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:do not rename. – FayenaticLondon 10:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. as per WP:UCRN, "Islamic extremism" OR "Islamic extremist" gets "About 29,500 results" in news while "Islamic fundamentalism" OR "Islamic fundamentalist" gets "About 10,500 results" in news. Also as per, WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about". Fundamentalism is associated with fundamentals and yet notable Islamic organisations consider extremist groups to be unfaithful to Islam - which, as a basis, includes being unfaithful to the fundamentals of Islam. GregKaye✍♪ 22:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note The category's name should follow the main article's name, which is currently Islamic fundamentalism. I would suggest to the OP to have a discussion about moving that first and if it is moved, then the category can be suggested with a speedy move criterion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Justin (koavf) I was wondering about that. I think that the development of the article on Islamic fundamentalism may have happened due to a perceived parallel with topics like Christian fundamentalism. There is an article on Islamic extremism. Could the category alternatively connect there? GregKaye✍♪ 06:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional the Arabic Wiki article on fundamentalism ar:أصولية is presents an Arabic commentary on the Western concept of fundamentalism.
I also did a search on the Arabic of Google translations for "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic fundamentalism".
Comment our article Islamic extremism presents two divergent meanings of the concept: Islamic fundamentalism and jihadism, which makes it a less attractive category title for articles solely dealing with one of these topics. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2014 (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:Rename. Found doing cleanup as an apparent incomplete nomination. Note:The proposed target of the merge is currently a member of this category. Note:It is not clear that the contents of either are restricted to a list of occupations or professions but include people and things like Category:Dance occupations. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2014 (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:Rename. Found as an apparent incomplete nomination doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These topics are not identical as a crew typically excludes performers, hence the current structure. Logically, the current arrangement shows that delineation well. SFB 20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I did not take a position. I just renominated an apparent incomplete nomination for discusion. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree with you across-the-board then! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reverse merge -- The performers will mostly be actors and do not need to be in this category at all, as they have their own tree; and not all actors do film work. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (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. Do we really need a category of redirects for actors? Underpopulated so not very well used and not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirects to actors can be for many reasons (typos, misspellings, accents/diacritics in names, foreign names, etc.) which have little in common. And then someone will want to divide these by gender as all other actor categories now seem to be... alas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2014 (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. – FayenaticLondon 10:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another film about category: how much about sports must a film be for inclusion and what reliable source tells us it's at least that much. Is "featuring" meaning any reference in the film to the sport (football playing on tv in the background during one scene of a slasher film is enough?), then not defining as well - are we moving to a "one frame rule" to mirror WP's ethnic categories' "one drop rule"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that we are at that stage, Carlossuarez46. Currently, the category contains Pacquiao: The Movie, a biopic about the boxer, and Thelma (film), a movie about a runner. These both seem to be pretty centrally "sports films", and it's a not a case of mere background noise or incidental appearances of sports. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:41, 15 December 2014 (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. Unnecessary eponymous category per numerous precedent and WP:OC#Eponymous when all articles are linkable from the main article and which are already in topic categories (songs and albums) that are also interlinked. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no content to navigate - songs and albums are better in the song and album trees and are already connected by a see also link per usual arrangements. SFB 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We shouldn't encourage eponymous categories. If they had subcats for albums, songs, and members and additionally a main article, discography, etc. then this would be a different story. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 11 December 2014 (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 close; can keep as a redirect. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Mistaken creation by me. The correct demonym is "Yugoslav", and that category already exists. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect As a perfectly valid variation, I think all "Yugoslavian" categories should be kept as redirects to the "Yugoslav" ones. SFB 18:58, 10 December 2014 (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. (I'm surprised no one pointed out the variable meanings of cheating.