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. During this discussion, by religion subcategories have been created, so users may wish to revisit this category and/or its subcategories in a new nomination.Good Ol’factory(talk) 17:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an article with a very different name has a horrible name and conflates two different things, does not mean that this article is unworkable. Here we merely classify by if the author is Muslim or not. That is easy to define, and it is clearly connected to their study. Whether a work is "academic" or not is not easy to define. Some of the definition will be fueled by the goals and views of those defining it. Also, what constituted academic work 100 years ago is not the same as today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a sourced article on this subject. This intersection is of note. The religion of scholars involved in studies of religion is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an adequately populated category. Since this is about a religion, it is ineviotable that adherents and non-adherents will approach the subject in a very different way. It is a perfectly acceptable category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could see splitting this category into Christian, Hindu, Jewish, atheist and other specific sub-cats, at least if it were a little larger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
split by major religion, at the very least. By putting someone here, we are implicitly stating that we know they aren't muslim, thus we must have some sense of what they religion they do adhere to. Normally we shouldn't do not-categories, can you imagine if we had non-Christian scholars of the bible, which would be a silly mish-mash. Split it up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the category has articles like Arthur John Arberry where all we are ever told about the subjects religion is that they are "non-Muslim".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purge as well. Looking through this I noticed that the first article is on an Italian where the article never says the person is a non-Muslim, this was just assumed. We need to follow statements in the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make a container cateogry/upmerge those who can not be identified with a specific religion to Category:Islamic studies scholars. Alfter looking through the contents of this cateogry, I realized that in the vast majority of cases there is no statement about the subjects religion in the article. I have moved those that gave any statement of religion to religion specific sub-cats. I think this works as a holding category for religion specific sub-cats, but it does not work as a generalized holding category for all people. The fact of the matter is that there are some scholars of Islam who have in general tried to not be open about their religion, and if the biography does not mention their religion, I do not think we should categorize by it. Even in the case of an article like Arberry, I do not think we should categorize unless we have some way to identfy a specific religion, be that atheism or whatever else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you jumped the gun a bit, but thats life. I would suggest we don't need the container - christian islamic studies scholars can sit right along side muslim islamic studies scholars, and people who we don't know just remain in the parent. ahhh - but then we run into a WP:EGRS problem - since we shouldn't ghettoize by religion, which means now everyone would have to be bubbled up to the parent, because this one should be non-diffusing. argh. We risk another Filipacchi moment - e.g. "Are you saying Christian scholars aren't good enough to go in the fancy parent category??" Do only atheists or jedis get to be there? etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you all are missing the point. Being a Muslim, or not being adherent to Islam, does not inherently make your scholarly approach any different. If there needs to be a separate category for authors explicitly writing for a non-Islamic and/or Islamic standpoint, then that is completely fine by me. In fact this is the way it is handled on the Islamic studies by author (non-Muslim or academic) page I mentioned, which is better. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC
RENAME. The problem is classifying by the scholar's religious affiliation rather than by the scholar's choice of scholarly tradition. There is a long tradition of Islamic scholarship that accepts Islam as true and comments on Qur'an, hadith, sharia, etc. from that standpoint, using conventions that are unique to that tradition. There is also an initially Western (but now international) tradition of religious study with its own methods and conventions. These have been used in the study of many religions. Call it the modern academic tradition as opposed to the older Islamic tradition. A Muslim scholar can use traditional Islamic methods, OR, she or he can use modern academic methods. This contrast is not unique to Islam. Frex, there is a long tradition of Chinese studies of the Confucian canon, which is ALSO studied by modern academics, from a different perspective. Ditto studies of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on. Typically, scholars from different traditions will work under the aegis of different institutions. The modern academics are often based in Western-style universities (now found all over the globe); traditionalists will teach in madrassas, seminaries, yeshivas, etc. (Independent scholars may not have university positions, but they have usually studied at university and interact with academics.) IMHO, it is important to distinguish between scholars, and scholarship, from different traditions, which is what the original categories try to do. We can change the names, but I don't think we should throw out the classification. Otherwise ... are you going to set up categories for every dang belief system? Sikh scholars of Islam? Soto Zen scholars of Islam? I meditate with the Diamond Sangha; if I were to publish, would you set up a category for Diamond Sangha scholars of Islam? Zora (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is more complex than that though. Daniel C. Peterson does not work from within the Muslim tradition, but he accepts it more than other scholars. On the other hand, some Muslim scholars will write differently for different audiences.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Christian Bible scholars (from many denominations) used to be united by their dismissal of the nasty academic critics, with their resolutely secular views. After more than a century of argument, there's much more of a gradient from academic neutrality to apologetics within Christianity itself. Probably Judaism as well, though I know little about that field. Muslim scholars are taking the first steps in such an accommodation. STILL, I think WP users would benefit from a hint that Al-Ghazali is not going to offer the same sort of analysis as, say, Patricia Crone. How would you suggest we sort scholars into traditions? Zora (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2013 (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:Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? There was specific support in the old discussion to delete this trail category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate Category:Railway stations on the Cleveland Way since I'm not sure what should be done with this one. Is that category a good way to categorize those rail stations? If it is, then keeping may be proper. If not, this should also be nominated for deletion or maybe upmerging. This sub category contains most of the content for the category nominated for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being on a trail is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a place like Filey. Nor would being on a specific road, railway etc. Being a coastal place (for example) is OK as that's more permanent and isn't going to lead to articles being in lots of "on <route>" categories. I would delete the stations category (a separate CFD might be best) as well as (1) being "with access to" the walking route is subjective - it depends how far off the route you're prepared to walk and (2) categorizing stations by what they are near is a recipe for horrendous clutter on station articles (stations near the sea, near a park...). Note also that once Category:Cleveland Way has been deleted the stations subcategory doesn't have a suitable parent. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – being on a footpath is an incidental property of a place (and a railway station being somewhere near a footpath is hardly worth noting at all). Oculi (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list of villages -- and especially of train stations -- along the Cleveland Way is useful for people planning to walk this footpath, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and being on the footpath does not appear to be a defining characteristic for the villages and train stations. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2013 (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: OVERCAT/SMALLCAT. Duchovny has only directed one film, so it doesn't need its own category. MSJapan (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Oculi and WP:FILMCAT which states "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article." LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the arguments already presented above, I just wanted to add that the whole point of Category:Films by director is that it's meant to be a comprehensive tree that is at least in principle inclusive of all films, and not just films that were made by directors who happen to have made a specific minimum number of films. Not all of the possible director categories actually exist yet, I grant you, but no film is ever allowed to be permanently barred from that tree just on the basis of whether its director made "enough" films or not. So even if Duchovny never directs another film (which he very much still could), even just one is sufficient in this particular tree. Keep per Oculi, Lugnuts and WP:FILMCAT. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this cat tree mirrors the album by artist tree for the music project. Same rationale. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption and WP:FILMCAT. "Films by director" is one of those category trees where categories even with only one entry are appropriate, as the tree is broad, well-established, and intended to be wholly comprehensive of the subject categorised. - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:54, 23 September 2013 (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:Merge. Both categories state that the main article for the category is Jubaland, and that article states that Azania is an alternative name for Jubaland. -- Zyxw (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Our article on Azenia discusses some other things as well, but it seems that these other uses are not what is intended here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2013 (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, except for the one that was withdrawn. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC. This is far too fine a diffusion for this sort of category; no other nation is subcategorised this way, and we do not subcategorise aircraft by production status or helicopters by intersection of pilot status+number of rotors (the last two). Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of China is, even after the proposed mergers, not overlarge to the point where subcategorisation is necessary; if there is to be subcategorisation of UAV-by-country categories this needs to be discussed at the project level. (Note that the subcategories for helicopters, blimps, and target drones are notWP:OC and are thus not included in this discussion). - The BushrangerOne ping only 10:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response: As evidenced by the List of unmanned aerial vehicles of the People's Republic of China, there are literally hundreds (and rapidly expanding) of these vehicles. There seems to be a need for clear subcategories. The subcategories selected were based on already-established types of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), including micro air vehicles (MAVs) and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs). While some of these categories may currently have only a few articles included, I anticipate that the numbers will grow over time as not only China but other countries as well jump into this rapidly expanding field. Thanks for your input and further thoughts on this. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for providing a calm and reasonable reply; it's honestly refreshing. - The BushrangerOne ping only 10:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further response: My basic sense is that there is a need for at least some of these subcategories. For one, I think it is helpful to separate out explicitly military UAVs from others. For another, unmanned MAVs (model airplane size) seem markedly different than full-sized UAVs. But I am certainly open to suggestions. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all or most. The "micro" category may be well enough populated to keep. Most of the rest are not. I think that all helicopters should be in one category. With fixed wing aircraft, there is liable to be a POV-issue over the boundary between micro and full-size, but I expect that someone can come up with a robust boundary, for example whehter it would be large enough to carry a man: this may not be the right test, since they are unmanned. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 'micro', 'military', and 'helicopters', at least. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge: I have no problem merging UCAVs into 'military' UAVs; and merging both quadcopters and multirotor UAVs into 'helicopters'. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Standard categories for these types of vehicles already exist - based on operating altitude (low, medium and high) and endurance (short, medium and long) - so a HALE RPV would represent "High Altitude Long Endurance" and MALE - Medium altitude, long endurance etc. Worth considering before merging all of them I think! Farawayman (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't subdivide those by country, though; same as Category:Interceptor aircraft (and there's some controversy over whether those sorts of categories should even exist vis-a-vis lists!). - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After considering that it seems the "military" one is appropriate so I've removed it from the nomination. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It seems likely that, after a little deliberation, many of these articles will not meet WP:N and prob have to be merged. I looked at around ten random pages, most of which have primary refs only to the home companies. Seems secondary are even lacking, let alone tertiary. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2013 (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: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. An eponymous category is only justified when there's a lot of related content that needs to be pooled (e.g. Category:The Beatles or Category:The Rolling Stones), and not for every individual musical act that happens to exist — there's nothing in this category that isn't already linked via her head article and {{Lorde}} anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. Unneeded as navigation is just a simple from Lorde and each of the subcats here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:09, 2 October 2013 (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:Blue Ribbon schools in the United States[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.
