Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

August 22

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Wikipedian authors of Good Articles

Category:Wikipedian authors of Good Articles to Category:Wikipedian authors of good articles

Rename - I initially proposed a speedy renaming of this category, but someone mentioned that "Good Articles" should be capitalized. This category stood out to me because Category:Wikipedian authors of featured articles, Category:Wikipedian authors of featured lists, and Category:Wikipedian authors of featured portals are not similarly capitalized. I will note that "good articles" is not capitalized at Wikipedia:Good articles, Wikipedia:What is a good article?, Wikipedia:Good article candidates, or most of the other project pages that address good articles, but I may withdraw my nomination after I see how the discussion goes. Cswrye 14:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To use what appears to be the standard English equivalent. David Kernow 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. David Kernow 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and move Provinces of Russia back to Oblasts of Russia too. I think the term is fairly well-known, and you'll find it in an any English dictionary as well as in Wikipedia (Oblast). Also, all of its subcategories and their main articles use oblast. ×Meegs 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if so, the plurals used are incorrect. Until I became interested in administrative (sub)divisions, I had never heard of either; so considering this is meant to be a general encyclopedia using English... Regards, David Kernow 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the individual articles are titled oblast (e.g. Volgograd Oblast); so long as that's the case, I think the list and categories should use the same term (with either oblasti or oblasts for the plural). If you are planning to rename all of the individual articles, then I'd be ok with it, but I'd suggest discussing that somewhere else first. ×Meegs 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it's standard practice to use oblast and krai -- ask User:Ezhiki. —Nightstallion (?) 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as I was unaware I was wandering into an area with consensus favo/uring non-English terms. Apologies! David Kernow 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand regional categories

After discussion at various NZ-related Wikispace pages, I propose bringing several New Zealand regional categories into line with the true regions which they are meant to represent:

Category:Bay of Plenty-East Coast. Delete, and split contents between Category:Bay of Plenty and Category:Gisborne Region
Category:Nelson, New Zealand. Delete, and split contents between Category:Tasman Region and Category:Nelson Region (the city for which the category is currently named is almost coterminous with the region, but not quite).

No objection to adding the word "Region" to the BoP category, although there is less need to disambiguate in that case than in the other cases. Grutness...wha? 10:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and split per nom. I would prefer to add "Region" to the BoP category name, for consistency and clarity, but as you say it doesn't make much real difference. -- Avenue 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hackers by nationality

Delete with all subcategories. Same reasons as for Category:Hackers - national categories are as much ambiguos and controversial as original category. If we don't delete them, someone soon recreates main category following red link generated by {{Fooian fooers}} (very hackish name for a template, BTW). If we keep these, there's no point in deleting Category:Hackers... A.J. 09:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No conviencing arguments. -- Szvest 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign[reply]
Delete or rename. "Hacker" is a controversial - possibly even libellous - term (although I accept that it has innocent origins). Category:Hackers has been deleted, so it makes no sense to keep Category:Hackers by nationality. --kingboyk 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek Diaspora Royalty

Delete. Initially I was going to put this up for speedy renaming to remove the incorrect capitals, but looking at the contents it is a weird sort of ethnic category that includes the likes of Lady Louise Windsor and several members of the Yugoslav royal family on ancestral grounds. Ethnic-ancestral categorisation is totally inappropriate for European royals because most of them have a mixture of bloodlines from all over the continent. For instance every British royal for the last three hundred years could be placed in Category:German diaspora royalty but the only reason to do so would be to make some sort of political/nationalist point. Piccadilly 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 10:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies of England by head office location to Category:Companies of the United Kingdom by head office location

Merge, Another piece of tiresome Scottish nationalism from Mais Oui. The UK is a single economy, a company cannot be registered in England alone, and Category:Companies of England has already been deleted. Merge to Category:Companies of the United Kingdom by head office location. Carina22 08:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below) - it strikes me as rather bizarre to try to deny that England has any companies. England has one of the largest economies in the world, and many of the world's most important corporations. All of them are subject to English law, as opposed to Scots law or Northern Ireland law. Sorting by the location of their head offices seems to be a very logical way to categorise them. Please note that this cat is made up of subcategories: that Liverpool, Bristol, London etc. are all located in England is surely beyond doubt (have a look in an atlas). Further, the nominator's opening sentence is a breach of WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." I would certainly not describe myself as a supporter of "Scottish nationalism"; and I consider myself to be an Anglophile. --Mais oui! 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- although companies are registered in either England and Wales or Scotland- company law is the same throughout Great Britain. Astrotrain 08:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. There are very important variations: for example in cases of liquidation. Besides, that is a subsidiary point: this category is a very important subcategory of Category:Organisations based in England. --Mais oui! 08:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Which in its original form as Category:English organisations was one of your categories, which you used to attempt to make the category system imply that there is no such thing as a British organisation, and it was nearly deleted. It has long been established that you have an underlying political agenda to minimise the prominence of the UK in the category system, but as the UK is an independent state and its constituent parts are not NPOV requires that the UK should take priority. Osomec 10:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Companies based in England by head office location so that it is simply an organisational category for the local "companies based in" categories or (second choice) delete. As usual Mais Oui is resorting to legalistic nit-picking. The UK operates as a single economy and businesses run on a commercial basis,. They are not law book exercises. For those who don't know, Mais Oui has been running a campaign to split up the UK categories in ways that don't reflect the reality that the UK is a single state for perhaps a year, and many of his categories have been deleted in the past. Osomec 10:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Companies based in England by head office location; and we should also rename all of the "Companies" categories to the standard "based in" phraseology applied to all other organisations. I am not going to rise to the childish baiting (eg. "... you used to attempt to... blah, blah"). Cut the personal hostility. --Mais oui! 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Category:Companies based in England by head office location or, better still, Category:Companies based in England (although they may still be sorted by head office location, I don't think we need that lengthy subtitle). We have Category:Companies based in Maine, why not a category for companies based in England? British companies are incorporated in England and Wales, or in Scotland, AFAIK (not sure about NI); Scotland has a seperate legal system and we're no more a single state than the USA is. --kingboyk 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia Sock Puppet Master

Category:Wikipedia Sock Puppet Master into Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts

Merge - These two categories appear to serve the same purpose. Cswrye 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional hypocrites

Delete - This category is completely subjective and can never truly be POV. Either way, I can't see how it would be useful Max Talk (add) 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This fictional character categories are actually quite objective. If possible, empty the cat of members who don't belong there, first. I find these categories useful when I'm researching fiction, but others may find them less than necessary. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Besides being subjective, it may be too broad since so many fictional characters have been hypocritical in some way or another. --Cswrye 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Wikipedia

Delete - From what I can tell, this category was created solely because of a userbox. It doesn't make much sense--every Wikipedian user page is going to be on Wikipedia, so why create a category for it? Cswrye 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --musicpvm 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've also nominated the template in question for deletion - Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_22. "This user is a member of Wikipedia"?! --kingboyk 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alleged and suspected Northern Irish terrorists

Delete. Half-pregnant category with one member. Terrorists aren't categorized as alleged or suspected. The article may even require deletion or merging. —Viriditas | Talk 04:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music celebrities with MySpace accounts

Delete, As I recall, we decided against these... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leave this to myspace. Osomec 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Osomec. --M @r ē ino 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't this been done before? --Cswrye 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 14#MySpace categories Crumbsucker 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bollywood films

Merge / Redirect into Category:Indian films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --musicpvm 06:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Cswrye 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]