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: I honestly don't know which target is better. What might be going on here is that (e.g.) "Islamic history" is historiography from the perspective of Muslims, whereas "Muslim history" is the history of Islam. If so, the problem lies with these ambiguous names and that could be partly solved by renaming one of them Category:History of Islam (see nomination of Category:History of Buddhism below.) At the very least, if both of these are kept with their current names, they will require detailed introductions to explain the distinction and vigilant monitoring to keep them from creeping into one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. I don't think there has been an attempt to divide the contents along the lines suggested above. The discussion pages record that in 2006 someone was moving articles concerning Muslims to the "Muslim history" cat, leaving the "Islamic" for articles concerning Islam, the religion. However, this does not seem justifiable to me, especially as both have the same lead article. Also, most comments on the two category discussion pages were in favour of merging them. As the lead article is Muslim history, there are many precedents that the category should follow that name. Also, the article is more about the history of Muslim people than the development of the religion (which in any case is not considered to be separate from its culture, law, government etc). I don't think that this merger is contentious. Don't worry about making a large category; a lot of the contents should be removed or down-categorised anyway. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. If someone wants to form a coherent and well worked out Category:History of Islam they can do that seperately. Is there even an article History of Islam? For now we should merge these categories and let a new seperate category emerge in a coherent and well thought out way if it is possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, currently History of Islam redirects to Muslim history. This is probably a point in support of the merger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (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:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the other subcats of Category:History of religion. The only problem that I can see with this is that "Buddhist history" might be taken to be Buddhist understandings of history and historiography undertaken from a Buddhist perspective. I actually think that the scheme "History of [Religion]" is much better for precisely this reason, but the vast majority of categories are "Fooian history". What does everybody else think? If this turns out keep or no consensus, then I will nominated the sibling cats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'History of' just has that edge over 'fooian history'. I think you picked a bad example with Buddhism where the ambiguity is not so obvious. A better example would be History of creationism where there is a very clear distinction between 'History of creationism' and 'Creationist history'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exactly what I'm talking about, yes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the above reasons; instead, consider nominating some others for renaming the other way round. Even within the well-established categories of Christian history, the main article is History of Christianity, and a lot of Fooian history sub-cats have "History of Fooism" main articles. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a general rule that needs to be applied in all fields of history really. English history is the writting of history in Egnland, while History of England is the History of England. We also need to clearly distinguish things like Buddhist historians from Historians of Buddhism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2011 (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:Speedy keep. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete? I'm not sure this works as a category. We have no article on Black television drama (as compared to Black sitcom). There are sources that use the phrase "black drama" or "black television drama" but there don't appear to be the sort of sources that would be needed to support an article or that establish "black drama" as a genre. The definition is so loose that any drama series with a black cast member could qualify. I noticed the category on the article for Trauma (TV series) which had one black lead character (it also had one gay lead character but it is not categorized as a gay TV series). I don't believe that having a black character in a lead role is a defining characteristic of a TV show (it certainly isn't for series from black-majority countries) so if the category is kept then there needs to be some work on the category description. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (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:Shopping malls in Wayne County, Michigan[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: Seems like it'd be more sensible to have one category for all the malls in the Detroit Metro area. Some of them, such as Lakeside Mall, are already in Category:Metro Detroit so why not go all the way? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created to focus on the buildings and visitor attractions in the specific county. I recommend creating the category Category:Shopping malls in Metro Detroit, making the Wayne County category link to that, and then link to other area shopping malls in other counties that are part of Metro Detroit. Jllm06 (talk)
That would be splitting it too far, IMO. There are what, 15-20 malls in Metro Detroit? And only three are in Macomb County. With fairly low numbers like that, it's better to have one big category than three very small ones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category Category:Shopping malls in Metro Detroit and have linked to each county's malls. It is listed under Economy of Metro Detroit (a new category) and visitor attractions. Jllm06 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think Wayne County should be merged per WP:OCAT since, again, Macomb County only has 3 malls. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is a case of overcat. Plus Eastland may be physically in Wayne County, but it is in a part of Wayne County that at times is treated as if it is in Macomb County. Northland Mall is in Oakland county, but many people think of it as a northern extension of Detroit and it is one of the three main hubs of the Detroit City Bus System, which is seperate from the suburban bus system. categorizing malls by county is an example of overcat. Virtually no counties have enough to justify this enterprise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2011 (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:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, parties" and "organizations" are two different things, a party definitely is an organization, but an organization is not necessary a party. Arilang talk 03:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That category is populated with political parties as far as I can see. Can you give an example of a Maoist organization that is not a party? Quigley (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a group is advocating Maoist philosophy it is a political party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2011 (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:Delete. All percussive drums are struck, so these categories project an overcategorization. --Opus88888 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hornbostel–Sachs describes several categories of drums which are not struck. Occuli (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. But then we would have to add 10 more categories to follow the Hornbostel–Sachs classification. And also other categories for non-percussion instruments. --Opus88888 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at the moment see why we need these two intermediate categories to get from Category:Goblet-shaped drums (the only category with any content in this branch) to Category:Membranophones. Neither of the two categories nominated for deletion (but not tagged, incidentally) have any other parents or content, so my inclination at the moment is to upmerge Category:Goblet-shaped drums to Category:Membranophones and delete the intermediate categories. BencherliteTalk 09:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and rememeber to tag the category pages... Fayenatic(talk) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (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:Delete. The fact that the nominator is a sockpuppet of a blocked user is irrelevant once other users have expressed their opinions. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:42, 27 June 2011 (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:Fictional characters who can jump at superhuman heights[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:Delete. Category is vaguely defined and unlikely to be useful. Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominator puts it very well. Adding in various fictional animals categories makes it incredibly useless. BencherliteTalk 17:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial characteristic (note that it's misnamed since it's supposed to be for characters who can jump to superhuman heights, not at them). Harley Hudson (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (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.
