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 to delete, though it sounds like a nomination to rename these might gain a consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Neo-Shu'ubiyya nationalisms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Neo-Shu'ubiyya nationalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The term "Neo-Shu'ubiyya" was coined recently and it does not appear to have the backing of the academic community. A quick search for the term in books and journals returns very little results. Categories cannot be based on fringe theories and assumptions, and as it currently stands, this category is pushing a certain POV. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Neo-Shu'ubiyya" may be a POV neologism (I'm not sure though, I'd have to research into it more), but I think that it would be useful to have a category for nationalist movements within the Arab world. Perhaps this Neo-Shu'ubiyya category could be merged into a category called Nationalist movements in the Arab world, similar to categories such as Nationalist movements in Asia and Nationalist movements in Europe? This category would be broader and could include the "Neo-Shu'ubiyya nationalisms" category as well as the categories for Arab nationalism and Zionism in the Arab world, etc. Likewise the Neo-Shu'ubiyya nationalists category could be merged into something like Nationalists in the Arab world, similar to the Nationalists of Asian nations and Nationalists of European nations categories. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The very position advocated by Bohemian Baltimore that "it would be useful to have a category for nationalist movements within the Arab world" is inherently advocating one POV, that is that there is an Arab World. The underlying assumption of these movements is that the Arab World is an Imperialistic creation of Arabs imposed on non-Arab people. Beyond this, much of the scope of Kurdish nationalism is beyond what any would call the Arab world. The only unity of these groups is that they operate in areas that others think are "The Arab World", but that is the very term that they dispute is applicable to the specific areas they operate in. They inherently reject the world-view that would allow us to classify them together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Classifying Kurdish nationalists as "Nationalists in the Arab World" is just plain false. It is presuming they are wrong to say any are in the Arab World, and a direct attack on any legitimacy of Turkey to say all are in the Arab World.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's not clear to me that the rename alternative of User:Bohemian Baltimore is a case of POV pushing. The Arab world has an article and a category tree already, so why not further use this concept? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In other words, I tend to support alternative to rename to Nationalist movements in the Arab world. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What about Category:Nationalism in the Arab world? Charles Essie (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's also fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article on the Shu'ubiyya points that the term dates back to 1972, so it is not that recent. The definition used includes "the modern attempts of alternative non-Arab and often non-Muslim nationalisms in the Middle East". In the absence of another term to group them together, I see it as usefull categorization. Given that the Middle East does not equate to the Arab World, Idon't see any reason to reinvent the concept and change its geographic scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the contents of the category, it's within the Arab world anyway. Anyway I agree on keeping the category, though I'm not fond of the category name, being quite exotic while there is no real need to. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think that the article should be renamed Category:Nationalism in the Arab world. It could then be filled with more subcategories (Algerian nationalism, Egyptian nationalism, Iraqi nationalism, Jordanian nationalism, Kuwaiti nationalism, Lebanese nationalism, Libyan nationalism, Mauritanian nationalism, Moroccan nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, Sahrawi nationalism, Somali nationalism, Sudanese nationalism, Syrian nationalism, Tunisian nationalism, Yemeni nationalism, and of course, Arab nationalism). Charles Essie (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no opinion about the article. But I do think that a rename of the category need not depend on a rename of the article since the article is about a Arabic term while the content of the category simply is about nationalism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Education in India by district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted and the categories/articles under it be moved to respective categories of their states. Under the category Category:Education in India, we have Category:Education in India by state or territory‎ which in turn will have all the district-wise categories in their respective states. This category simply jumps from nation to district, skipping the state in between, which is not the right flow. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• do not delete Populate it instead and create any other sub-cats that are needed also. Categories for India need a lot of work, a lot of additions, not deletions to even come close to matching the US, for example. Hmains (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. It would only be useful to keep for a user who knows the district name that s/he is looking for but does not know the state name, that seems highly hypothetical. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I looked at Education in Kutch (district), which was a sub-cat of Education in Gujarat, which was a subcat of Category:Education in India by state or territory‎. That is an appropriate tree. If someone needs to find out where Kutch is, there will be simple ways of finding that. I think we similarly would not allow Education in USA by county: there are just too many counties to make a reasonable cateogry, and I expect that will apply to Indian districts. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron There already exists Category:Education in the United States by county.Shyamsunder (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That US cat is under discussion already. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then let us wait for conclusion of that discussion.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Cat group is closed as "no consensus". Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_27#Counties_of_the_United_States. That anyways shouldn't have stopped us from this discussion per WP:OSE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support. The nominated category supports an unnatural way of navigation from country to district that is not any more efficient than the existing natural way of navigation via the state categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Marcocapelle voting twice .Shyamsunder (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I didn't intend to. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are container categories. These categories provide an alternative navigational path for readers interested in examining topics at district-level, just as the by-state categories do at a higher level.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2015 (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 merge WP:C2C. – Fayenatic London 07:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Essex born Sportsperson to Category:Sportspeople from Essex

Nominator's rationale: User:LordAnon of Essex has completed an out-of-process move of the original category's contents. I feel that the new proposition is a worse choice in that sportspeople born in Essex may not be closely identified with Essex (and vice versa, those born elsewhere may be highly connected to the place). Thus it is better to maintain the "Sportspeople from X" style, which allows us to include those closely associated with the place, yet were not born there. SFB 00:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per WP:C2B, Enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Essex born" is a bad way to word a category. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Not a problem. Can this be done automatically, or is it a manual process? User:LordAnon of Essex ^{User:LordAnon of Essex} 08:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since LordAnon is the category creator, Speedy WP:C2E "author request" would also apply. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. Someone ping an admin for speedy closing, otherwise it'll be November before the backlog catches up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge No real reason for creation of cat. Eagleash (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- We have many people from place categories, and as a matter of policy we have not been too explicit in defining how one is "from" a place, whether by birth or later residence. Making fine distinctions in this is just going to fragment the tree unnecessarily. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2015 (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.