Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16[edit]

Category:People from Eminence, Kentucky[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 3 or less entries ...William 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to larger category, the places in question are unlikely to have enough people to justify these small cats. Valenciano (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Each city has a population of fewer than 1,000. The county category will suffice. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Valid categorizations; not hurting anything, and might grow. --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. If and when Wikipedia actually has enough articles about people from these places to warrant a category, then they can be recreated at that time — but as long as we only have one or two possible entries we should indeed stick to categorizing people by county rather than individual town until more articles actually show up. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (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:GLAM Ambassadors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category, Wikipedia GLAM, which distinguishes the Wikipedia program from say Glam rock, etc. Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (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:User poetry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains two pages by the same author. Nobody else is going to use it, so what's the point? Rcsprinter (gas) @ 18:19, 16 April 2013 (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:War crimes in former Yugoslavia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:War crimes in the Yugoslav Wars. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. This was created ages ago, when the idiom "in former Yugoslavia" was a fairly clear reference to the breakup of Yugoslavia, and in war context, the Yugoslav Wars. However, in the meantime the leftover .yu has become long-gone, so we have a hodgepodge - it's a location-based category and an event-based category, it includes all sorts of things. We should split the two and clear the mess. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I cleared up most of the egregiously orthogonal membership, and the picture is clear now - move Massacres and Concentration camps into the location category, and rename the rest to Yugoslav Wars. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:War crimes in the Yugoslav Wars, move any WW2 crimes out of that, that would establish a clearer categorisation structure. Valenciano (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"move them out", but you don't say where to... Category:World War II crimes in Yugoslavia already exists, along with various sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only remaining part implicitly about WW2 is Category:Yugoslav war crimes. Everything else is Yugoslav Wars stuff and two generic subcategories: Massacres, and Concentration camps (which in turn also have WW2 stuff, but that's not a problem as such). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given no objections, I went ahead and split those three out, and all that's left now is the move of the remaining entries to Yugoslav Wars. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Valenciano. The category has now been purged of articles before the wars of fragmentation. I do not see the need for anything else. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2013 (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:Muslim communities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined category. Most of what it contains are not Muslim communities but peoples or region where some people or maybe even most people happen to be Muslims. It lumps people together into a frame of "All Abkhaz are always Muslims" and so forth. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This includes Category:Arab groups which has as subcats Category:Arab Christians, who by definition are not Muslims, and others that are not by any means all Muslims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nearly anything that says all x are y are wrong. Many Arab Christians for example. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Removing Category:Arab groups is a little cleanup that was needed so I did it; the rest of the hundreds/thousands of articles and subcats on Muslim communities here have this common navigation home--the purpose of categories. There is no 100% claim here that everyone in a community is a Muslim, except by some of the deletionists here. Communities are peoples or regions. A necesasry part of the parent category Category:Communities by religion Hmains (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've only just begun - there are gazillions of ethnic groups listed few (if any) of which are 100% Muslim and hence don't belong in the cat anymore than United States would belong there (or under any religious category) because of homogeneity. When they're all removed, you're left with essentially an empty cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And calling people names isn't helpful. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Either this or the "by continent" subcat needs to be removed. I do not think we need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needed to categorise the related articles.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another group that does not belong here is Albanians. Just under 60% identified as Muslims in the 2011 census of Albania. However I would say anecdotally that the Albanians of Montenegro tend to be Catholics. Then there was the Albanian government that outlawed all religion in 1967, with the lone exception of some rural paganism which they saw as the authenitic Albanian culture. At no point has Albanian been the same as Muslim, and the highest estimates of the percentage of Albanians that are Muslims have only been 70%.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want see the source which proofs the Albanians of Montenegro tend to be Catholics. because the article Albanians in Montenegro says completely different thing - 73.37% of Albanians living in Montenegro were Muslim and 26.08% were Roman Catholic and refers to 2003 Montenegrin Census. And Albanians in south Serbia, Demographics of Kosovo, Albanians of Croatia and Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia say the majority of Albanians are Muslim. Ali (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nearly all of the communities in this category are culturally and traditionally Muslims or more than half of this community is so (in case of Albaninans, Sindh people, etc.), except for some mistakes. The category can help to get information to the reader who is interested in learning about the Muslim communities, their culture and traditions worldwide. Ali Ali 09:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In general the contents of this category are very different than Category:Christian communities. That category is about communities, like Ave Maria, Florida that are intentionally and outwardly Christian in their organization and foundation. This category is about ethnic groups, although up until recently some articles were in both categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Angami Naga are over 98% Christian, which is far higher than many of these "Muslim communities" and yet they are not in the Christian community category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another odd clasification was that done to the Bhil people. The article acknoledged that they were predominantly Hindu, and that there were also Muslim and Christian groups among them. They were in the Hindu and Muslim categories but not the Christian one. There is no logical reason behind similarly named categories being used differently.