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.
Nominator's rationale: As one might expect, this category is mainly populated with documentary television series not films. The only film, Mystery of the Sphinx, seems to be only obliquely about geology. A rename would reposition it as subcategory of Category:Documentaries about science. Don't think this is blatant enough for CFDS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rename theoretically changes the scope, but the contents do not match the scope already. Geology is narrow enough a topic not to warrant division by documentary medium. SFB19:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It might help a bit to rename the category, since most are television series. However, I see no major difference between the two names.Reawaken (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2014 (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. All subcategories are in an Islam by continent category so deleting should not lose parenting to that tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole tree is suspect because if you go down a few levels you see cat's like Foos in Nonfooland...with the inherent assumption that all Foos must be Muslims, which for many Fooian expatriates is hardly the case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- In contrast with the "by country" tree (next nom), the European category is mostly being used to categorise articles that give little detail, except some population estimates of immigrant communities. However if we are going to delete this, we need to start with AFDs on all such articles. This will probably leave a few articles on indigenous ethnicities, such as Bosniak people - those who are not Muslim are Bosnian Croats or Bosnian Serbs. The remnants should then be placed in an appropriate subcategory of the "by country" tree. The African subcat is more difficult to deal with, as there are various ethnicities (such as Hausa and Fula) members of which are indigenous to a number of post-colonial countries in West Africa. Nevertheless, I would prefer to see this continental tree being emptied as far as possible. There are not so many countries with indigenous Muslim populations to warrant a split by continent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I though we wacked this false system, I guess we have to again. Arabs are in here, but there are thousands of Christian Arabs, there are atheist Arabs, and almost certainly Arabs of other religions as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misreading nationality/ethnicity for religion is a bad basis for a category (as is the case here). There are some limited contents which justifiably require such a category (e.g. Muslim Roma, Greek Muslims, Bulgarian Muslims). I think this actually warrants a category like Category:Muslim communities to group these topics together (albeit in a better maintained one). SFB19:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian communities contains articles on at least 3 places that were established as such. The use of community=ethnic group is in and of itself an oddity that we should avoid. I think we should purge Category:Christian communities down to actual items. Other stuff exists is a horrible argument. It ignores how non-transferable these categories are. Some keep on trying to put Arabs here which is totally wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2014 (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.
Keep -- This seems to be being properly used. Typically people of a particular ethnicity share a religion. Where that religion is Islam, they are correctly called a "Muslim community". In India, "community" is a euphemism for (often endogamopus) castes. I think the category deleted in April last years was being used for places where there were some Muslims, whether or not this was mentioned in the article. I am open to a rename, if somethign better than "community" can be found, but for the moment it will do. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete We whacked this as a false characterization. The fact that a portion of a population is of a given religion should not be used to ascribe that religion to the ethnicity as such. This is a horrible practice. It reinforces the attempts to stigmatize those who convert to other religions. While Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs, it should not create them, but that is exactly what it does with this false ethnicity=religion type of categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Inaccurate naming. The Syrian Civil War hasn't merely "spilled over" into Iraq; the two conflicts have completely merged into one. Constance Lahaye (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think what the category name means is that it is referring to internationally recognised borders. By definition, if a "civil war" is being fought outside of the original state in which it was started, it has "spilled over" into another state. It's probably not the best wording, but I doubt that outright deletion is the best option here. Perhaps a rename of some sort would be useful. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge to Category:Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or maybe Category:ISIS actions in Iraq. With major developments in this whole conflict on going, and the US getting more involved and such, we may have a clearer name in the next few days. If reliable sources develop a common name for all these things, we should follow it. My sense is that even ISIS is probably most common, but I have seen some call it just "the Islamic State" abbreviated as IS, and I've seen ISIL, and also a term beginning with D based on the Arabic initials.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Of the 3 articles currently in this category 2 are about regions (which shouldn't be categorized by language) and one is about the language but is in plenty of other categories. Note: This category currently has no parent categories. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is about an area within United Provinces of Agra and Oudh (now Uttar Pradesh) which was formerly the state of Oudh. UP is the most populous province of India, with a population exceeding many countries. As a historic division, it may be appropriate to have it, but we already have Category:Awadh. There is no good reason to have a separate category the the demonym. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative merge proposal. Two articles don't belong here anyway (they are not about the language), that would leave only the lead article, hence WP:SMALLCAT would apply. Categorizing the language of the region into the region category seems to be perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2014 (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.
