The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Grandmasters for chess composition. MER-C 05:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Grandmasters of the chess compositions to Category:Grandmasters of the FIDE for Chess Compositions

Nominator's rationale: The current category title is ungrammatical (presumably because it was created by a non-native speaker). According to this link the official name of the list is "Grandmasters of the FIDE for Chess Compositions." It would be reasonable to shorten and reinterpret it as simply Category:Chess composition grandmasters. It seems that other categories such as Category:Chess grandmasters and Category:Correspondence chess grandmasters don't say "Grandmasters of the FIDE" in their Wikipedia names, even though they are intended to exactly reflect the FIDE lists as far as I can tell. Quuxplusone (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - another possibility would be Category:Grandmasters for chess composition, to follow List of grandmasters for chess composition. I agree that it should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Oculi to Category:Grandmasters for chess composition. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete/merge (they are equivalent). MER-C 05:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Polish Jewish culture in Canada to Category:Ashkenazi Jewish culture in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very narrow topic. The article is already in Category:Ashkenazi Jewish culture in Canada. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. In the Canadian context, it's far from patently obvious that Canadian Jewish culture is readily subdividable into distinct and non-overlapping "Polish Jewish" and "Russian Jewish" and "German Jewish" subcultures — so this would be fine if there were a lot of things specifically Polish-Jewish things that could be filed here, but is not necessary for just one thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ethnic enclaves in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Completely unsupportable and baseless POV category. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Various regions of Australia have relatively high concentrations of differing ethnic groups, but calling these "enclaves" is ridiculous and not supported by the literature. The regions have ethnically mixed populations (often with relatively high concentrations of different groups), and the folks who live in them mix with everyone else and move around other regions. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete when I check an article, it mentions nothing about it being an "enclave" and I am sure its not. However several other places famous for hosting a strong ethnic presence are missing, eg Cabramatta and Lakemba. So it appears to not be useful, and not even right when used. The subcategories however should be kept. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that unsuitable things have been decatted, it is looking better, so I have struck delete vote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but prune the hell out of/possibly rename. I think it's useful to have something to have a broad category for the Chinatowns, the Little Italys, and other explicitly ethnic precincts (e.g. I discovered this mess when I added a Malay heritage area on Norfolk Island). It should be made clear that no suburbs/towns of any kind belong in there: e.g. to use Graeme's example, just because Cabramatta has lots of people of an ethnic group does not make it an "enclave". Is there a better word we could use for the Chinatown/Little Italy/other equivalents example that doesn't carry the arguably pejorative implications of "enclave"? The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but depopulate - the problem is not with the category, it's with the articles that have been added to the category. "Ethnic enclave" is not a perjorative term, it just refers to a neighbourhood or territory where the population is largely ethnically distinctive from the population around it (see definition here). Wikipedia has decided to have a category called "Ethnic enclaves" to encompass neighbourhoods/areas where reliable sources show that the particular area or suburb is an ethnic enclave (a case in point being Chinatowns which have historical significance as such) - we can't just delete the Australian one without having the broader debate about renaming the category altogether if there are concerns with it. The suggestion to keep the subcategories (which I agree with) shows exactly why the category should be kept. I agree the category should be depopulated of all articles except the subcategories, and nothing added back unless there are reliable sources showing that the article is an ethnic enclave. Bookscale (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have been BOLD and removed most of the articles from the category (all of which were entirely unsourced about being enclaves). Auburn and the Malay Kampong Group are both sourced as ethnic areas, the other two seem more like cultural precinct than enclaves so I'm minded to remove them as well but interested in others' views. Bookscale (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd remove Auburn (it's a suburb with a significant ethnic population, it's emphatically not an enclave) and keep the other two: they probably are more cultural precincts than literal enclaves in practice but so is basically everything else in that tree in Australia. (Practically, "ethnic cultural precincts" would actually be a much better name for this tree in Australia, though I can't speak more broadly.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, thanks. Christmas Island is still there. I noticed Auburn also had an entirely unsourced "Muslim enclave" category which I now have also removed. Bookscale (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it has been very correctly depopulated. Perhaps add some appropriate "instructions" to the cat's lead as per above "definition" of "Australian enclaves" / "ethnic cultural precincts". Agree Auburn should also go. Aoziwe (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What about renaming to Category:Ethnic neighbourhoods in Australia? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Bookscale noted, there's a category tree of "ethnic enclaves in [country]", which I think it would probably be unhelpful to randomly break with, and "neighbourhoods" is not really any clearer, just an alternative to anyone who dislikes "enclave". If we were going to break with the wider tree, I'd rather go with "ethnic cultural precincts" because it much more clearly describes the contents: most of this category tree in Australia aren't literally enclaves nor are they really ethnic "neighbourhoods" as such. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife, Graeme Bartlett, Bookscale, Aoziwe, and Marcocapelle: The simple fact is that there are not any ethnic enclaves in Australia. "Chinatown" and related entities are completely different, they are not necessarily populated by a particular ethnicity, especially in Australia. The implication of this category is absurd, and its existence is pointless. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it necessarily follows the category is absurd and/or pointless because it's really incorrectly named: having some sort of category to tie together these various ethnic cultural precincts makes sense to me at least. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is properly described with a definition in the cat's lead I am not too concerned. Yes, Australia does not have encalves now. There might have been some ~100+ and ~170+ years ago. If we are to rename it I would go with The Drover's Wife's ethnic cultural precincts, but still have a definition and explanation, including relevant portions of this discussion above, in the cat's lead. Aoziwe (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about it being hard to define what is an "enclave" now in Australia, Onetwothreeip, but there may well have been historically (though I don't know one way or the other). I agree with Drover's Wife, I don't think the category is redundant even though we should have stricter standards about what goes in there. I'd support a discussion on renaming the lead category if someone can think of something that is more appropriate. There are areas around the world where there were (or are) actual ethnic enclaves so they would need to be distinguished. Bookscale (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - just for reference, interestingly there used to be a page on WP called "List of Sydney ethnic enclaves", which was deleted (not for POV but for being unsourced and possibly OR): see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney ethnic enclaves. Secondly, the lead in Chinatowns in Australia describes them as "major Chinese ethnic enclaves" as well (adopting the non-perjorative use of "enclave" rather than a culturally offensive sense like "ghetto"). Bookscale (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2020 (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. MER-C 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Yoruba farmers to Category:Yoruba people / Category:Nigerian farmers

