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: Architecture can be said as a subset of art. Both the categories have very small number of articles and it is unlikely that it will increase. Hence I propose a merger of the two categories. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seperating out architecture is a reasonable program.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We have losts of architecture categories, so why not this one? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Best practice is to keep the two seperate, although as much of the art is temple carving, there will be some overlap, or the architecture can have art as a parent, as many such categories do. I would hope we will see some increase - we need Jain art for a start. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 6 January 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:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you asking that this one be moved but that the male and female categories be kept in their current locations? It would be rather awkward to move one but not the rest. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, it's your responsibility to list all categories that are up for discussion, and you absolutely must tag them or request a bot to change them if there are too many. When a category is deleted at CFD without being tagged and without being mentioned by the nominator, someone who wanted to keep it will easily get the deletion overturned at DRV. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it was an earlier CFD discussion that resulted in the "track and field athletes" wording in the first place — given that "athlete" is quite commonly (albeit incorrectly) used for any sportsperson, regardless of sport, the longer form was decided upon to minimize any ambiguity that might arise regarding the category's intended scope (i.e. the technical definition of "athlete", as a person who participates specifically in "track and field" athletics, rather than the common one.) Oppose nomination and move other sibling categories back to the "track and field athletes" form. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you do that, we should just delete then entire athlete heirarchy and merge it to sportspeople, because it cannot be used that way in North American Englishes. "athlete" is not restricted to your subset of sports. Your argument means we cannot have any division for T&F&related sportspeople at all. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose' if people use the term "athlete" for sportspeople, which they do, saying they are wrong makes no sense. In wikipedia we follow common use, not some "correct" system. The American category should never have been deleted either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the administrator that brought about the deletion has acted with common sense. In fact, once en.wiki established the Convention that "athlete" is an athlete who practices the "athletics (sport)" (and I certainly did not set myself. Look at Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) by country). It is logical that all 226 categories go in the same direction and not 224 in one direction and Canadians and Americans in the other. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose "athletes" are any sportsperson in Canadian English, so makes very little sense, if this is only about track and field athletes. Indeed, the entire hierarchy should be renamed to "track and field athletes" since they mean something completely different in Canadian and American English. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That Olympics category is "athletes (track and field)" which is not your convention at all. Further WP:ENGVAR is violated through this rename, by ignoring Canadian English. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that I did not establish this convention. Look at this Category:Athletes by nationality («This category is for competitors within the sport of athletics, comprising track and field, road running, cross country running and racewalking.»). Please someone can help me? :-P --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is the convention you are using, therefore it is your convention. You still didn't address why you ignored WP:ENGVAR or the previous CFD outcomes that established the US and Canadian category names. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator created the target category "Canadian athletes" a few days ago -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored Category:American athletes to a category redirect, undeleted the existing category, and given Kasper a final warning for emptying categories out of process. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your rename would mean we should delete the category as being equivalent to the sportspeople categories. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge In Canadian and American English athletes is used as a synonym for sportspeople. However that will just be too confusing since there are people who insist that such usage is "incorrect". Therefore we should merge to the category that follows Candian usage. Since there is Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) by country I think that this rename should actually be instituted in more cases. I am actually thinking this whole set of categories is a big mess that will need some work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. In North America "athlete" means "sportsperson". This change introduces nothing but confusion. Resolute 15:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also in Italy "athlete" means "sportsperson" and maybe in worldwide, but en.wikipedia established this: «This is a category of track and field athletes who participated in the Summer Olympics.» You can control here: Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) by country. And more here: «This category is for competitors within the sport of athletics, comprising track and field, road running, cross country running and racewalking. For track and field athletes specifically, please use Category:Track and field athletes by nationality For sportspeople in general, please use Category:Sportspeople by nationality». This is a wikipedia convention sure not mine. :-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Track and field athletes by nationality(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) appears to be a relatively new category, since it wasn't the situation before. As the lack of edits to it shows. Considering the lack of a category tree under that name, it's not an accepted Wikipedia convention. Indeed, there is no discussion showing that there was any consensus in creating that category as a separate category tree from "athletes (track and field)" -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Athlete", meaning a competitor in athletics, is British English usage. It would have been a good idea to learn this before making category moves. SFB 12:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking into it, I can guarantee you that "Wikipedia" did not create such a convention, but rather, one or two people did. And that is fine, WP:BOLD and the like. But, as you are now finding out, that convention of a couple people is failing under the scrutiny of wider input. Even so, the claim that this is a wiki-wide convention is dubious given the long existence of Category:Canadian track and field athletes. Resolute 15:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while I understand Kasper's reasoning this is likely to do nothing but confuse the reader who doesn't know Wikipedia's internal policies. