< May 14 May 16 >

May 15

Category:People who claim Sayyid title

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]
@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]
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

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]
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]
  • @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]
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]
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?

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

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]
  • Propose renaming Category:Academic people related with Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories to Category:Academic people related to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories
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

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]
Comment: NB - this is now part of a category tree, so Keep in any case. Eustachiusz (talk) 17:02, 15 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

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]
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

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

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]
  • 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]
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

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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

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.
More