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 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 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.
Category:Ethnic enclaves in Australia
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 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
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
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
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.
Category:Yoruba farmers
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 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."
TM23:54, 22 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
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.--
TM17:12, 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
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.--
TM15:34, 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."--
TM15:54, 6 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?--
TM13:46, 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 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:Clube Ferroviário de Maputo players
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.
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
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
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:Exotic Revival
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 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.