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: While a quite limited number of recent, local sources seem to dub the movement "Localism", this supposedly "newly emerging" movement bears almost nothing in common with Localism, basically constituting good old separatism. The ethnolinguistic background of Catalonian, Basque or Kurdish separatism, or the religious background of the Northern Ireland conflict may be missing, but quite much like, say, Scottish separatism, the movement consists of the typically wide spectrum between nationalist/secessionist and regionalist/pro-democracy tendencies. While the current main article Localism in Hong Kong gathers lots of sources on the movement's historic background, subsuming all of this under the name of a recently redubbed movement, the latest spin of the Hong Kong independence movement to avoid persecution by the Chinese government, would be ahistoric. At the same time, the article doesn't prove extraordinary significance of the term "localism" or "localist". While "separatism" seems to be the term international media tends to use (see Google), we might want to follow the longstanding article Hong Kong independence movement. PanchoS (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to PanchoS (and hoping I've understood his point), in the Hong Kong context, localism is broad-amorphous cultural, independence is narrowly-focused political. There are huge numbers of Hongkongers today who deplore the northern tourist/retail/property/language invasion who would not countenance for a moment leaving Chinese sovereignty. Only a very small number of Hongkongers support independence and the reasons are in significant respects different, e.g. freedom of speech, democracy. Again, loads of people here who couldn't give two hoots for democracy get het up about overcrowding on the subway (due to mainland tourist pressures). Obviously, some of the cultural factors into the political but it belies a good local understanding to consider the two as one. We need two pages for these two subjects, with an appropriate nod to localism in the independence page but not vice versa. sirlanz Sirlanz 02:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I must add that it is a highly-politicised CCP-driven message to brand all forms of cultural localism as calls for independence because Party acolytes expect fervent loyalty to Beijing from all. Lumping localism into independence is a Party propaganda mission and WP must not serve that purpose. sirlanz Sirlanz 02:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the Localism category page describes it as all about Libertarianism. This is completely off-track. The localism movement is not a principled one; it is energised by parochial matters such as overcrowding, disappearance of locally-flavoured retail, shortage of some retail commodities (baby formula milk-powder), etc., it simply has no nexus with libertarianism whatsoever. I tried to edit the page to fix this complete misnomer but could not for some reason. sirlanz Sirlanz 02:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the Localism in Hong Kong page critically fails to make the distinction between "hands off Hong Kong, recognise the two systems part of the Basic Law and respect Hong Kong's promised high degree of automomy" with calls for independence, and consequently has a load of material which simply does not belong there but should be moved to the Hong Kong independence movement page. sirlanz Sirlanz 02:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Localism in Hong Kong refers to the broad movement of prioritising Hong Kong (over other parts of the sovereign state that governs it) in public affairs. The independence movement campaigns specifically for the de jure separation of Hong Kong, which is only a small subset of localists in terms of numbers. I'd expect Category:Hong Kong independence movement to be a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Localism in Hong Kong. Deryck C. 12:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The objective seems to be to preserve the autonomy of Hong Kong, guaranteed by the Basic Law, not to create an independent state. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2016 (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: Another silly category - articles should be categorized by their topic, not by the fact that their title is terminology. What makes it even worse is that subcats (e.g. Category:War crimes) are being placed in this category (afaics, on the basis that the category title is terminology) so we have (via those subcats) thousands of biographies in this category. DexDor(talk) 22:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, i.e. selectively merge content that is not already in the tree of Category:Warfare. This category and most other terminology categories don't collect articles about terminology. It would be a different issue if we would have articles like World War II terminology, Warfare terminology of the United States and the like, but we don't have that. If not merged, then at least subcats should be removed from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples don't belong in either terminology category - they are articles about concepts, not articles (specifically) about terminology (i.e. language). DexDor(talk) 23:16, 2 March 2016 (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: Just two articles, with the main (stub) article Secular religion being more a fork of Political religion than anything else. Also, while the distinct concept of a "Secular religion" exists, it is easily confused with various secular approaches to religion, and thus not overly appropriate as a category. PanchoS (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Good point. The main article Secular religion is not a CfD matter. I might want to withdraw my nomination now, though my problem with the term's ambiguuity (as a category) remains. --PanchoS (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and also I don't know any other later examples similar to the ones I added. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the underdeveloped article on "secular religion", this a term used for systems of belief which do not actually involve a deity. The examples in the article are capitalism, communism, and Nazism. I am far from certain that they should be seen as religions at all. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete however one wants to term a worldview (religion, mythology, capitalism, communism, secularism, whatever) it stands to reason that each is accorded its own category, rather than a category for "not elsewhere categorized -isms and -ologies" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2016 (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:Foreign involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict[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.