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not seeing how this is a defining characteristic of a song that needs a dedicated category. There are also plenty of songs in here which absolutely are either not about cheating whatsoever/are extremely vague about the subject and need a specific interpretation for you to say they're categorically about cheating (Love the Way You Lie, which doesn't explicitly feature cheating anywhere in it, and requires a specific interpretation to actually think that it refers to cheating; Misery Business is similar), only feature cheating in the music video (The Story of Us (song)), or only refer to someone thinking about cheating, like Lips of an Angel. There are also songs that only refer once to cheating in there, so it isn't a defining characteristic of the song (going back to The Story of Us music video again) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 07:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another song about category: how much about cheating must a song be for inclusion and what reliable source tells us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a common and distinct theme of many songs. Those for which it is debatable whether they involve cheating or not should not be in the cat. Songs which involve cheating and other subjects should be included; many songs involve more than one subject. Jim Michael (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule of thumb, we don't have categories for "Songs about foo". So whether it is a common and distinct theme is irrelevant - it's not a valid category. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 22:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have many Songs about ... categories. Jim Michael (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there do appear to be more than I expected. Some of those other ones should definitely go anyway, and those that are valid don't require some kind of arbitrary inclusion criteria like this would. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 22:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is which songs to include, then the cat should be renamed or given a better description, not deleted. Jim Michael (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which is possible without changing to a completely different subject anyway. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 17:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whenever I have come across a member of this group I have removed it because there is no reference in the text that the song might be "about cheating" Furthermore, are "songs about cheating" defining as required to be a category? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2014 (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:Rename. In the territory of the former Diocese of Csanád, two Roman Catholic bishoprics were established in the 20th century: the Diocese of Szeged-Csanád and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Timişoara. The present title only refers to one of the successor dioceses. The best solution if there is a separate category for the bishops of all three dioceses. There were dozens of bishops of Csanád between 1030 and 1920. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This was just renamed in the opposite direction as a result of this discussion. It looks like the nominator has changed some categorizations of the contents, because there were six articles in it when renamed. (I'm not criticizing any of this—just trying to provide some context.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. Yes, there were four bishops of Timişoara listed in this category. As I mentioned above, I think that the bishops of the three separate dioceses should not be listed under the same category. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, the contents of the category should reflect its current name and not the name that you are proposing to give it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, the category reflexts a never existing entity and the category is not based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this is difficult to follow. What 3 names are suggested for the 3 separate categories which the nom has in mind? Oculi (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. Sorry, I do not know - but there were at least three bishops of this diocese. However, the two bishops who are listed in the category under discussion would fit into Category:Bishops of Csanád. They were not bishops neither of Szeged nor of Timişoara. I think we should only decide whether bishops who were not bishops of Timişoara can be categorized as bishops of Timişoara, taking into account that no reliable source has been cited that proves that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Timişoara is the successor or the only successor of the one-time Bishopric of Csanád. Borsoka (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support your reasoning and, therefore, I regret my previous CfD on this subject. Based on the Timisoara article it isn't clear that the Csanád diocese had been split, it merely suggests a rename from Csanád into Timisoara. Would you be willing to correct the articles texts accordingly? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hungarian Wikipedia has articles on 2 Bishops of Szeged-Csanád and quite a few of the other bishops: see eg hu:Szeged-Csanádi egyházmegye, so there is scope for all 3 categories. Oculi (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm as confused as Oculi. There seem to be multiple proposals here based on shifting content. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine the confusion. The proposal is actually not a rename proposal but a split proposal (namely, split in three). The status for the three is as follows:
For Category:Bishops of Szeged-Csanád there seems not to be any content yet in English Wikipedia (while there is in Hungarian Wikipedia), but if the nomination gets accepted, this category might be created whenever there is content.
You found another source of confusion, congratulations :-) Namely, in Timisoara it's not Hungarian but Romanian bishops. The reason for splitting the diocese was undoubtedly related to the drawing of the new border line between Hungary and Romania. So this parenting to Hungarian is just wrong and I'll delete it right away. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Updated my ill-informed opinions, above.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2014 (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.
