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:WP:OCAT#SMALL, zero chance for expansion. Label was only in business for a year, and this was their only hit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:33, 31 August 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 These categories are classifying people by the nature of the film they are in, not by their ethnicity. We have already renamed the similar actor categories in this way, we should do so here as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- categorising by the language used in the films in which they act might be appropriate, but it may be more appropriate to categorise them as actresses from West Bengal, Actresses from Banglasdesh, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is the people have been categorized by the language of their film. A lot of actresses have appeared in Tamil, and Hindi and Telugu films. These all seem to be notable parts of the careers of the women involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is we already renamed the parents to such things as Category:Actors in Bengali cinema. If we want to come to some other final name, then we should rename those as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, although I'm not sure why the actress categories were not addressed at the same time. –Fredddie™ 16:58, 6 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 Superior Courts Act, 2013 merged the various "High Courts" of South Africa, each named "X High Court", into a single "High Court of South Africa" divided into divisions named "X Division". The articles have already been renamed (see High Court of South Africa) and the corresponding categories need to be renamed accordingly. - htonl (talk) 15:53, 31 August 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:Merge/rename/delete. Consensus was that the current name is not correct. While there may be some objection to Ottoman Syria, further upmerges to Ottoman Empire can be considered in the future if that is really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rname. This is the first of a series on noms for annual categories for Syria. This category houses Massacre of Aleppo (1850). We seem to have a tree for "Ottoman Syria", but the precedent on Turkey, might suggest merging direect to Category:1850s in the Ottoman Empire, itself not heavily populated.
Most of the articles seem to be about buildings mainly in Damascus, categorised according to their year of establishment. One 19th century Syrian category has previously been merged into an Ottoman Empire one. Almost all are single article categories with a hierachy above them with annual, annual establishment, decade, and decade establishment categories above them. I consider that it is not necessary to have any level below decades. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the double merge (upmerge) items are only tagged for a single merge: I did not think it worth altering the tag. This covers all the "Syria" categories for 1500-1900. Comment on how to deal with earlier centuries would be approeciated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:1850 in the Ottoman Empire etc. I do not think we need to separate out a specific Ottoman Syria category, especially since the common use of Ottoman Syria would generally be wider than any specific sub-unit of the Ottoman Empire, and encompass modern Israel, which has already by upmerged into the general Ottoman Empire categories. The Ottoman Empire categories are not large enough at present to be worth subdivision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of this comment I have added to the nom a series of "the Ottoman Empire" alternatives. I have not checked which are renames and which are merges, and hope I am not leaving a nightmare for the closing admin. That is my preference, but when I found there was already an "Ottoman Syria" tree, I considered that I should nominate that. The rest of the Ottoman Syria tree will need to be felled, but that requires a separate nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge to "Ottoman Syria". We have Category:Ottoman Syria/Ottoman Syria, and I see nothing wrong with grouping things that happened in Ottoman Syria into subcategories within the Ottoman Empire categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 17:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction from nom -- In the light of the last comment, I am withdrawing the "Ottoman Empire" option. Ottoman Syria was a large province, covering approximately the present Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel/Palestine. Syria was conquered by Selim I in 1516, which makes my propsoal for Category:1515 establishments in Syria problematic. I am therefore withdrawing that as well, with the intention of dealing with it with 15th century and earlier categories in due course. The fragmentation of the province in the late 19th century may likewise mean that they need to be reconsidered, but "Ottoman Syria" should be OK for 1850. I made a follow-up nom WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_3#Ottoman_Syria_categories which I am substantially amending in the light of my changed view. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:52, 6 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:no consensus to delete; there does seem to be a very rough consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your personal opinion is not shared by reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None the three articles mention the word "Islamophobic" or "Islamophobia", and none of the sources in any of them I could access use the terms either. So what reliable sources are you talking about? And it is a pov label not suited for here, Islamophobic#Criticism_of_concept_and_use.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at the contents. But your rename rationale is simply invalid, it's pushing your own personal POV instead of adhering to policy, and as such, I oppose it procedurally. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least rename. Looking at the article Forbidden Love (novel) the problem is not just that we lack any source that uses the POV-term "Islamophic", no where in the article does it say that the work is "anti-Islamic". This seems to be an assumption made by some editor, without anything in the article saying the work is anti-Islamic. I think we are best served by not trying to impart goals to forgeries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my comment above, that's not relevant. If the contents don't belong, they can be removed, but the category itself is fine how it is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is relevant that we are doing OR to categorize. Anyway, the current category name is extremely POV-pushing, and this has been the general consensus, despite your attempts to convince us that Wikipedia should start using attack names in categories. The current category name is an attack name and has to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How exactly is this different than its parent category Black propaganda? Are there that many articles on anti-Islamic propaganda that we need a subacategory. ? Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Anti-Islamic forgeries" is also POV and not the commonly used word. // Liftarn (talk)
So you admit that this is a POV-pushing title, which clearly means we should delete. Point of View pushing titles are not acceptable in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not POV pushing in the Wikipedia sense, but it is the mainstream view rather than the view of the far right extremists. // Liftarn (talk)
No, that is not how it works. You do not get to define one view as "mainstream" and then marginzalize the majority of the population who holds other views as "far-right extremists". "Far right extremist" is just a way to marginalize your political opponents and clearly shows that you are engaged in POV-pushing and trying to use Wikipedia category names to delegitimatize your political opponents. "Islamophobic" is the type of POV-pushing name that seeks to normalize one view and denormalize anyone opposed to it that Wikipedia should avoid as the plague it is. Nothing more screems "this is POV-pushing" than the claim that anyone who does not accept your tainted rhetoric of questioning the mental helath of those who hold a different view is an "extremist".John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is exactly how it works. Wikipedia should report the mainstream view as described by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)
Comment The like of those who want to force this term on Wikipedia is shown by the fact that Salmon Rushdie opposes it. Whatever else Rushdie is, he is not a "far-right" extremist. He may be an extremist of some sort, but he is clearly not far right. We should not adopt as regular a term that by its very nature seeks to de-legitimatize those involved in certain forms of criticism. This is a horrible name that should be ended. We have decided that before hand in broad discussion, but some of the commenters here seek to overturn the clear consensus that this is an unacceptable term that engages in a type of POV-pushing that has no place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to be consistent with the naming style of the other anti-Islam categories. Two of the entries are manipulative political propaganda. The name as it is isn't misleading for these two articles but the more general name seems appropriate for the fictional honor killing. Go with the more general name. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To claim any of these as "Islamaphobic" is OR putting description words onto these things that are not anywhere contained in the article. We should stop using such loaded political attack words, especially for things written in 1987.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to categorize forgeries by whether they are pro- or anti- some religion requires much OR, esp. as noted above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So that should be renamed to Anti-Judaism forgeries? // Liftarn (talk)
Yes, sorry about my spelling. Seyasirt (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly/probably rename - There is no question that there needs to be a category of this sort, much as there is a category for Antisemitic forgeries. However, even after pondering this for several days, I'm still not certain what term should be used. Another possiblity we may want to consider is Category:Anti-Muslim forgeries. I will continue to give this further thought. Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category is far too specialized to be populated under its current name, whilst renaming may give it a chance of being populated.--Loomspicker (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep or rename per nom. And the reason I suppose that the category is unpopulated is that there are not enough articles in WP yet to occupy it, not because the name is bad. Hmains (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that pro- or anti- some religion requires OR USchick (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful categorisation; no strong opinion on renaming, but given the concerns raised here about 'Islamophobic' as a description, and the fact that other categories don't use it, renaming to Category:Anti-Islamic forgeries might be a good idea. Robofish (talk) 18:48, 13 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.
Oppose This category includes things such as the student newspaper that are not published under the auspices of Columbia University press at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 4 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.
Nominator's rationale: Having one's name on a monument is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person. For info: there is a list at Newkirk Viaduct Monument. DexDor (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a sufficiently defining trait to categorize by. If we categorized some people by every monument they were associated with they would get in 20+ categories just for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 9 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:Football at the Pan Arab Games navigational boxes[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 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.
