Category talk:German-Czech people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2008 February 15. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Definition

I have provided a draft definition for the category. It is: "Category includes ethnic Germans that were born in the current territory of the Czech Republic or ethnic Germans who lived primarily in Czechoslovakia or the Czech Republic or ethnic Germans who were Czech nationals." If you disagree with this definition or would like it revised, please set out your reasons and your proposed definition/revisions and we'll see if a consensus can develop. I believe my definition conforms with the way the category has been applied in the past, so a consensus should be built to change this.

Similar categories are defined siimilarily. For example, Category:German-Mexicans is defined as "People of German descent or origin, who were born in, immigrated, [sic] or are citizens of Mexico." Snocrates 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the above case: Mexico has, more or less, always been Mexico - there would be no reason to use the phrasing “Germans born in the current area of the United Mexican States”. Also, Mexico never occupied German territory, or vice versa. Germans and Mexicans never were in a situation where the division between the two peoples was fluid and ambiguous - the two peoples have always been an ocean apart. This is not the case with present-day Germany and the present-day Czech Republic, or Czechia.

Category titles should be as self-evident, self-explanatory and unmistakable as possible. If the category "German-Czech people" is for Germans born in the current area of Czechia, it should be renamed "Germans born in the current area of Czechia". It is not self-evident, self-explanatory or unmistakable that "German-Czech people" refers to Germans born in the current area of Czechia. "German-Czech people" implies persons of legitimate dual citizenship, bi-nationality, or otherwise exhibiting characteristics of or professing ties to both Germany and Czechia or the languages and cultural traditions of the two nations. Including those that do not exhibit these qualities is a stretch, is misleading, and renders the category essentially meaningless as it would list persons together who are not alike (some with German and Czech heritage, others with German but no Czech heritage).

Because there are at least two people with strong views about this subject, I am removing the definition referred to above until others have a chance to weigh in on the subject.

And as much as the above editor insists that others state their reasons and proposals here, s/he should be willing to provide the evidence supporting why his/her definition conforms "with the way the category has been applied in the past". Just because something has been done a certain way for some time does not necessarily give it credibility or legitimacy.

-HLT 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start a WP:CFD if you do not like the name of the category due to it being "not unmistakable". Unfortunately, there are dozens of similarly-named categories, and in a CFD editors will probably bring this up. In any case, it's inappropriate to delete a definition that has been provided just because you disagree with it, especially when you provide no compelling alternative. When there is a consensus to change it, it can change. Or, even better — just start a CFD and outline your concerns. I haven't seen you provide a proposed definition, so it appears you are more looking for a deletion or something else? I disagree that "Just because something has been done a certain way for some time does not necessarily give it credibility or legitimacy"—it does in WP, and it's called consensus. Such patterns of application can be stripped of legitimacy only through a general change of practice or through discussion — which is also by consensus. Sorry, but that's just the way WP works; it's not perfect, but we have to work with the system we have. Snocrates 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Then allow a consensus to build, rather than insisting that your position must be maintained! If you are such a strong believer in consensus... HLT 01:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I examined the articles in the category to try to figure out how the category has been applied, which is an indicator of consensus based on past practice. Of course, opinions can be different about that but that was my interpretation and I provided the definition. A discussion-based consensus is unlikely to develop here on the talk page without a CFD or some other call for contributions. I've included your shorter proposed definition in the definition so no one's suggestion is deleted until consensus develops. Snocrates 01:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)