaust Jewish resistance. In the present case, note also the ambiguity of the English word "people": consider the subtle semantic difference between Category:Rwandan Genocide people and Category:Rwandan people. By the way, I think Category:Rwandan Genocide media is also a bad choice. When I first read the category title, I thought it would include Rwandan media that played a role in the genocide (and by all accounts, there were many). But it is a category for media (and in fact, it's books and movies) about the genocide. Maybe it's just me but I would assume a fair number of people would be misled as I was, whereas the slightly less compact Category:Rwandan Genocide in media or even better (I think) Category:Media about the Rwandan Genocide would leave no room for ambiguity. Pichpich (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Category:Media by conflict and Category:Media by war. Almost all of the subcategories follow the "Foo media" format. The Holocaust example is probably the most convoluted one you could have selected, since it has had the most editors and has the most variation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent idea -- and it was right there under my nose the whole time! Cgingold (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:People of the Rwandan Genocide as suggested just above and for the same reasons. It is short and clear enough. Hmains (talk) 20:02, 10 August 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:Iranian fundamentalists

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 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_14. Kbdank71 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Iranian fundamentalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a dubious category. There is no universal definition who can be labeled as a fundamentalist. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:14, 8 August 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.

Categories:AEK Athens F.C.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: AEK Athens has other sports besides football and this cat page lists just footballers. 'F.C.' is preferable to 'FC' when it refers to an actual initialism, for 'Football Club', which, for instance, the 'FC' of 'Toronto FC' is not (it, contrarily, should not be written 'F.C.' as it does not stand for 'Football Club' or anything else) Mayumashu (talk) 04:28, 8 August 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:Seattle Repertory Theatre

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Seattle Repertory Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Single article cat--seems likely to have been created in error. Subject article already includes these three cats, so no additional upmerging or whatever seems to be needed. Shawisland (talk) 03:02, 8 August 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.
More