Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 11 July 13 >

July 12[edit]

Category:Floodable underpass[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: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is getting flooded from time to time really a defining characteristic? Le Deluge (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a good way to categorize underpasses (or things like a railway station) as pretty much any underpass will get flooded in a flood. DexDor (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have grave doubts as to the usefulness of this, even if the articles actually provide evidence that they are floodable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2016 (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:The Hotelier[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: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. 3 articles and 2 are in the more topic-specific albums category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:54, 12 July 2016 (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:Academics from Tacoma, Washington[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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 14:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also propose merging- Category:Chefs from Tacoma, Washington to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington and
Category:Physicians from Tacoma, Washington to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All have three or less entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SMALLCAT is a rationale for categories with "no potential for growth" which does not apply to these growing categories about living people. Plus the generally accepted minimum for a category is three, which the chefs category already meets. I easily found enough entries to populate the other two categories with 3-4 entries. - Brianhe (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree that smallcat does not apply to these cats as they do have potential for growth, and thanks to Brianhe for further populating the cats. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, tho for difft reasons in each case.
  1. Academics: merge to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington.
    In the case of the academics, it is an irrelevant intersection by location (see WP:OCLOCATION). There is no indication that their notability as academics is related to their being from Tacoma. Their academic notability may be connected with being American academics, or with being academics at a particular university, or in a particular discipline; but not to being academics from Tacoma. Regardless of the size of the category, irrelevant intersections are a very bad type of category.
  2. Chefs merge to Category:People from Tacoma, Washington and Category:Chefs from Washington (state).
    Chefs may be notable for being at a particular location, though many move around a lot, so the precise location may not be WP:DEFINING. However, the only by-state sub-category of Category:American chefs is the Washington category, also created by Brianhe, so I am unsure whether even it is appropriate. The absence of an existing by-state category should have prompted Brianhe to question whether a finer division was really appropriate.
    In total, there are currently 543 pages in Category:American chefs and its subcats, of which 140 are notable as TV chefs, and hence probably not defined by location. If, despite those caveats, it is considered appropriate to subcat the American chefs geographically, then a by-state split would produce an average only 10 per state. Going to a finer level than that simply impedes navigation.
  3. Physicians merge to Category:Physicians from Washington (state) and Category:People from Tacoma, Washington.
    Per WP:OCLOCATION, I see no evidence that any of these physicians are defined by being from Tacoma rather than from elsewhere in WA. Furthermore, Category:Physicians from Washington (state) currently contains only 5 pages, plus the 4 in this sub-cat. Splitting a total of 9 articles in this way just impedes navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Each of these 3 categories was created[1][2][3] with only one parent: Category:People from Tacoma, Washington. That meant that, for example, the physicians were not in any wider category of physicians, the chefs were cut off from other chefs etc. The creators (Brianhe, Coolabahapple) should take care when creating new categories that they they are subcats of all relevant parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- These are very much on the margins of an acceptable category size. If not kept, merge, not only as nom, but also to a Washington (State) occupational category per BHG to prevent loss of useful data. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2016 (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:1959 Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles[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: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have no other by-year categories like this, and it appears to be a rather narrow intersection between Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:1959 singles. I checked all articles, and all but one is already in Category 1959 singles. The one that's left out was never officially released as a single, so the one merge target should be good. ~ Rob13Talk 20:28, 12 July 2016 (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:Infobox NFL player tracking categories[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 since there's no objection. -- Tavix (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: {{Infobox NFL biography}} was recently renamed from "player" to "biography" to complete a merge that has been ongoing for years. All of these tracking categories should be moved over to the new name. Given the number of moves, I figured at least one initial discussion is appropriate. Afterward, I intend to speedy move the rest to "Infobox NFL biography" category names. ~ Rob13Talk 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that, while this category is eligible for WP:C2E because I created it, this discussion is intended to have an effect on the sub-categories which I did not create, so a full discussion should occur. ~ Rob13Talk 17:04, 12 July 2016 (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:ISRO space probes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 7#Category:ISRO space probes