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then one can just add the predominantly Christian communities into Christian communities category. Ali 15:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In going through this category I came across one article that was on a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There can be possible mistakes, I also found some articles about some villages in Caucasus region and deleted it.Ali (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another egregious misuse of this category was for Category:Iraqi Americans. It is altogether possible Christians outnumber Muslims in this group. They clearly do in the San Diego are, and quite probably in the Detroit Area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing with Punjabi people; if Christians outnumber Muslims in this group make appropriate edit in the article, which at the moment says Predominately Islam with a significant Christian and Jewish minority and The Iraqi Muslims who migrated from Iraq are mostly Shia. And then we can discuss it. Ali (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite that easy. Predominately is subjective. You are attempting to use it to mean majority. That violates the categorization guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And now someone has complained that I am removing this category where it clearly does not work. They claim that "just because not all area Muslims is no reason to remove the category". Well in the case of Punjabi people millions are Christians, and a significant portion are Hindus, and others are Sikhs. Punjabi does not in any way equal Muslim. This category should clearly not be applied to Punjabis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not even clear that a majority of Punjabis are Muslims. The most recent data suggests 53%, which is hardly enough to call them a "Muslim community".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The most recent data" was prior to partition of British India. Now the article shows Pakistani Punjabi population is 91,379,615, which refers to Pakistan 2008 census, and Indian 29,102,477 (also refers to India census). Also here you can find the percentages of Muslim and Hindu percentage for the whole (!) Pakistan. With the help of a slight mathematical operation you can find out what is the majority religion for Punjabis. If any other sources exist, showing millions of Christians among them, make the appropriate edit in the article and then let's discuss again. Ali (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is the aim? To decrease the articles in this category? What is not done in another article can not be an argument. It is fully up to you to add or not those articles to appropriate categories. Ali (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has subcats like Category:Monesteries. If you look at the category, outside its India and Pakistan subcats it is almost completely made up of things that are intentionally and proactively Christian, not ethnic groups that are primarily Christian. Also, most often "community" means a specific populated place, thus Fernadale, Michigan is a community. I think at a minimum we might want to rename this category to Category:Muslim ethnic groups. I also think this has a tendency to feed the "you are no longer an x if you convert to a new religion" anti-conversion rhetoric used by some groups. Since a group like Iraqi-Americans, who to a very large extent consist of non-Muslims has been put in this category, this has very distrubing implications. It is bad enough when it is actual on the ground rhetoric, but in placing Albaninas in the category it seems an act of creating new rhetoric that has no place in Albania itself. While at times the Albanian government has treated Islam as antithetical to Albanianess, there is no evidence the government ever proactively promoted Islam as the source of Albanianess. It is telling that Category:Serbs is not in Category:Christian communities. That would never pass, but the Albanian designation should have never occured either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even Chaldean Christians are not categorized as a Christian community. They are in Category:Ethnoreligious groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are an ethnoreligious group. But you can categorize them as a Christian community, as well. I don't think that anyone will mind. At least, I am not against. Ali (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, because there are no clear inclusion criteria for this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe criteria for this category is the high percentage of the adherents of a religion, which is not a subjective inclusion criterion, but information proved by statistical data (e.g. Census data). Ali (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in the case of Iraqi Americans since the United States census does not track religion. There are many other places that do not track religion in their census. Also "high percentage" is not a clear rule, it is an extremely vague term. Beyond that many articles do not give percentages, even if they might exist somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then one should go the article talk page and discuss it there with their documents and references, unless " Predominately Islam with a significant Christian and Jewish minority" is removed. But now what we have is the claim in the article, which is not opposed by anyone. Ali (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When over a quarter of a population is Catholic, it makes no sense to call it a "Muslim community". Also, you do not have data on Albanians in the United States, and a great many of those are Catholics or otherwise not Muslims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we started to consider the diasporas: just calculate: ~57% in Albania, more than 90% in Kosovo and roughly 100% in Turkey plus the minorities in Montenegro, Macedonia, etc. If you will