We already have several of those categories, e.g. Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. If it is really a problem to have categories like these, they'd better be nominated together. But honestly I don't get it yet why it would be a problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - generally there is no problem with "Foreign involvement in <Foo war>" cats, but this one doesn't include any relevant article (Foreign involvement of <foo>). If there is no article, there should be no category.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on that a bit? Aren't the articles about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Aren't they about foreign involvement? And does that really apply to all 17 articles? And what about the three subcats? Why not suggest to purge or merge instead of delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit disappointed about the vagueness of this discussion. Note that a plain deletion is really not an option, because that would make the articles of this category disappear from the tree of Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict which they definitely belong in. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Good Olfactory. Target should be deleted. @UU: Please get accustomed to our common practise in categorization before moving around more categories. Thanks, --PanchoS (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just one entry. Also upmerge category to Category Mayors of places in Kentucky. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Upmerge per nom. I see almost no potential for growth as mayors of such small cities are normally non-notable. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 12:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge For Now With no objection to recreating if the category can grow to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Limited potential for growth. AusLondonder (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2016 (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:reverse merge. Since both Suriname and Surinamese are being used as adjective in the category tree, the oldest category prevails. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2016 (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: What is a "conservatist" – a rather uncommon term – other than a "conservative"? If synonymous, then it is a recreation of a category tree Category:Conservatives by nationality that was deleted following a 2010 CfD consensus. If it's not synonymous, then a clear definition is missing. Anyway, this recently created category contains two Hong Kong politicians, a social democrat and a liberal, with both articles not even mentioning any connection to conservatism. If the category gets deleted, Template:Cathead Conservatists by nationality (with no remaining transclusions) should be deleted as well. PanchoS (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I suspect that this ought to have been Category:Conservatives in Hong Kong as another parent is Category:Conservatism in Hong Kong. However, classifying a person as a conservative (except where there is a party so called, as in UK) depends on the editor's POV, which does not make a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Hong Kong pro-Beijing politicians". Both the WD link and the members of this category show that the category corresponds to the "pro-Beijing camp". The political description "conservative" / "conservatist" is seldom used in Hong Kong. Deryck C. 13:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept delete and diffuse (2nd choice) too. Strong oppose current title as the current category name is WP:ORand there are no other "FOOian conservatists" categories. Weak oppose "Hong Kong establishmentarians" (3rd choice) because it is not used in English-language political discourse in Hong Kong either and "establishmentarian" typically refers to church-state establishment. Oppose "Hong Kong conservatives" per Peterkingiron. Deryck C. 23:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Edited Deryck C. 12:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Hong Kong establishmentarians". This term can be seen on Chinese Wikipedia, and has the meaning of "pan-establishment politicians". UU (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For reaching consensus, I support renaming to "Category:Hong Kong pro-Beijing politicians". UU (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Hong Kong conservatives". It was created based on ideology and they all fit in the category of conservatism in Hong Kong. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently no consensus on how to label these politicians. Since everyone agrees that the category shouldn't be kept under its current name, presumably the best action in the end is to merge the category to Category:Hong Kong politicians by party. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. During this discussion, the creator of the nominated category (User:UU) emptied it and redirected it to the new Category:Hong Kong conservatists. Whatever outcome results should be applied to the new category, since the category was appropriately tagged and the creator was aware of and participated in this discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:55, 14 March 2016 (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.
Relisted at 2016 APR 8 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