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nominated Category:Athletics in Canada for deletion, since it was created on 26 December 2012, and is clearly not Canadian English, and it displaced an existing category that did the same job. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tried specifically to create a category structure which reflects real world usage, hence Category:British athletes and Category:American track and field athletes. Kaspar, you are trying to create a homogeneous structure, but English is not homogeneous. The athlete/track and field distinctions have caused a lot of hot air and wasted time in the past. I would like to continue with the current organisation, where any native English-speaker will find the their national and Olympic categories intelligible. Like democracy, it is the worst system – except for all the other ones we've tried. Forcing a wiki-wide unified "athlete" or "track and field athlete" solution on the readership will inevitably result in an outcry from those who don't feel that it respects their perspective. SFB 12:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
except that, if anything, racewalker is a "walker" and not a "runner". Sorry, you note that you "track and field" events are events that take place in "track" and "field". If you do run the 100 meters in the street, they become a "road event" while remaining a "runner event." ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
North American English uses a misnomer here, simply put. For most North Americans 'track and field' = 'athletics' regardless of whether (the athletics) events literally occur on a track or field or neither. Mayumashu (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was the crux of the issue between the division of the two articles: if you combine the topics onto one article it has to describe the broader concept of athletics so there can be no article specifically on track and field (other sub-set articles, such as cross country running, never had to deal with this concept conflation and rightly had dedicated articles). SFB 10:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. This discussion has been had a number of times, and I think Kaspar might be better off to not try to fight the real-world usages. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not know the origin of those who insist "track and field athletes," but I think they are users in North America. The fact is that for the most part Wikipedia is read by users around the world and, in my opinion, it should be done violence to a majority by a minority. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really are showing a total lack of understanding of the ENGVAR rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 9 January 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.
Comment From looking at a few of the bios listed, not all listed are from the state, but are, apparently, of the ethnicity given - few seem to give sources, so it would seem a WP user or users have particular local knowledge of the ethnicity of the players listed. It would be more straightforward to categorize the players by state and not ethnicity but some bios will need to purged and maybe others added. Mayumashu (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that to and that is why I want to change the name of the page. See the discussion below about Muslim footballers. These types of categories should not be on wikipedia and when the category names are changed I want to clean the categories and player pages so to show they are from West Bengal or Mizoram. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like there is only one article using such a categorisation, others appear to be in Category:Indian footballers. For me you should create the other state categories first then there would be a stronger reason to change the Bengali and Mizo ones. Thanks, C679 21:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I started it all last week. The current one (Maharashtra) was just a test which shall soon be expanded upon (as you see with the 1 article being in it). I was going to expand on that one and do the other ones but after seeing these two categories I thought I wait until these two are changed before moving on. Anyway I will try and restart what I was doing. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The general trend is to not use denonyms for sub-national entities. This is especially wise in these cases because both names could be interpreted as ethnic and not locational identifications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 6 January 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: per WP:OC#EGRS: not a defining characteristic (which is not to belittle personal importance), it would not be reasonable to have an article on Muslim footballers. Kevin McE (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a defining characteristic. Some players also may tend to change religions sometimes. Most players also don't reveal their religion so the categories on religion would be more empty than it should. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as completely unconnected cross-categorization. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not cross-categorize by sport and religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not at all helpful. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that these players are Muslims is irrelevant to their careers as professional footballers. – PeeJay 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Also, there are some fro whom Islam as a nation, and this would support this misrepresentation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. – Michael (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; as pointed out one's religion has nothing to do with their behavior on the field. Can someone please nominate Category:Jewish footballers now?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That has been proposed in the past, and has been retained on the grounds that it is a category that is defined by ethnicity, not nationality. Quite what is distinctive about a Jewish, Igbo, Cornish or Asian American playing football is unclear, but it is a different discussion. However, this is Wikipedia: if you think it ought to be CfDed, CfD it. Kevin McE (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If a player changes religion as people in any other occupation may do, in which case you would just remove the category from the article. Players that have revealed being a Muslim would only be included and not those whose name, nationality, ethnicity etc would imply that they are.
