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.
Nominator's rationale: Recommend deletion/upmerging to Category:Modern history timelines. What exactly constitutes a "recent" event? I guess it would be cliché to call this recentism, but I'll do it anyway. BDD (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nominator should have checked the terminology more carefully. Modern history refers to the period since the end of the middle ages. Contemporary history would be a better fit, because it refers to the era within living memory, but even that seems to broad for this category. I can't think of a better name for this category's scope, and for me it would be a toss-up between the fuzzy "recent" and the overbroad "contemporary". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence we have any non-arbitrary inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 2 October 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale This is a category covering the intersection of religion and occupation. We discorage these, except where the intersection is itself of an encyclopedic nature. We do not have a category Muslim comedy. Additionally, this is the only religion+comedy section we have. We do have Category:Jewish comedians but that is justified because being Jewish is an ethnicity. Being Muslim is not an ethnicity. Muslims are of many ethnicities varying from various ethnic groups in Nigeria, to Arabs, to Bengalis, to Javanese, to African-American Muslims and many, many other groups. This type of intersection category is heavily discoraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a perfectly satisfactory category: Muslim comedians are in a position to make jokes about Muslim culature and other subjects in a way that non-Muslims are not. HOwever this may need splitting according to the country where the comedian mainly operates. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample evidence backed by reliable and verifiable sources that the connection of their religion and their comedy is a defining one. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 29 September 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.
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.
Don't merge—these are not the same. The "genres" category is for articles about science fiction writing. The "by genre" category is for articles about particular works of science fiction. e.g.Military science fiction is a genre, while StarCraft is a member of that genre. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clearly quite different. One is a category for genres, the other is a category for works by their genre, which is clearly not the same. -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 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.
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. Euryalus (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale In some ways this might be a test nomination, but the issues involved here are complex enough that I don't think it will work to apply either to other Detroit categories or to other cities, at least not in all cases. I don't think this should directly lead to a renaming of Musicians from Metro Detroit, although that might work as a parent category to Category:Musicians from Detroit, Michigan since Motown and a few other things create a form of music that is rooted in Detroit, specifically the city of Detroit, and not Dearborn, Michigan even, let alone Birmingham, Michigan or Sterling Heights, Michigan. On the other hand, the nature of the acting profession is that it is done on at least a national scale, while you have actresses like Amy Adams who started in small productions locally (her case was in Minnesota), if she had stayed doing that we would not have an article on her. Since most films actors are based out of Hollywood and performing on a national stage, people from Birmingham, Michigan or Livonia, Michigan are going to be called "from Detroit", even though Mike Duggan has shown the later are so not from Detroit that they can not get on the ballot for mayor even if they moved back into the city a year ago. An actual look at the contents of these categories shows a tendency towards putting anyone from the suburbs in the category, and I do not think there is a workable justification for putting someone born in the city because their mom was in a hospital there but raised entirely in Sterling Heights in this category, but not putting in someone born in Warren, Michigan to the same mother living in the same location as the other person and raised in the same house. That would just be too arbitrary a distinction. Also, while Mike Duggan shows that city boundaries really do matter in some forms of politics, acting is not as tied to one specific place, and so we do not need to split to specific cities in the acting categories. There may be other cities where the situation justifies acting specific categories for that city, but I think with Detroit we want to go with the Metro-area view. Sorry if this is long, but this is really a nomination conditioned on the specifics of category use and the specific realities of the interaction of the acting profession and Metro Detroit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have articles like Stegath Dorr where the article at one point gives the birth as Detroit, elsewhere "near Detroit". So it is not clear that we can consistently apply the strict rule of Detroit to the articles involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTim Allen is a good example of usage of this category that suggests Detroit=Metro Detroit when it is actually used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then there is James Jewell who is connected to Detroit primarily as an actor on a radio station there. The very nature of radio always goes more towards regional formulations. So it would seem that this would suggest we should use more regional formulations for acting categories as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another example of why this category does not work under its current name is Alexander Koch (actor). He was born and raised in Grosse Pointe Park, which despite some people occasionally writing "the Grosse Pointe section of Detroit" is actually a separate city from Detroit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here. I am not however very convinced this is really similar to the other issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 27 September 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:Turkish communities in the United Kingdom[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.