Category:Sustainable energy certification schemes[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. ~ Rob13Talk 14:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these certification systems refer to renewable energy rather than to the broader (and somewhat more fuzzy) term sustainable energy, many of them even carrying "renewable energy" in their name. Also dropping "schemes" for brevity. PanchoS (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2016 (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:Buddhist temples in Yunnan[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: no consensus. As noted, though, temples are not equivalent to monasteries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2016 (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:Rift valleys[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: merge. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. The proposal was explained at Category_talk:Rift_valleys. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the concepts of rift valley and graben are very closely related, it's not needed to have separate categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to this combination as these are very different processes. Only the outcome can sometimes appear to look the same. gidonb (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I note that East African rift valley is listed as a graben. Is that right? I can see a potential distinction that two faults open and the surface between drops. so that the gap is filled by the old surface, possibly with sedimentary deposits above. The alternative (which I understood to apply to the Rift Valley) was that a gap filled by magma from below. Is that the difference? If so, does something need purging? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I am not convinced that this diving out the category makes sense with our sources or our number of articles. Rift valleys and a sub-cat of rifts and grabens so this is an upmerge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2016 (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:Possible cut-and-paste moves[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category (which was populated by a bot in 2009) is now redundant to lists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/36. The talk page makes clear that this category is no longer required - "I'm going to stop DefaultsortBot from adding this category to any more articles, and I'm going to go through with AWB and detag all the articles that it's done, as I now have a better system", "I spot-checked two entries listed in this category. Both of them turned out to be false positives.", "many of these will be out of date. It's a lot easier to write a bot to create work queues for humans than to write a bot to clear out work queues or get humans to clear out such bot-created work queues." etc. DexDor (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn. DexDor (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. I use this category sporadically to look for histmerge cases and, while there are a lot of false positives, there are also plenty of cases that need to be fixed. Are we absolutely sure that every page from this category that might need a histmerge is now listed in one of the project lists? Additionally, many of the false positives do actually require some form of action to be taken, e.g. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia compliance to fix unattributed merges. Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why you use the category rather than the list when the person who (by bot) populated the category said that the list was better (and that xe actually intended to, although hasn't done, depopulate the category) ? DexDor (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do use the list, I've probably done several hundred histmerges from it in the last couple of years (see [4] and [5]). But I find it can be boring and repetitive, the category has more variety. Jenks24 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if no longer actively populated, unless every single case has been doublechecked for possible cut-and-paste-moves or similar problems, per Jenks24. --PanchoS (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a useful maintenance category. Maybe it isn't still being populated, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what's in there. Editors should work through the items in the category and remove them as they're determined to be find or history merged. When it's empty, then deletion would make sense. ~ Rob13Talk 09:11, 24 July 2016 (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.

Undersized Turkey geography stub categories[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: merge templates, merge and delete categories. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
dozens of similar categories
Upmerge templates to Category:Aegean Region geography stubs
Upmerge templates to Category:Black Sea Region geography stubs
Upmerge templates to Category:Central Anatolia Region geography stubs
Upmerge templates to Category:Eastern Anatolia Region geography stubs
Upmerge templates to Category:Marmara Region geography stubs
Upmerge templates to Category:Mediterranean Region, Turkey geography stubs
Upmerge templates to Category:Southeastern Anatolia Region geography stubs
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub categories. As noted at Wikipedia:WPSS, stub categories should start with at least 60 articles. I proposed deleting these shortly after they were created because they were undersized. I was outvoted at the time, with the expectation that these would be loaded by the interested parties in short order. Two and a half years later, these categories remain underpopulated. Propose deleting, with no prejudice against recreation once articles exist to populate each category. Dawynn (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why is it not proposed to upmerge these categories - e.g. to Category:Turkey geography stubs ? DexDor (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category; upmerge templates per Dawynn. Her Pegship (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Whatever the outcome of this discussion, we should keep the respective templates as Upmerged templates. --PanchoS (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into regional (or national) stub categories, rather than delete, as deletion loses us data. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As indicated, the request is asking to keep the templates, but delete the categories. Stub categorization, if done right, is done by adding stub templates to the respective articles. We can keep and upmerge the templates, thus moving all the articles, and then delete the emptied categories. Dawynn (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2016 (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:Members of the Legislative Assembly of São Paulo (state)[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need the disambiguator "(state)" on this category because the legislative assembly is a proper name, and this proper name is Legislative Assembly of São Paulo. For comparison, we don't disambiguate Category:Members of the Parliament of Victoria even though Category:Victoria (Australia) is disambiguated, because the name of the body is Parliament of Victoria. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, as long as there is no possibility of confusion with a city council for São Paulo (city). The routine use of disambiguators is necessary for Georgia and Washington, also for categories for Birmingham, West Midlands, due to the risk of them picking up unrelated articles inadvertently, but I dount that applies here. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2016 (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:Film Writers Association[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: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to this CfD. After a selective upmerge, WP:SMALLCAT seems to apply. I doubt this has potential for growth. ~ Rob13Talk 02:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Them main article Film Writers Association seems to be a stub. There is not enough related material for a category. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main article, about the Indian organization called Film Writers Association, is a year old and still a stub. There doesn't seem to be enough to group into a category. Perhaps if editors of the article can argue otherwise and I'll reconsider. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (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:Islamophobia[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: no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Long established consensus for preferred naming convention. On 11 Aug 2012, the Category:Islamophobia was deleted in favor of Category:anti-Islam. [6] If these reasons still hold we should delete Category:Islamophobia. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason from nyc: I created this category as a redirect page to Category:Anti-Islam, but User:Al-Andalusi removed the redirect. We can restore the original redirect instead of deleting the category. Jarble (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: Sorry for this misunderstanding. Restoration of the redirect is fine. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "Islamophobia" is now an established term. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics states "Much debate has surrounded the use of the term, questioning its adequacy as an appropriate and meaningful descriptor. However, since Islamophobia has broadly entered the social and political lexicon, arguments about the appropriateness of the term now seem outdated." Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is being used more, particularly in the UK. However, the section Academic debate in the Islamophobia article that has the Oxford statement above also has many other academics who find the term problematic. In the past we avoided this controversial term and moved the category to Category:anti-Islam as it is more generic. This maintains the uniformity of editorial standards here at Wikipedia as we have Category:Anti-Christianity, Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Anti-Hinduism, etc. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but those are "terminological differences" regarding the scope and focus of the phenomenon and the way to distinguish between various manifestations of the phenomena under discussion (for example, when it is seen as anti-immigrant racism without having theological connotation, some scholars have suggested the use of a different term). It is NOT a denial of the existence of the phenomenon itself, which is precisely the intention behind the proposal to merge with Category:Anti-Islam. Some of the alternatives suggested by those scholars who contested the term include:
...‘anti-Muslimism’, ‘anti-Muslim racism’, ‘intolerance against Muslims’, ‘anti-Muslim prejudice’, ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’, ‘hatred of Muslims’, ‘anti-Islamism’, ‘anti-Muslimism’, ‘Muslimophobia’, ‘demonisation of Islam’, and ‘demonisation of Muslims’. Probably the most commonly used term in today’s world is Islamophobia.
("Islamophobia" in Cesari, Jocelyn (ed). The Oxford Handbook of European Islam. Oxford University Press).
Thus Islamophobia would make most sense, as Wikipedia follows the mainstream usage. (It is interesting to note that no scholar has suggested "Anti-Islam" as an alternative). Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence of Ayaan Kaya’s chapter, called “Islamophobia,” in Cesari’s book, says “Islamophobia is a rather a modern secular anti-Islamic discourse …” Anti-Islam or anti-Islamic are generic terms, not a neologism like “Islamophobia.” Also from page 9, “… the anti-Islamic backlash also known as Islamophobia …” We see again on page 763 “Islamophobia states that such an anti-Islamic political discourse …” Thus that Islamophobia is anti-Islamic is not even seen as something that needs explanation. It is just assumed.
There’s no controversy about anti-Islam; Islamophobia is just a modern neologism favored by some. Kaya continues and says “the social sciences have not developed a common definition.” That makes it hard for us to use it as a category. All the other phrases you quote are also problematic. That leaves “anti-Islam” which is the genus of all the other phrases as a logical choice and appropriate for Wikipedia’s editorial uniformity. The redirect of Category:Islamophobia to Category:anti-Islam that we had for 4 years worked well for those using the neologism. We don't lose anything by using the genus and we have amble sub-categories for persecution, political opposition, paranoia (i.e. Eurabia) etc.
