Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 14 May 16 >

May 15[edit]

Category:People who claim Sayyid title[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. – Fayenatic London 18:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What does it mean? who "claim Sayyid title"? --Mhhossein talk 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Mhhossein talk 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would understand the category as meaning "people who claim to be descendants of Muhammad through his grandsons". But I'm not an expert on Islamic affairs, I just dabble sometimes as it's interesting. --Calthinus (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's response: @Mhhossein: as Calthinus says, it's a categorization of those who claim to be descendants of Muhammad through his grandsons and therefore use the honorific title "Sayyid" (and its variations). Apologies if that was unclear, but I am unsure as to why your confusion requires that the category needs to be deleted. Alssa1 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by claim? CLAIM is a loaded term. "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." --Mhhossein talk 18:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: I now understand your contention. It's the most objective term possible given the fact that such things are unverifiable (no one is going to conduct DNA tests on the remains), there are questions as to the reliability of said claims as a result. I would have happily categorized them as "Sayyids" (or something along those lines) but I could have easily been accused of NPOV for giving their claims undue credence. Alssa1 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. It is verifiable that they use the term 'Sayyid'. It is not verifiable whether or not they are actually descended from Muhammad. Alssa1 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Many articles don't even mention it at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I looked at a few. Note that there are several variant transliterations e.g. Syed, Sayed, Seyed, Seyyed. It was in there somewhere, but just in the long version of the name, sometimes only in a citation title. However, the article Sayyid (name) states that the word can be used as a name by people who do not claim the title. – Fayenatic London 07:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There's a distinction between the name Sayyid (and it's variations) and the religious honorific Sayyid, that means descendant of Muhammad. For example, men like Khomeini claimed descent from Muhammad and therefore used the title Sayyid to denote that descent. But this contention is a bit different from Mhhossein's reason for deleting the category. Alssa1 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining descendants of someone famous category. Similar to the descendants of Jewish prophets we deleted long ago: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 3. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: that's a misunderstanding of the categorisation. The title "Sayyid" is an honorific, which derives from a claimed descent from Muhammad. As a result your comparison to "descendants of Jewish prophets" is a false one. The closest example I can find (thus far) is the fact we have a category for British Lords. Alssa1 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming descent from a British Lord is hardly notable. Holding the primogeniture-descended title is. Every male-line descendant is a Sayyid, which makes it basically a descent category, and then there are those whose claim is less than legitimate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Actually defining of this category is same with "Hashemites" (Hashmi). Everyone who claims to be a "Sayyid" or titled as "Sayyid/Mir/Sharif" is a "Hashemite" person by his paternally descendant. Shia Muslims uses this title in a specific way, but this don't changes the description . Mohammad Khatami is a Shia Sayyid, Abdullah II of Jordan is a Sunni "Sayyid" too, both are hashemites. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the argument made by Carlossuarez46. Pahlevun (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We long since deleted descendants of George III. While many are prominent om Muslim lands, being a sayyid is not a strogly distinguishing characteristic and is too common to merit a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. In the sample of articles I looked at (e.g. Ali Mousavi) none specifically mentioned this characteristic. DexDor (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2018 (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.