roughly take more than the half of the American-Albanians Christians it will not help you claim. The only overwhelmingly non-Muslim Albanian communities Arvanites and Arbëreshë people, but they have responding articles and they are not just listed as Albanians, but are sub-ethnic groups, with their own religion and distinct culture. Ali (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • E.g. If you search Azerbaijani community (my people) in the world (not in Wikipedia), you will see that there are nearly ~1 million atheists and plus some newly converted Christians whose number is not so much. But in the whole people are still Muslim community, because they greet each other with the words that usually the Muslims do, get their sons circumcised (even Christians), call Islamic religious clerks for funerals, etc. It is what we call being a Cultural Muslim and Muslim community, as Islam has great effect and lays in the base of the culture of a nation. Ali (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: This category was added into Turkish people article, even though not everyone is Muslim. This category implies everyone in a certain ethnicity is Muslim. That is original research. Cavann (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The description says: This category is for articles about communities predominately of Muslims, which are also defined by ethnic, linguistic or regional identities. Note: not everyone in a community must be a Muslim for the community to be included here., not exclusively. I suggest to rename the category and its subcats to Predominantly Muslim communities, Predominantly Muslim communities in Asia, etc. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turkey is not a "Muslim community," since it's officially secular. Add countries by membership to Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, that wouldn't be original research. Cavann (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No one talks about TURKEY, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, etc. Case is with the PEOPLE! Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Muslim community" sounds like a community with Islamic rule. The name of category is vague and may imply more than simple demographic information. Cavann (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually the main problem here was with the statistical data to define the proportion of Muslims; you were the first person who finds that "Muslim community" sounds like a community with Islamic rule. Thus it is just your subjective opinion. Regards, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a maintenance nightmare as demonstrated by some of the current content and the subjective inclusion criteria of predominately and community. How can we classify a peoples as a community? Or how can we classify a community as an ethnic group in multiple widely separated places? Bottom line there are too many issues to overcome any positive reasons to keep. Now if someone later wants to discuss how to create a category that might be able to address the problems, go at it. But this probably should be discussed before creation. I'm working in the good faith belief that the nominator will nominate lower level categories as appropriate follow up. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was hoping that by removing articles that were clearly very debateable in here (such as Albanian), where less than 60% are Muslims, where the government of Albania actively warred against Islam during the 20th century, and the clear in-text statments about Albanians not clearly dividing on religious groups, all of which suggest that in no way are Albanians a Muslims community, we could avoid the contentious nature of this category. However another editor has insisted that Albanians are in fact a Muslim community, even with these strong indications to the countrary. The same editor has also done the same for Iraqi Americans thus ignoring a-the large numbers of Assyrians, Chaldeans and Jews from Iraq, 2-the fact that since the US does not track religion in the census we have no reliable data on the religion of Iraqi Americans. It is very odd that a community with such recognizable non-Muslim sub-groups would be categorized as if it was all Muslim. The way this category is being applied tends to treat non-Muslim sectors of communities like Iraqi Americans as if they are not real Iraqi Americans because they are not Muslims. What next, will we create Category:White communities and put Americans in it because the majority of Americans are white? This is a very bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category is misnamed and misused. I see lots of "peoples" in it, and a community can only be a place, not a people. And it can only be a small enough place to be homogenous too, so not London, or Mecca even, but the three houses on the corner, and since we are not likely to have any such articles, why create a category? Apteva (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2013 (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:Number-one singles in Indonesia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Following this AfD and the inclusion of 'Creative Disc' to the list of deprecated charts, this category should be deleted as it was created and populated by the same author and the information came from the same source. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:21, 16 April 2013 (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:Instruments used in Hindu worship[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being used in Hindu worship doesn't appear to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these musical instruments except possibly for Nakara (drum) which could be upmerged to Category:Objects used in Hindu worship. DexDor (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2013 (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:South Australian of the Year Award winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. There is no WP article about this award. DexDor (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We generally discorage award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- The fact that there is now no articles, probably measn that we need one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - People are rarely defined by winning an award, which even at its broadest simply recognizes whatever made them notable to begin with. Lists in award pages are the better way to approach this. (And the entire award-winners category tree needs serious cleaning out.) --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2013 (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:Aviation Hall of Fame of New Jersey inductees[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. There is a much more comprehensive list in the main article. DexDor (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_16&oldid=1138397505"