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.
It is a prone to addition of unsourced information. Ethnicity must be supported by reliable sources. Most of the articles in this category do not have any information or source on ethnicity and categories have been added based on common sense or surname.
Categorization of people based on their religion+ethnicity is unnecessary (I am expecting some OSE arguments here, to answer that, some of those categories may be nominated for discussion too). Tito☸Dutta 21:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prone to addition of unsourced information can't be a criterion for deletion. If so, then the entire Wikipedia is prone to addition of unsourced information. However, I do agree that ethnicity should be supported by reliable sources. In this case, if a person is of Bengali ancestry and following Hinduism, as evident from the article content (maybe the infobox can provide info at a glance), then adding this category should be OK. If there is any doubt just remove the category and that should be it. Deletion of the category itself doesn't make any sense. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- With the great majority of the inhabitants of West Bengal being Hindus, is this really a notable characteristic? With Bengalis of other religions, it might be. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bengali Hindus constitute less than a third of the total Bengali speaking population of the world, i.e. they are minority among the total Bengali speaking world. Bengali Hindus constitute less than a tenth of the population both in India and Bangladesh, making them linguistic and religious minorities in respective countries. Within India, Bengali Hindus are not only limited to West Bengal, they form a fifth and three fourth of the populations in Assam and Tripura respectively. In West Bengal, Bengali Hindus constitute around two third of the population. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Bengali people notes that 60% of Bengali people are Muslims and 40% are Hindus, with a small minority of Buddhists and Christians. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Bengali people does not provide any citation for the precise data that they have produced. Meanwhile I found that about.com says that 70% of Bengali people are Muslims and 30% are Hindus. Please note that the entire Hindu population of West Bengal is not Bengali speaking. There is a significant Hindi speaking and Nepali speaking Hindu population in West Bengal. Also if you look at the census data of West Bengal and Bangladesh you will find that the Muslim percentage is rising in both places. BengaliHindu (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I very strongly oppose subdividing religion by ethnicity, but there may be merit to subdividing certain ethnicities by religion iff the intersections are unique topics of academic interest. I would be curious to see whether that is the case. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of religion and ethnicity should only be categorized in rare cases. I do not think this meets the high threshold for that. We might have Category:Bangladeshi Hindus though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely because there's a massive number of people who would fit into this category. Religion-based categorisations aren't generally helpful unless they're geographic splits of larger groups, e.g. Category:American Presbyterians or Category:American Hindus, or unless they're specifically related to the religion, e.g. subdividing Jews into Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, etc. This isn't either one of them, and it's not one of those rare situations that deserve an exception. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 11 December 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: Understanding its logic, I am not opposed to this category name change, however I believe that the current name more accurately reflects the content of the majority of articles included in the category. It is a subcategory within Category:Fisheries organizations. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We are dealing with two slightly different issues. The object of a fishery conservation organisation is to ensure that a commercial fishery will remain sustainable. The objective of animal conservation is often to preserve the continuance of a species. The nom is seeking consistency. Unfortunately in the real world consistency is not feasible: life is complicated. Apart from a philsophical question as to whether fish are animals, if the nom were proceeded with, it would be necessary to purge the present category, and quite possible re-create the existing one to hold the purged items. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting idea; thanks for this suggestion. This seems like a reasonable approach. My guess is that a majority of the articles would fit best under "Fisheries...", while some may fit better under "Fish..." Ultimately, they both do relate to fish. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split per Black Falcon. I was hesitant, guessing that most of these would overlap (if you conserve the fish, you probably conserve the fisheries), but it seems like articles such as SeaWeb are about organisations that care only about the fish; the comments in Seafood Choices Alliance (a fisheries conservation organisation) about SeaWeb makes it sound as if SeaWeb's goal is to disincentivise fish-eating, rather than fighting overfishing in order to ensure the continued viability of fish-eating. In other words, they're very different kinds of entities and should be split. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Taking a quick look at several of the articles, practically speaking I think it may be challenging to clearly distinguish between the two. I'm not opposed to the creation of Category:Fish conservation organizations, but I don't know how many organizations would fit into it. The end result could be two smallish categories. Is there one of the two which logically would be a supercategory, and one which logically would be a subcategory? Still, may be difficult to distinguish. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation: I've made a first pass at implementing the suggestion, above. I was able to identify only six organizations that seemed to me to be strictly 'fish conservation organizations'. The remainder were focused on 'fisheries conservation' in my estimation. I set the category for the latter as a subcategory under Category:Fish conservation organizations. If this satisifies the original nomination, I would suggest that this CfD be closed. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:31, 13 December 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: 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my previous vote. In terms of history, "modern" may be the opposite of "ancient"; more usually, it refers to a period after medieval. Modern is sometimes divided with an "early modern" period of say 1500-1750 or 1600-1800; followed in UK by "industrial revolution", Victorian, etc. There are no hard and fast divisions, but modern for historians is much wider than "recent". Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 30 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.