The reason for connection in cross-categorisation is due the fact that fasting during the month of Ramadan is compulsory for every Muslim and when this falls during the playing season this does in fact affect their careers as professional footballers and behaviour on field as athletes therefore this relevant and may be even more so than their ethnicity as the category Category:Jewish footballers. You will also find that this has been covered in depth by the players on the following news articles on; being a Muslim,[2][3] Islamophobia,[4] abstinence from alcohol,[5] fasting,[6][7][8][9][10][11] usury/gambling[12]. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It should be noted that Tanbircdq is the instigator of, and only editor to populate, this category. He posted many players to it apparently on an assumption made due to nationality/name, where there has been no evidence provided of their religious belief, contrary to BLP (and sometimes contrary to direct evidence on players' articles), and there is no evidence on the articles of most players that they adhere strictly to Ramadan disciplines. According to the quote that he has posted on the article of Marouane Chamakh, it is not a major problem. If anyone wants to make a category on players whose careers have been compromised by their strict adherence to the disciplines of Ramadan, I would not oppose it. Kevin McE (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to see how being a descendant of the prophet Isaac would have a more significant bearing on a footballer’s career than something that would be a central part of their lives such as them being a Muslim. This may not apply to sportspeople of other religions just as it may not apply for a Muslim snooker player, golfer, archer etc. However for Muslims in athletic sports such as football, tennis, basketball, track and field etc there is a clear link here between them being sportspeople and their religion.
Bearing in mind the category has only been created a few days ago it is not unusual that I am the only editor to populate this category. In response to the charge of me posting many players to it apparently on an assumption made due to nationality/name, in actual fact many of the players I got from the Association football section of the article List of Muslim sportspersons. However I do accept that I should have checked the articles before posting the categories on them therefore I have now added information sourced with references on the players articles where the category has been added. Also if players on that list have been incorrectly placed there then that discussion can be made on that article.
I would avoid using individual players as examples of the difficulty in observing the principles of Ramadan as some players out of personal choice have chosen to compromise the correct rules of fasting in favour of being able to perform better, however even then it still affects their fitness, nutrition and diet etc.
Other than fasting there have been notable occasions when Muslim players beliefs have clashed with their footballing career such as when Demba Ba and Papiss Cisse refused to wear the Wonga sponsored Newcastle shirt and when Freddie Kanoute refused to wear the logo of gambling website 888.com on his Seville shirt.[13][14]. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
So because of Eric Liddell's extreme devotion, we should make a similar category for Christian athletes as well? Many of these athletes are Muslim in name only. At least one "converted" so he could marry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not "extreme devotion" alone but if there is a direct notable link between the practises of Christianity affecting the athlete's career then yes of course why not. A few of them may be Muslim in name only, however many of them are not such as Sulley Muntari, Frédéric Kanouté etc as you will find from the references on their articles. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very odd catergory, does there religion have any relevance to thier careers? I came across this because of the Leon Best article, looked it up and there are sources stating that best is Muslim, but not himself. Murry1975 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read up I have already given reasons as to why their religion is relevant to their careers as per WP:OC#EGRS in response to the nomination for deletion, if you or anyone disagrees with these reasons please respond. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read up and am familar with the guideline. And could you show how it is relevamt to the careers of most of these? You would have to detail everyone you wanted to enter, or have already entered to show how Islam affects their professional life. Please go ahead and do that then. Murry1975 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is enough that they be identified as for example: Senegalese Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Malian Muslims, French Mulsims e.t.c. If a Muslim player is born in 1985, should we then add a category called Muslims born in 1985?! If a Muslim player is a mid-fielder, should we then add a category called Muslim mid-fielders?! By this logic, where will this specifying end?!Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are guided by WP:OC#EGRS the specifying would end when the cross-categorisation has an insignificant bearing on their career, which would be the case in the examples you have given of the birth year or playing position of a Muslim or a footballer. Whereas an athlete being a Muslim can have a significant affect on their careers. I believe a similar reasoning would have been used to create the category Category:Gay sportspeople.
