Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29[edit]

Category:Districts of East Timor (etc)[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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Districts of East Timor to Category:Municipalities of East Timor

Nominator's rationale: All of these entities were reclassified by the East Timor government in about 2015 from "Districts" to "Municipalities". So, eg, the official East Timor government Population and Housing Census 2015: Preliminary Results document refers to them as "Municipalities", not "Districts" (see pages 16-27 of that document). Similarly, the municipalities page of the East Timor government tourism website refers to them as "Municipalities". The following corresponding renamings should also take place:

Bahnfrend (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per the articles Aileu Municipality, Ainaro Municipality, Baucau Municipality, Bobonaro Municipality, Cova Lima Municipality, Dili Municipality, Ermera Municipality, Lautém Municipality, Liquiçá Municipality, Manatuto Municipality, Manufahi Municipality, Oecusse Municipality, Viqueque Municipality, which have been stable for some months. It will be seen that Oecusse is an exception; perhaps the nom can address this. Oculi (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response at the time I renamed the other articles, I didn't rename Oecusse, because it is one of two Special Administrative Regions of East Timor, and at that time I wasn't satisfied that it was a municipality as well. I have now looked more closely at the reliable sources, and am now satisfied that it is both. See, in particular, this law of 18 June 2014, which establishes the SAR and says (Article 7) that the SAR is subsidiary to the municipalities, and this subsequent law of 24 July 2014, which, in Article 24, refers to Oecusse as a "municipality". On that basis, I have made some amendments to the lede of the Oecusse article, and will also rename the article "Oecusse Municipality" if and after all of these categories are renamed. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2018 (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:Asian superheroes[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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus: though there may be consensus if a broader nomination in brought. The opposition was procedural. FWIW, the category was deleted 10 years ago. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Asian superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small cats that aren't clearly defined. Is it for characters from Asia or characters of Asian heritage? If it's the former, none of the pages even fit the category. If it's the latter, than the name is misleading. JDDJS (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose, unless it is re-listed with its sibling Category:African superheroes and their parent Category:Superheroes by continent. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose, plain deletion of the category will remove the articles from the tree of Category:Superheroes which is undesirable. I do not have a particular opinion about merging rather than deleting, if that was the intention. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2018 (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:Shia Islam in fiction[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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Order of Assassins in fiction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Shia Islam in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles in category, and it's questionable if they even belong here. JDDJS (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Order of Assassins in fiction, since Assassins is evidently what the current contents have in common, but "assassins in fiction" would be too ambiguous. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Order of Assassins in fiction per above. Orientls (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2018 (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:Islamic terrorism in fiction[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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Islamic terrorism in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category JDDJS (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

support A category with one entry that is probably being used as a WP:NPOV short-cut. Let's remove it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current member is a non-fiction book, so it should be removed. However, I have just added Category:Films about jihadism, which seems to be part of an established hierarchy Category:Works about jihadism. Rename to Category:Jihadism in fiction. – Fayenatic London 09:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a well-populated subcategory and there is scope for expansion. The main article is Islamic terrorism, a counterpart to Christian terrorism. Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added one. We have categories of films about 9-11 and films about terrorism which could be scoured for more entries. (I didn't check book or other media categories). No one has explained that Islamic terrorism is equal to Jihadism as suggested above, can someone provide some reliable sourcing for that contention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have a category Category:Novels about the September 11 attacks‎. Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2018 (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:Canadian journalists of Chinese descent[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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus: but it looks like there may be consensus if a broader discussion or nomination addresses this and similar categories. The opposition was largely procedural rather than substantive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Canadian journalists of Chinese descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Yet another triple intersection of nationality with occupation with ethnic descent. Although this is technically also a WP:SMALLCAT for just one entry, the problem here isn't that it can't be populated over the size threshold (it can) — but rather that it shouldn't be, because "nationality occupation of ethnicity descent" is a fundamentally non-WP:DEFINING characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

support It doesn't really seem like a category that provides anything valuable to Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as
1. unjustified deletion from multiple hierarchies, with no explanation for not merging to parents Category:Canadian people of Chinese descent & Category:Canadian writers of Asian descent;
2. picking out a single category from the surrounding hierarchy Category:Canadian people of Chinese descent by occupation, whose sibling Category:American people of Asian descent by occupation has 100-plus subcategories. Above that is Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation, which has siblings Category:British people by ethnicity and occupation, Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation & Category:Sri Lankan people by ethnic or national origin and occupation. If this 3-way intersection shouldn't be used, it needs a centralised discussion on the whole, rather than piecemeal attacks like this nomination. – Fayenatic London 09:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inclusion of such a category seems to imply that Canadian journalists vary their abilities, skills, or viewpoints by ethnic group; otherwise it's a non-notable intersection per WP:CATGRS. Anyone have some reliable sources up to the Sagan standard for that? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose per Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose (1) this has 5 members, which might be enough to keep (2) the appropriate course here is certain not to delete (which destroys potentially useful data) but to merge. I cannot simply vote to upmerge since not all the appropriate targets appear as parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2018 (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.