Nominators rationale: That a school has won this award (possibly decades ago) is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the school. Most of the articles in the category don't mention the award in their lead and many do not mention it at all (examples). There are better ways to categorize schools (e.g. by type and by location). Note: There is no need for these categories to be listified as (if it's necessary for WP to contain such a list) it should be created from the list on the official website (which is linked from the main article) rather than from the current category contents (which only contain a small fraction of the 5000+ schools that have received the award). For info: An example of a previous CFD that removed schools from an awards category is this. DexDor (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- yet another unnecessary award category. Listify if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As the highest award presented by the United States Department of Education awarded to primary and secondary schools, there is no other award more worth keeping. I'm sure that anyone could find an article that does not most prominently mention receipt of the award, but I'm hard pressed to think of a school that's won the award that doesn't trumpet the achievement on its website, its stationery or on banners outside the school, in light of the real-world fact that this is recognized widely in the field of American education. That state-level awards have been deleted is not relevant here, given that this is the most distinguished national recognition, and the utter speciousness of an argument that categorizing schools by type and location precludes any other form of categorization is not even worth rebutting. Alansohn (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to one of your points - A school might trumpet having received this award on banners etc (though would they really do that decades after winning the award?). I sometimes pass through villages that display a sign saying something like "Fooshire In Bloom - Small Villages Category 1987 - Runner Up"([1]) and I don't think that's a defining characteristic of the village. I.e. that an organization chooses to trumpet something about itself doesn't necessarily mean it is a good characteristic for categorization in an encyclopedia. DexDor (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alanasohn makes a very good argument for keeping the categories, but his case is undermined by the fact that the head article says "During its first 25 years of existence, the Blue Ribbon Schools Award was granted approximately 5,600 times, recognizing 5,200 different schools" and "More than 133,000 ... schools ... are eligible for the award". That's an average of 208 awards per year, which is a fairly wide spread, and 3.9% of eligible schools have won the award at least once. That's too widespread to be WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have long questioned the importance of the Blue Ribbon school designation. Since it is so common and only a one time thing and there is no requirement that the criteria needs to be maintained is this designation worth more then a mention in the school article? If anything, this award is a perfect example of why we should not make an exception to common sense for national level awards. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem here is the award recognizes that the school meets certain criteria at a given time. However 20 years later the school could be the exact opposite. Or a school could get this award that 20 years ago was the worst school around. Institutions are even worse to categorize by award than people, since the institution lasts much longer than the period the award is for. These awards are immediate awards, yet they would accrue for all time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This might be a topic for a list (or set of state-specific lists), but having once received this one-time recognition is hardly a defining characteristic for a school. Other !voters have made some very good observations about the topic. --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2013 (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: I don't see any/much difference in meaning between "essays giving advice" and "guidance essays" (if there is a significant difference perhaps someone could explain it on the category pages and link them to each other then I'd happily withdraw this CFD). The reason I've suggested merging in this direction is that there's a template that adds the "guidance" category to pages (both categories were created in early 2010 and contain 100+ essays). DexDor (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2013 (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.
Delete – a village will be on numerous trails, roads, bus routes, railway lines etc, each of which is incidental rather than defining. Oculi (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both -- The villages one is essentially a performance (being on trail) by performer (village) category. The other has no content except the main article and that sub-cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, for the same reasons I gave above for deleting the Cleveland Way categories. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a modern walking trail. It is not defining to the villages involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2013 (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 Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)