Also your argument appears to contradict many other well-established categories such as the fact that Jewish people are identified as American Jews, British Jews, Polish Jews etc, however there are also categories such as Category:Jewish writers, Category:Jewish musicians, Category:Jewish politicians etc as it is relevant to their careers that they are Jewish. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish example is a bad one. Jewishness is an ethno-religious identity, Muslimness is primarily only a religious identification. Otherwise people would not mock those who claim that Barack Obama is Muslim, because if Muslimness could be inherited his grand-father being a Muslim would make him Muslim. The relevant category would be do we have Category:Christian footballers. Islam as an aggresively expansionis religion hardly can be claimed to be a religion that is also an ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed the point in reply to Suid-Afrikaanse who appeared to be implying that categories could not overlap, such as a two cross-categories on the same article. So to repeat with using a better example; Muslims are indeed identified as Senegalese Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Malian Muslims, French Muslims, however there are also categories such as Category:Muslim writers, Muslim scholars, Category:Muslim historians etc as being Muslim has had a significant bearing on their careers. Category:Christian footballers category I assume does not exist as being a Christian does not have a significant bearing on their careers as footballers. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have missed a very important point about your Category:Muslim writers, Muslim scholars, Category:Muslim historians: the reason why Muslim is added to their occupation is because what they are writing about is about Islam; what the scholar is a scholar in is Islam; what the historian is studied-in and knowledgeable of is Muslim history. However, a footballer is not on the field studying, teaching, or preaching Islam. His religion has no actual bearing on the field - he is just playing a sport. However, off the field he may very well be a religious or nominal Muslim, and that is taken into account under already existing categories. There is no need for this extra category.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His religion would have a bearing on his career if he observed fasts during the season as it would affect his performance. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are stretching the case too far. On the field he is not doing anything to suggest he is a Muslim. Look at it this way: if you had a team that had players of various religions - including a Muslim who is fasting - but none of their names or details were known (for arguments sake), would you then be able to tell me which player is a Muslim and which isn't? If you answer no, that is because that players religion has no bearing on the field. But if that player was preaching or praying e.t.c on the field, then you would know regardless of a name or not, that the player is a Muslim. This is my point and this is why your category is irrelevant.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that same example if there was also a gay footballer on that same team what would he be doing that would suggest he was homosexual? Would you also be able to identify which player was gay or not? Therefore according to you would you agree that it is also the case that a footballer’s sexuality has no bearing on the field and is irrelevant? However there is a notable category Category:LGBT association football players. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely reject any such categories for footballers - whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, LGBT e.t.c. My opinion is if the prefix to the footballer cannot be discerned on the field by my previous example, then it shouldn't be added. I think the addition of such categories has less to do with common sense and more to do with party-spirit, and all such categories already in existence should be deleted.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your rational that Islam has an impact on an association football player's performance such as fasting over Ramadan etc. does have an impact on their careers. However both Zinedine Zidane and Samir Nasri have said that while they've been born into Muslim families they are non-practicing, and by your ver own rational they shouldn't be included in this category then. Also you state that Christianity has no impact on a footballers career or life. I disagree. In many Latin American countries players pray before games, and many countries have shamans that travel with the teams. Yet having a category such as Category:Christian footballers or Category:Animist footballers would be rejected because there would be a wide variety of people that would fall under the category. Likewise there are a large number of footballers that are Muslim, and naturally there is variation in their beliefs; some fast during Ramadan, some postpone their fast, some don't fast at all. This should be taken into consideration when viewing this category. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2013
I can agree that as Zinedine Zidane and Samir Nasri are non-practising therefore the category can be removed from their article. Maybe a suggestion can be made for Muslim athletes that fast then?
By the way I did not say Christianity has no impact on a footballers life, also when I was referring about the impact it has on their career I was talking about a direct, notable impact linking the practise with the sport like for example if there was a Christian athlete who would not perform on Sundays or if he fasting for 40 days during Lent. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I apologze for me stateing what I thought was your point of view, that was uneeded by me. I don't want this catagory to be deleted, but I think that since most Muslims faste during Ramadan that this catagory is too broad to contain ALL muslim footballers. I was thinking that it could be used for footballers like Demba Ba and Papiss Cisse who took their devotion one step farther refused to wear the Wonga sponsored Newcastle shirt and Freddie Kanoute who refused to wear the logo of gambling company on his Seville shirt. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that is OK, your apology is accepted. I agree that it may be too broad to include all Muslim footballers because if they are non-practising their religious identity is irrelevant to their careers as footballers. I would like to add that a player whose devotion, where there is a conflict or affect between his faith and career should be included and therefore propose that notable instances of devotion such as fasting, refusal to wear gambling sponsored shirts, victim of Islamophobic chants from supporters etc to be included within the category. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (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.