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:EGRS. I can find no proof that this "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." TM 23:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. I guess the same could be said for most of Farmers by ethnicity, which has 4 other subcategories. Place Clichy (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The category has six members: 5 is usually regarded as a sufficient size to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category size is not in dispute. It's whether it passes WP:EGRS. If you have evidence that it does, please post here.--TM 13:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge; even though it has many sibling categories in Category:Yoruba people by occupation, many of which might be justifiable, I agree that no justification has been offered for this one. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This category should be kept like the others. I'm not just advocating for its existence because I created it along with its sibling categories several years ago: I have not objected to the nominator's past success in deleting related categories which I created because they became empty or were helpless before I knew what was going on. However, I have to state frankly what I see here. His proposed merging of this category is akin to disruption of Wikipedia even though some editors may not see it that way. He has neither stated any clear basis for the category failing WP: EGRS nor given any valid reason for singling it out of the category Farmers by ethnicity for merging. Eruditescholar (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. However, it is up to you to demonstrate why this particular intersection is a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, as requested by WP:EGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for mentioning other categories in the group is not intended to describe the proposed merging of Yoruba farmers (which happens to be the only one involved in this discussion among others) as only unfair, leading to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. For emphasis, the category Yoruba farmers is a unique cultural topic in its own right because it happens to be the only one which groups farmers of Yoruba ethnicity or descent irrespective of their nationality. Besides, it happens to be the only one that has ties to a specific ethnic group in Africa. The category African-American farmers also has ties to Africa but it is more generalized and restricted to the United States; it groups American farmers of African descent (American nationals descending from any of the African ethnic groups). The remaining categories in the category Farmers by ethnicity: New Zealand Māori farmers, Basque farmers and Asian-American farmers have no ties to Africa. Looking at it from another angle; All other categories except Yoruba farmers there have a direct Western link. The category Yoruba farmers is unique in its own right and passes WP:EGRS.-Eruditescholar (talk)