Nominator's rationale: All the articles currently in this category are about parts of London (mostly boroughs). There may currently be a Turkish community in these places, but these places aren't exclusively (or AFAIK even predominantly) Turkish communities (hence this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic) now and certainly wasn't in the past. This is an example of categorization being mis-used where a list might have been appropriate (but if a list is ever created it would be better generated from a RS with some dates than from the current contents of this category). If this type of categorization was extended many London boroughs could be in dozens/hundreds of such categories. Note: it's likely that many other categories under Category:Turkish communities outside Turkey should also be purged/deleted, but I thought I'd start by nominating this one where I can see from the names that these are just articles about places and to establish the principle. DexDor (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these places are not exclusively "Turkish" by ethnicity or nationality; given that there are no criteria for inclusion, why not just add every place in the UK where at least one Turkish person lives? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – none of the places could reasonably be described as a 'Turkish community'. Tottenham could equally be described as African-Caribbean, Ghanaian, Colombian, Congolese, Albanian, Kurdish, Turkish-Cypriot, Somali, Irish, Portuguese, or Zimbabwean to judge from its article. I doubt if any of the sibling subcats are any better: I see Hamburg for instance. Oculi (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly after listifying). This is a misuse of category space. (1) If correctly titled, it would be "Places in UK with a Turkish community", but that is in the nature of a performance category. (2) How many people does it take to make a community? That is a POV issue. If the articles were of the type "Turkish community in Footown", it would be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at these article I see little indication there are many Turkish people here now, but for these to work, Islington would have had to been founded by Turkish people and have been overwhelimingly so at some point. Hamtramck, Michigan at one point was 85% Polish, but I still would fight putting it in Category:Polish communities in the United States because today Polish people are in the minority, with Albanian, Bengalis, Yemenese and a growing African-American community being some of the main components of its population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Britain, Connecticut where in 2010 17% of the Population was Polish, was up until now for some reason in that category. How can a community where less than 1 in every 6 are Polish be called "Polish"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 2 October 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.
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.
Delete. Being named as a memorial is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the highways. It is categorisation by a property of their name, which is deprecated at WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unimportant intersection of shared name, having no connection to what the thing actually is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Blue Star Memorial Highways; delete the others. For most of these "memorial highways", there is no connection other than nomenclature. However, the designation of Blue Star Memorial Highways is a specific, long-existing program of American garden clubs. The garden clubs have added markers and undertaken some sort of beautification activity on the highways that are designated and marked -- and they continue to maintain the projects. The existence of those markers and beautification projects is a shared characteristic of these highways that could be considered to be a defining characteristic. As defining characteristics go, inclusion in the program is not especially significant, but it is roughly comparable in significance (or lack of significance) to being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. --Orlady (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that being a Blue Star Memorial Highway (BSMH) is the same sort of thing as being on the NRHP as (I presume) that the NRHP has some criteria and any building etc that is found to meet those criteria goes on the register. The BSMH category is a bit more like categorizing a road by which organization maintains it (e.g. in the UK local councils vs Highways Agency) (or a section of the road?) and I don't think that's a good characteristic to categorize by. However, as the BSMH category is a bit different to the others here I might be persuaded to withdraw it (and hence also the parent cat) from this CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep the parent category in order to keep the BSMH category. Just recategorize the BMSH category; put it in Category:Roads in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that the BSMH category is not a grouping of items by shared name, so I think it should be withdrawn from this nomination. It's clearly different to the others. I am not persuaded yet that this really is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those highways, but I do think that question should be addressed in a separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now split BSMH to a separate discussion. DexDor (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good work DexDor, though it would have been much better to have listed at the current day rather than on a week-old page. But there was no need to strike out the other 2 categories. Please could you reinstate them? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I considered doing the BSMH CFD on the current day's page, but thought it was neater to do it here (the category had been CFD tagged at the same time as the other categories). Re the parent cats: if the subcats are all deleted (i.e. both the CFDs are closed as delete) then the parent cats can be deleted/upmerged by a separate CFD (and it's a bit late to put them back into this CFD now). DexDor (talk) 21:08, 7 October 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.
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:Procedural close. This may well need to be deleted, however it was "split off" from the nom above on 4 October - which means it should have gone on that CfD log page, not tacked onto this one. No prejudice against an immediate proper renomination. The BushrangerOne ping only 13:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That the highways have been marked to pay tribute to some specific group of people is not defining to the highways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 4 October 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.
Relisted at 2013 OCT 26 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