By the way, thanks for the reference. Cesari, the editor, is quoted in our Islamophobia article to show the difficulty in using the term. It’s good to see her follow up work. I look forward to reading the book. I relied heavily on her work when I wrote the section in Islamophobia on “Geographic Trends.” Jason from nyc (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Islamic != anti-Islam. Islamic is much more encompassing: you have Islamic people, Islamic culture, Islamic values, Islamic dress...etc. I hope this difference is understood.
As for the claims that it is a "neologism" (quite false. I re-quote the Oxford source above "since Islamophobia has broadly entered the social and political lexicon, arguments about the appropriateness of the term now seem outdated"), or "controversial" (it is controversial to a bunch of far-right nutters. In academia, Kaya writes that "Such terminological differences may reflect a set of differences of understanding and focus") or preserving "Wikipedia’s editorial uniformity" (not really, there is Category:Anti-Judaism and Category:Antisemitism, nobody is suggesting merging the latter), or that it worked well for 4 years (I demonstrated that this so-called concensus runs counter to the mainstream academic POV, and that is enough to bring the concensus into re-consideration).
You have not addressed the core issue here. Kaya enumerated a number of terms used in the academic literauture (none of which is Anti-Islam, the term you are pushing) and then concludes that "Probably the most commonly used term in today’s world is Islamophobia." In fact, after a lengthy survey of the related literature, Kaya herself chose to go with Islamophobia: "Despite this lack of consensus, several scholars use the term, such as Richardson (2012), Esposito (2011), Schiffer and Wagner (2011), Allen (2010), Geisser (2010), Laitin (2010), Semati (2010), Meer and Modood (2009), Werbner (2005), Vertovec (2002), and Modood (2002). Against this background, the term Islamophobia is used in this chapter to define the overarching narrative which informs the manifestations of both anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-Muslim racism."
You need to explain to us your insistence on the need to use a term not used by any scholar and one that runs counter to the mainstream usage, in academia and outside of it. If you are denying the existence of the phenomenon itself, then we have a much bigger problem. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Islamic is just the adjective for the noun anti-Islam. You yourself have but the Category:Islamophobia as a subcategory of Category:anti-Islam. Why? In the past we argued about whether the parent category should be anti-Islam, anti-islamic sentiment, or Islamophobia. Why do we need a sub-category? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't delete terms because some editors don't like them. The category is necessary for articles related to Islamophobia. Sepsis II (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping everyone would click on the "log" above to see past discussions. The Category:Islamophobia was deleted 8 times. The preferred replacement is Category:anti-Islam. The current Category:Islamophobia was created one month ago. Clearly the consensus has been to rename and delete the category even if a few editor just like the term. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Islamophobia is comparable to homophobia, we need an anti-Homosexuality category to be the counterpart to anti-Islam/or an Opposition to homosexuality in your preferred wording. It seems redundant but hey WP isn't good at efficiency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that my comparison was disingenious. Homophobia and Islamophobia are very different. I only tried to point out that both terms literally mean "Fear of foo", but have become a term for "Hate of foo" or anti-foo sentiment. --PanchoS (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you distinct Islamophobia from Anti-/Opposition to Islam ? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same way you would distinct Antisemitism from Opposition to Judaism. // Liftarn (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Liftarn.GreyShark (dibra) 20:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Andalusi has argued that Islamophobia is “anti-Muslim racism.” Liftarn also argues this point of view and says “islamophobes talk about ... "Muslim DNA”.” First of all, the Islamophobia article talks about the minority view that Islamophobia is a form of cultural racism. This is just a bigoted broad-brush view of the ideas and practices, i.e. a religious bigotry. It has nothing to do with biological racism. Thus we don’t need a second category. Jews, on the other had, are viewed as a biological race, religious group, and ethnic group. It’s not odd to have more than one category. With Islam the the two categories create a POV fork when there is only religious bigotry--talking about Islam monolithically. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is particularly egregious if we are going to categorically label people racist as we do in the Category:Counter-jihad, a subcategory of Islamophobia. We have six organizations in the category and a subcategory for activist where we’ve labeled people as Islamophobic racists. The articles on these people and organizations cite specific critics but when we put them in categories we are saying they are categorically racist and saying it with Wikipedia’s voice. I suggest this is a BLP violation or should be. It happens too often with other categories as well. That’s why we have a request in many categories that “It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-whatever.” Ref Category:anti-Islam Category:Antisemitism Jason from nyc (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the Islamophobia redirect was turned into a category without a discussion of the problems, mentioned above, in an appropriate CfD. It adds little and is fraught with difficulties and BLP violations. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere it is suggested that the Islamophobia category is meant for "anti-Muslim racism" and your claim that I defined the category this way is just ridiculous. Category Islamophobia follows the category's main page and there is NO dispute about that among editors. While forms of anti-Muslim racism are considered Islamophobic, it does not mean that every Islamophobic instance is "racism". Category Counter-jihad includes organizations and people labelled as such by academic sources or ones that are self-described as such, like Liberty GB. There is a scholarly consensus that the Counter-jihad movement is Islamophobic. To take that a step further and claim that by being labelled Islamophobic, they are being called out as "racists" is a conclusion neither stated by the sources nor implied from the structure of the categories. Maybe it's all in your head?