That's not what EGRS says nor how it works. I suggest that you read the policy before making an argument.--TM 17:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I have read it. You are probably trying to counter my explanation because of the points I've raised against your proposed merging of this category. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as there is apparently nothing that sets Yoruba farmers apart from other Nigerian farmers. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are indirectly asserting that all Yoruba people are Nigerians. However, this is not the case. -Eruditescholar (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or from any other country if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I still say Keep, as I voted above. The Yoruba are an ethnic group, resident in a particular part of Nigeria. The alternative might be to restructure this as farmers from <state>. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, so that merging into a national category would loose the point of having a specific category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The intersection needs to be notable. There is no proof that Yoruba farmers are distinct from farmers in other ethnic groups. African-Americans and Asian-Americans, for example, have a unique history of being denied access to land. There is even a Wikipedia article on this for African-Americans, and a similar article could and should be written for Asian-Americans. Could this be done for Yoruba farmers? It's on those who want to keep the category to demonstrate that such an article could be written.--TM 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be logical for you to affirm the existence of the categories African American farmers and Asian American farmers because you are American and you mostly edit American-related articles (most of which you are likely to be informed due to your background and prior knowledge). On the other hand, the same cannot be said with Nigerian farmers because it is glaring that your knowledge of Nigerian ethnic groups is limited. I also happen to be the creator of the category Nigerian farmers that you are proposing to merge with Yoruba farmers. If this merging was necessary, I would have done that a long time ago. Looking at from your perspective (as a foreigner; I understand that it can be difficult to ascertain the ethnicity of a Nigerian farmer by mere appearance). I don't support your notion that Yoruba farmers are not distinct from other ethnicities in Nigeria. There are many cultural differences which in totality serve as their defining characteristics as well. These cultural differences become more pronounced due to the fact that all the ethnic groups live predominantly in different parts of the country. They live in different climates, speak different languages, eat their local cuisine, wear their native attires, create their artworks, etc. Even their traditional belief system is also different. (The obvious exception is intermarriage; when a Nigerian from one ethnic group marries another from a different ethnic group or culturally assimilates into the other ethnic group).Eruditescholar (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that every group is different from every other group. However, what I am referring to is a notable interesection per Wikipedia guidelines (which it still seems you are unfamiliar with despite editing on here for years). I will post here for your convenience: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one.

Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources. If this criterion has not been met, then the category essentially constitutes original research. Although there are exceptions, this will usually mean that categories relating to social or cultural subjects are more likely to be valid than others."--TM 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the category should be purged. A number of articles are not about farmers. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've done some simple google searches and it seems that the Yoruba has a larger proportion of farmers, especially historically, which looked to traditionally used different methods then other Nigerian farmers. This would indicate that Yauba farmers are recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic which would mean that WP:EGRS support this category. That combined with established category trees is enough for me to consider it useful for navigation. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will you provide sources that indicate that an independent article could be written about Yoruba farmers?--TM 13:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if an entire article could be written, but The Yoruba Today talks significantly about their farming practices in general, this paper discuss conflicts with Bororo Fulani Pastoralists, several other sources also discuss the topic to some extent and I'm sure significantly more can be found if considering offline sources. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The category isn't about Yoruba farming at all. It contains a prince, a businessman, a politician and a former African-American slave. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2019 (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: rename. MER-C 05:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Clube Ferroviário de Maputo players to Category:Clube Ferroviário de Maputo footballers

Nominator's rationale: To distinguish this from Category:Ferroviário de Maputo (basketball) players Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose given that the Clube Ferroviário de Maputo article is about the football team as PRIMARYTOPIC and following example of FC Barcelona and Category:FC Barcelona players / Category:FC Barcelona Bàsquet players. GiantSnowman 12:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think any club which supports several sports should have the player categories distinguished by sport. Otherwise articles will be put in the wrong category. The FC Barcelona article doesnt even mention sports other than football. The other sports are treated as seperate organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: and, like Barcelona, Clube Ferroviário de Maputo is primarily about the football team - there is a separate article on the basketball team. GiantSnowman 12:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• REname -- Where a club engages in multiple sports, a payers sport should appear. The precedent for this is Galatasseri in Turkey, which is also best know as a football club. It may not be obvious to some people but the name means Maputo Railway Club. No doubt it was founded as a social or sports club for railway workers. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: this not the same as Galatasaray at all, given that that sports club has a parent article about the parent organisation (located at Galatasaray S.K.) and then sub-articles for each sport, including Galatasaray S.K. (football). GiantSnowman 12:06, 11 January 2020 (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: merge. MER-C 05:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Exotic Revival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 27 Rathfelder (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, but merge to Category:Revival architecture in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with Marcocapelle's suggestion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2020 (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.