U.S. military installations[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. – Fayenatic London 18:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Back in 2010, the military bases and military facilities categories were merged into military installations (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_12#Military_bases_and_facilities). However, the rename was only patchily implemented across the hundreds of subcategories. I have tried to finish this process via speedy, but a single user always removes them, saying the 2010 discussion is not enough, and the whole process must be gone through. This is a small start. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The whole category tree is horribly inconsistent, and unless there has been a more recent discussion which overturned it, installations seems the best place to consolidate. --Qetuth (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though, from looking at these categories' parent, it seems installations is a minority in US state articles, when looking across the global category tree it appears installation has been standardised everywhere except the US and Afghanistan (where "bases" is the standard).--Qetuth (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this nomination merely causes an increase of the inconsistency in the tree of the US. All US military facilities categories should be renamed in one batch. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, if I have erred in this respect and need to add in additional categories to this nomination, I can do that. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buckshot06: Could you please list all US categories to be renamed (and tag them as well), then I'll withdraw my opposition and relist the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • @Buckshot06: Please add the remaining categories here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation chosing at random the first category Category:Military facilities in Indiana this was crated after the previous CfD 8 years ago so its likely an indication that this isnt as implied an erroneously missed implementation but rather an indication that the term is valid and perhaps instead of deleting these they should be made into soft redirect categories. Gnangarra 08:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One has to remember that all the subcategories visible within the then U.S. 'military facilities' category continued to read 'facilities' at that point because of the patchy implementation - exactly what I'm still trying to standardize years later. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
its not patchy implementation if they are being created after the CfD that took place 8 years ago, its means the term is in common use and people are looking for it, therefore deletion isnt the solution. The user is right an 8 year old discussion isnt enough because consensus can change Gnangarra 23:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no reason why this should not be standardized to 'installation' given that the US categories are currently a global exception. Kges1901 (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2018 (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:HAG6ER?[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: speedily deleted by Nyttend. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This article is a advertisement. The owner, who is currently blocked, have stated that people should go to this article. INeedSupport (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2018 (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:Academic people related with Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories[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. Paquito590 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Related with" does not make sense in English. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2018 (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:Housing estates in the London Borough of Sutton[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. For the record, there are now 9 sibling cats with between 4 and 12 members each, leaving 35 pages directly in the parent for London. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose merge into Category:Housing estates in London; three entries isn't big enough for a standalone category in my opinion, but I want a second opinion first. Launchballer 11:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see the point of subdividing Category:Housing estates in London by borough, if there are enough of them. There must be more than 3 estates in LBSutton, so there is prob scope for expansion, and ditto the other London boroughs, so Keep on that basis. Eustachiusz (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NB - this is now part of a category tree, so Keep in any case. Eustachiusz (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the nominated category and also upmerge the siblings that have been created after the start of this discussion. There are only some 100 articles in Category:Housing estates in London, so diffusion by borough can only lead to very small categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, as the c100 existing articles are not equally spread across all boroughs: there is already a subcat containing 12 (and I did not create subcats with fewer than 4 existing articles, so several boroughs have no subcat). As per WP:SMALLCAT there is potential for growth here as there are quite a lot more notable housing estates in London which are yet to have articles. Eustachiusz (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2018 (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:Recipients of the Pour le Mérite for Arts and Sciences[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 31. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories are essentially the same. Pour le Mérite for Arts and Sciences is the civil class of the order. Grimes2 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment from the article The revived civil order of the Pour le Mérite is awarded for achievements in the arts and sciences. Active membership is limited to 40 German citizens, ten each in the fields of humanities, natural science, and medicine and the arts. Honorary membership can be conferred on foreigners, again to the limit of 40. When a vacancy occurs, the remaining members select a new inductee the two categories have 166 & 188 recipients, both larger sized categories, the award is now limited to 40 active members the category should be redefined to active(in the main category) with 4 separate groupings humanities, natural science, medicine, and arts as sub cats. with a possible need for historical category for the earlier period prior to the divisions. Gnangarra 08:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least something should happen here. I'm neutral between merging as proposed and splitting as alternatively proposed, both are an improvement to the current situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2018 (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:American Idol judges[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 31. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 08:15, 15 May 2018 (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:Secular Jews[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. – Fayenatic London 18:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A high percentage of all Jews are secular, nothing special about them. 93.173.94.83 (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to Neutral - Jewish secularism is a notable group within the global Jewish community to the best of my understanding. We do have divisions such as Category:Sephardi Jews, Category:Mizrahi Jews. etc., but those are sub-ethnic descent divisions and not religion-based.GreyShark (dibra) 14:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For many the fact that they are secular is distinctive. Do not forget that as a rule, Jews are a traditional nation, and somebody was is professed secular, stands out to ta certain extend.Debresser (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep That someone is a secular Jew is vitally relevant for their cultural heritage, their religious beliefs (or lack thereof!) and view of life. This is a very useful category, it is not true there is "nothing special" and how is that a policy based deletion argument exactly in the first place? Strong keep. On the other hand I have to disagree with Debresser above-- you may live in the Netherlands where most Jews are quite religious perhaps, but other people live in other places such as the US where this is not so true. --Calthinus (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe there is encyclopedic value for this category to exist. The Jews are after all an ethnoreligious group. Alssa1 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't have a tree for people who are "secular" from other religions or whatever the appropriate terminology would be (non-practicing Catholics comes to mind). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand the nom's point but presumably this wd have to be limited to those explicitly self-identifying as secular, as otherwise there's a problem of definition somewhere round the part of the spectrum formalist observant / non-practising / secular by default. @Carlossuarez46: not a direct comparison, because unlike being Catholic, being Jewish is also an ethnicity, as has already been mentioned. Eustachiusz (talk)
  • We have categories for various Jews by ethnicity, something else than Jewish by religion - secular has no particular meaning in that case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories you are presumably referring to are surely intersections of ethnicity (Jewish) and nationality (Spanish, Dutch etc). "Secular Jew" is the usual term in English to mean Jews who don't practise Judaism as religion.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we intending to have this for every ethnic group or nationality that has an "agnostic" and "atheist" subcat? Why does one's ethnicity matter in the irreligion one chooses to adopt? are we ready for Category:Secular English people and about 400 others? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not. Secular Jew is a specific Jewish sub-identity which does not have any analogues elsewhere (as far as I know). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's a meaningful term and defining in principle, although I suspect that in practice it will often be difficult to define accurately and may be prone to misapplication.Eustachiusz (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep (e.g. as straight deletion would leave Category:Jewish skeptics without a Jewish parent). However, we shouldn't categorize actors, artists etc by their religiosity (it may be an important part of their self identity, but it's not grouping articles about similar topics). DexDor (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2018 (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:Cultural heritage of Kosovo[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. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OR, the articles do not mention something about cultural heritage. Even if an official list of cultural heritage would exist (which I'm not sure of) this would be more suitable for a list article than for a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful category, and I that they are part of the cultural heritage of a territory (in this case Kosovo) is evident. It is unreasonable to think that an article on some church would explicitly say "this church is part of the cultural heritage of Kosovo, the Balkans, and Europe, and the world, and also the solar system!" Actually, thank goodness they don't. It's still a useful category that helps navigation.--Calthinus (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though it could do with re-organizing. Ideally, we could do with a wider agreement as to what belongs in national sub-cats of Category:Cultural heritage by country. Looking at a few the contents vary wildly, but the choice here seems as sensible as any other country. Poor Kosovo - why pick on this one? Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kosovo does not have an official list of cultural heritage to my best understanding, while many countries have. So that's why this one was picked. It is indeed unreasonable to think that an article on some church would explicitly say "this church is part of the cultural heritage of Kosovo, the Balkans, and Europe, and the world, and also the solar system!" but in order to identify a defining characteristic it is fully reasonable that an article should say "this church is on the Kosovo Cultural Heritage List. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it need to be tied to a list? Cultural heritage (as officially defined by UNESCO etc) is clearly very little to do with lists. India has full sets of lists of various sorts, but Category:Cultural heritage of India goes well beyond these, an entirely defensible approach. If these categories are meant to be restricted to lists, then the names should be changed to reflect this, and probably set up as sub-cats of wider cultural heritage cats. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see Monuments of Kosovo note that UNESCO also has a list of cultural monuments cite in the monuments article. The fact we dont have an article specifically named Kosovo Cultural Heritage List doesnt invalidate the need for category to contain those articles. English is an amazing language we can all use it differently yet still say the same thing Gnangarra 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination does not make sense. There are plenty of other "Cultural heritage of X country" cats, and Kosovo, as every other country, has an official list of its cultural heritage [1]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link says there is a database, but who tells what it is in the database? None of the articles refers to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am not going to oppose the emerging consensus, but the content has the feel of "Historic Buildings and Structures in Kosovo". Are we duplicating something else? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2018 (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:Basil Rathbone Films[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT violation. Films are not categorized by individual actors who appeared in them, because that would lead to extreme category bloat as each film got added to 20-30 categories for every actor. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2018 (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/2018_May_15&oldid=1141927648"