Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 16



Category:The Holocaust-related lists

 * 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 (i.e. do not rename). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:The Holocaust-related lists to Category:Holocaust-related lists
 * Nominator's rationale: The category title looks weird with the definite article at the front of it. Hoops gza (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't change category names because they "look weird". Main article is The Holocaust; parent category is Category:The Holocaust. "Holocaust" is actually a very general term: the proposed name would change the category's topic from about the specific event to about any holocaust (Armenian Holocaust, for instance). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Look below; you're proposing a change because a category name is supposedly 'awkward'. --NE2 06:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm proposing a change because it does not fit the pattern set by the category tree. Awkwardness is a side thing - I do admit I could have phrased it better there. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - I agree with the two editors above. Besides the pointless and stupid reasoning this proposal is based on, the name shouldn't change as there's a huge difference between just the word "holocaust", which means "destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, esp. caused by fire or nuclear war", and "The Holocaust", which refers to a specific historical event and the only one of its kind, i.e. the Jewish Holocaust. - Shalom11111 (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about Category:Lists related to the Holocaust instead?Hoops gza (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't fit the pattern of the other parent Category:History-related lists - The Bushranger One ping only 02:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Populated Atlantic coastal places in Florida

 * 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. The proposed names appear to conform with the pre-existing standard. The standard could be changed, but this is not a proposal to change it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Populated Atlantic coastal places in Florida to Category:Populated coastal places in Florida on the Atlantic Ocean
 * Propose renaming Category:Populated Gulf coastal places in Florida to Category:Populated coastal places in Florida on the Gulf of Mexico
 * Nominator's rationale: Contested speedies. The current names are awkward and ambigiuous: these are not coastal places that are Atlantic or Gulf, nor are they populated by Atlantics or Gulfs. The objection to the proposed names at CFDS was on grounds of redundant phrasing, but that is alas unavoidable here. The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:Populated Atlantic coastal places in Florida to Category:Populated coastal places in Florida on the Atlantic Ocean – C2C: Formatting per parent cateory Category:Populated coastal places in Florida and pattern of subcategories of Category:Atlantic Ocean. The Bushranger One ping only 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. At the very least, "coastal places"..."on the Atlantic Ocean" is redundant. The wording also seems awkward. --NE2 20:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a need for this category to be separate from Category:Port cities and towns of the United States Atlantic coast? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes; most of the places in the category are not ports, but mainly-residential communities. --NE2 21:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redundant, but necessary, as all the alternatives (including the existing title) are more awkward. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Atlantic coast" is a common phrase. How else would you adjective it? --NE2 10:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the parent category Category:Populated coastal places in Florida, there's going to have to be redundancy with either "...on the Atlantic Ocean" or "...on the Atlantic coast". - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you leave well enough alone and keep the current name. --NE2 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Populated Gulf coastal places in Florida to Category:Populated coastal places in Florida on the Gulf of Mexico – C2C: Formatting per parent cateory Category:Populated coastal places in Florida and pattern of subcategories of Category:Gulf of Mexico. The Bushranger One ping only 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. At the very least, "coastal places"..."on the Gulf of Mexico" is redundant. The wording also seems awkward. --NE2 20:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redundant, but necessary, as all the alternatives (including the existing title) are more awkward. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a need for this category to be separate from Category:Port cities and towns of the United States Gulf Coast? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Oppose for same reasons as above: 'Atlantic coastal' is a common unambiguous phrase. --NE2 10:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Much clearer. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Populated places on the Atlantic coast of Florida and Category:Populated places on the Gulf coast of Florida might possibly be even better. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this suggested name, as it deviates from the established naming of the parents, especially Category:Populated coastal places in Florida: the entire point of this nomination is to conform to that. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That reasoning makes no sense. By picking the Atlantic coast, the subcategory is modifying 'coastal', not 'Florida'. --NE2 06:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * However it fits the existing pattern of category names, which is the point. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Chadian cuisine

 * 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. There is a certain weird beauty to the article name "Stews of Chad". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting chadian cuisine


 * Nominator's rationale: Apart from the eponymous article (which should be upmerged to here, here and here) the contents of this category are articles about things (e.g. Millet, Porridge, Stew and Termite) for which Chad is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (many of the articles don't mention Chad in their text). DexDor (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This category should not be apllied to massively used ingredients, just specifically nationaly-specialized dishes. If we had Stews of Chad as an article, it would belong in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:People who died in Nazi concentration camps

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps to Category:People killed in Nazi concentration camps
 * Nominator's rationale: This terminology seems more appropriate.Hoops gza (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The subcats are mostly "died" and there is Category:People executed in Nazi concentration camps‎. DexDor (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subcats would be changed to "killed".  I haven't finished nominating all of the subcats.  "Executed" is a separate concept that could remain as a subcat.Hoops gza (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment where we have objective evidence, is there really a distinction between those worked to death, those starved to death, those left to die of disease. I note that in usual mass disasters rarely is this distinguished. Like the 9/11 victims of the WTC, whether they fell, were burned, suffocated, or crushed, or even jumped to avoid the foregoing, were all "killed" in the WTC attack, and presumably at law. Ditto, killed in action includes those killed on the battlefield, whether they were taking a nap at the time or actually gun-in-hand shooting at the enemy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose "Died" is more generic. Was someone who died of an untreated infection "killed"? In some sense, yes, but not in the active sense "killed" is usually used for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * keep as is Died covers many more possibilities; killed does not and there is no reason to reshape the contents of this category to match a new name. Hmains (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hmains. The current title avoids any linguistic pedantry about whether someone who died of exposure to the cold or of untreated illness, was killed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom. Seriously -- where it is reported that people were killed, there is a need to water it down? I can't see a good reason for that. Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Many died of starvation; some probably of disease. The Nazis were certainly responsible for the deaths of most, but "killed" implies something more active than working them on an inadequate diet until they dropped dead.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This category is meant to cover those who died of malnutrition, overwork, disease and anything else, not just beatings, shootings, gassings and bleeding to death after brutal rapes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.