The real concern here is your attempt to eliminate a category that groups together articles on the hatred of Muslims. It is irrelevant whether Muslims as a group are defined along biological, religious, ethnic, or potato lines. At the end of the day, it is a group of people that faces discrimination, and this topic is significant enough to be worthy of an article and a category. By insisting on moving it under Anti-Islam, you are essentially denying this phenomenon or you don't think it is "worthy", which is not surprising considering your counter-jihad background. Had you been honest in your concerns about Islamophobia and the consensus around the term, you would have suggested renaming the category into a more general "Anti-Muslim prejudice" name (or any of the terms here), rather than demanding outright deletion. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you admit, it is a category for "hatred of Muslims" where you list groups and individuals that you've decided are haters. This is a POV fork intended to defame, a BLP violation. In the articles there are some attributed statements while other sources reframe from such a conclusion. To categorically classify them as haters and in Wikipedia's voice goes against the conservative approach in WP:BLP. This is a witch-hunt and Wikipedia should be no part of it. This change of the redirect was never approved. Indeed, it violates 8 previous CfDs. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing categories Counter-Jihad and Islamophobia. The first one lists individuals and organizations, while the second one is populated with articles on the phenomenon itself, and ideally should not reference groups and organizations. It is quite hypocritical of you to defend the existence of the "Anti-semitism" category, while for Islamophobia you cry POV fork and BLP violation. Counter-jihadist indeed love to play the victim game. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge with Category:Anti-Islam. We do not need both. The problem with Islamophobia is that "phobia" means fear, but opposition to Islam is not necessarily derived from fear. It may be a profound theological position, denying that Mohammed was a prophet and asserting the superiority of the incarnate son of God, a doctrine denied by Islam. This means that Islamophobia is not a NPOV term. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a term that is clearly pushing a specific point of view (that the attacks on the teachings and practices of Islam engaged in by these people is fuelled by an irrational fear). That is clearly taking a specific point of view and not in any way abvocating a neutral point of view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Al-Andalusi have said Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Anti-Islam already exists. --Lingveno (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Anti-Islam adequately covers the subject matter. The term "Islamophia" is favored by certain ideological/political/pressure groups because it implies certain understandings of the matter at hand, and very heavily opposed by other groups. It is inherently not a term that can possibly convey a neutral point of view. It is in fact term that advocates for a very particular point of view, by commenting by its very nature on the validity of certain actions. What next, will people advocate for Catgory:Miscegenation to cover topics related to bi-racial (black/white, especially in the US) marriage? That term was coined by Democrats in the 1864 election to accuse Abraham Lincoln and his fellow Republicans of advocating it. It comes from the Latin for "bad breeding". Words matter and have power. Taking a neutral point of view means we avoid invoking words that convey certain worldviews and presuppose that certain people are right and others are wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rename anti-Islam to "Category:Opposition to Islam". Some examles would not fit into anti-Islam, for example instances of antipathy towards individuals that appear Muslim but aren't actually. It would be illogical to tag that as anti-Islam. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2016 (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:Female members of the House of Councillors (Japan)[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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why segregate by gender? Sekicho (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_12&oldid=1138409898"