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.
Support but Category:Christian hymns in Latin might be even better. We have had recent discussions about English and American hymns: it seems to me that the language is more important than nationality here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 17 September 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.
Delete but listify. If there was a reason to have these in the first place, a list is a much better format to gather this information. SFB 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PLain delete -- This category is being misused. It appears to be for places on living paths, though the articles may not even mention the fact. We have several times had discussions about such categories, which have all the probelms of Performance categories. We deleted mountains on the Appalachian Trail (and places on it). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 17 September 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.
Category:Lists of language names from common sources[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 result of the discussion was:rename to Category:Wikipedia lists of language names from common sources; if anyone wants to try a new nomination to remove "from common sources", go for it. There wasn't a very strong consensus on whether or not to drop it, so I have just defaulted to keeping it in the name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pinging kwami to see if they concur. DexDor (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that sounds like something we made up or compiled ourselves, rather than mirrors of lists in other sources. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REname to a format that indicates that it is a project category for a WP Project, removing real artiles to a more appropriate one, probably soemthing like Category:Languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 17 September 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:Keep (NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Other members of the Category:War crimes committed by country parent are named by the country, not the party running the country... It's also difficult to know whether each and every person convicted of war crimes which roll up into this cat were or weren't Nazis (i.e., members of the NSDAP), where nationality is ascertainable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, but if articles on WWI war crimes (see World_War_I#War_crimes with notable incidents that could likely be developed into articles - some like The Rape of Belgium already have been) there would still need to be a "Germany parent". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. Now that I have straightened out the category structure in this area with a Category:German war crimes category and various parent/child revisions, there is no WP improvement in making this change. Hmains (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Per the above Keep by Hmains. Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 20 September 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.
Support contents cover civil wars/battles/warring movements. SFB 22:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but without requiring a paretn to be renamed): some of the events categorised were conflicts that were much less a war. The parent is a horrid mouthful: Category:Civil wars in Europe or even Category:Civil conflicts in Europe would make a much better parent, which should prtobably mainly be a container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the parent name should be shortened. However, rather prefer 'Civil wars in Europe' instead of 'Civil conflicts in Europe' - while renaming the English childcategory as nominated and purge the category to remove anything less than a war. Civil war is an established term and Category:Civil wars is an established WP tree, while civil conflict isn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 20 September 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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator rationale. Insufficiently notable individual with insufficient links to merit own eponymous category. Quis separabit? 19:13, 12 October 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, all agruments seem to be valid--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is wrong to make an association between a religion and crime. Hoops gza (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a different reason though, it only contains one childcategory, so it's an unnecessary categorization layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary layer of categorization, per Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REnameCategory:Kidnapping by Islamists. There is in fact a wider topic: an evil practice by which Muslims kidnap Christian (also Yagzedi) women, torture them into repeating the Islamic statement of belief, and then force them to marry their captor. No objection in principle to merging to parent(s). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether re-named or not. Notable distinct category. Epeefleche (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the religion is Islam. Islamism is a political doctrine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 20 September 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:Keep (NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Again, it is wrong to make this association between a religion and crime. The only reason that I did not speedy this is because I am not sure if any of the articles in it need to be merged into other categories. Hoops gza (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category may well be parented to Category:Islamic terrorism of which the header says: This category is for topics related to both proven or suspected cases of terrorism or violence significantly motivated by beliefs attributed to Islam in some form. (italics added by me) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable intersection. Islamism is not a religion. Islam is a religion. Note the difference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have several issues here. One is what is an Islamist? Our main article says there are several definitions. That could make the inclusion criteria here subjective. Also, do we want to start classifying kidnappings by the religion of the kidnappers? Also we don't generally find it acceptable to categorize by suspicion of a crime. I just don't know at this time. But if there are too many problems, then deletion may be the best way to cleanup. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The actual beliefs of Islamists differ simply because Islamic religious beliefs differ. But the unifying thing that applies to all Islamists is that they believe that Islamic religious principles should be applied to social and political life. It's a similar concept to Christian democracy—the details of what is exactly believed differ for each Christian democrat because Christian beliefs can differ so much, but the core principle is shared in common. Islamist beliefs can range from the hard-core sharia law adherents (ISIS types) to those who espouse a relatively secular and liberal state within the concept of Islamic democracy. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Carlossuarez46. I have also added the existing main article to the category and added to the parent categories. This is about a political/war group, not a religion. Hmains (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kidnapping has been a prominent political tool of Islamist movements. The nominators seems to have misunderstood this category as Kidnappings by Muslims, which would be an unreasonable category. SFB 22:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps. Notable distinct category. Clearly, I would have thought. Epeefleche (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Islamists are not a religion, they are those who advocate a political philosophy. Anyway "it is wrong to" is not a good argument here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful category. For example, I just used it to categorize an older article that i stumbled upon, Killing of British tourists in Yemen. A group of tourists who were kidnapped by a group calling itself Aden-Abyan Islamic Army. Wikipedia editors are not dubbing these groups of kidnappers "Islamist" or "Islamic", they so describe themselves.ShulMaven (talk) 18:01, 7 October 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:Keep (NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is wrong to make this association of a religion with violence or crime. The only reason that I did not speedy this is because I'm not sure if any of the articles in the category need to be merged into other categories. Hoops gza (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category may also be parented to Category:Islamic terrorism of which the header says: This category is for topics related to both proven or suspected cases of terrorism or violence significantly motivated by beliefs attributed to Islam in some form. (italics added by me) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable intersection. Islamism is not a religion. Islam is a religion. Note the difference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Carlossuarez46. I have also added the existing main article to the category and added to the parent categories. This is about a political/war group, not a religion. Hmains (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per the above keeps. Nobody in nine days has agreed with nom. And, of course, there is the Qur'anic scripture, Sura (chapter) 47, which contains the ayah (verse): "When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly." Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have clearly been notable beheadings done by Islamists (who are a politcal group, not a religious designation).John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 20 September 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.
