Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 22#Category:Fictional hypocrites

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} split as nominated (someone else needs to do this, I don't know what needs to go where) --Kbdank71 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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:

• {{cl|Bay of Plenty-East Coast}}. Delete, and split contents between {{cl|Bay of Plenty}} and {{cl|Gisborne Region}}
• {{cl|Nelson, New Zealand}}. Delete, and split contents between {{cl|Tasman Region}} and {{cl|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)

• 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)
• I tend to agree, though that would mean renaming about a dozen other categories - I picked the easier option. No objection to a group nomination of those, though. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't disagree with the proposal but Nelson as a place needs disambiguation. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:{{cl|Nelson Region, New Zealand}}, then? Where else in the world is there a Nelson Region, BTW? Grutness...wha? 06:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|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 {{tl|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)
• Keep - No conviencing arguments. -- Szvest 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete since :Category:Hackers was deleted. Crumbsucker 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Osomec 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as surely it will lead to POV inclusions. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with all subcategories. Hacker is a very controversial term and can have a wide range of meanings from expert programming to malicious computing. Many wikipedians cum hackers might find it objectionable to put Richard Stallman & Dennis Ritchie in the same category as cyber-criminals or script-kiddies. Root exploit 07:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete Tim! 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|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)
• Delete per nom. Osomec 10:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; unfocused per Picadilly and miscapitaliz/sed. David Kernow 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Astrotrain 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

:*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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Some users may have the moral authority to censure other users in this way, but you most certainly don't, especially when you include a personal attack in the same comment. Osomec 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• The U.S. is a single independent country and so is the UK. The U.S. state categories are head office location categories and do not subdivide companies by type, or should not do so. All UK companies of a given type should be in a single category and a category called :Category:Companies based in England would undermine that. Chicheley 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

*rename to :Category:Companies based in England by head office location. Do not abbreviate as that will widen the scope, which is undesirable. Chicheley 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into :Category:Companies of the United Kingdom by head office location. My above vote was intended as a compromise, but there seems to be a consensus and I am happy with it. Chicheley 11:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:Companies of the United Kingdom by head office location. Dividing British companies in this way is false. There is one main UK stock exchange and all the companies are included in the same FTSE indices. Nonomy 10:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:*There is one global market in finance. By your logic, we should be getting rid of every single subcategory of :Category:Companies by country. Lots of countries do not have their own stockmarket, but England does: the London Stock Exchange, which serves companies throughout the planet, not just UK ones. --Mais oui! 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:**Your refusal to accept that anything is "British" blinds you to reality. The LSE primarily serves all UK companies, including Scottish companies. It is the UK's stock market, not England's. Osomec 09:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Nonomy. Point about UK stock exchange is entirely valid. There are undoubtedly many companies founded in England which now have their head offices in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Isle of Man, etc. so to introduce a regional location concept is going to be self-defeating as well as inaccurate. Although I'm opposed to the use of "UK" in certain contexts, it is entirely appropriate to companies. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:*"... are undoubtedly many companies founded in England which now have their head offices in Scotland, Wales ..." I cannot think of a single example. Anyway, by that logic, we should be getting rid of every single subcategory of :Category:Companies by country. --Mais oui! 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge I am changing my vote to merge as this could be the thin end of the wedge. Most of the notable companies in Scotland (and the issue at hand is really Scotland, even though the category mentions England rather than Scotland) have the whole of the UK as their domestic market. The fact that the only user who has created English company categories is Scottish, even though there must be roughly ten times as many English users as Scottish users, shows that they are not appropriate. Osomec 13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:*Most of these companies have Europe and the entire globe as their "home market". This is just an extention of the raw personal hostility which oozes from this nomination. Effectively you are saying: "b..... off Jock" - that Scots have no business editing English topics here at Wikipedia. Cocking your macho leg on the territorial signpost. I consider such sentiments to be a foul breach of the letter and the spirit of WP:NPA. -- Mais oui! 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:**That's tosh. Look up the meaning of "home market" in an economics text book (and for that matter the proportion of revenue from the home market for a sample of FTSE companies). Also, see if you can find a single company on the London Stock Exchange that defines its domestic market as England only.Osomec 09:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::* I think the point he is making is that only you, a user with a distinct anti-British POV is creating these English categories, and that there is no demand from English Wikipedians to cut up the British categories. Astrotrain 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::*Further up the page a user called Mais oui! gave the sound advice that editors should "Cut the personal hostility". Choalbaton 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Company law for England and Wales is identical, so a company cannot be registered in England alone. As tough as it apparently is for some users to accept, the United Kingdom does in fact exist. Normalmouth 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- actually company law is the same throughout the UK. This differs from the United States, where company law varies from state to state, and companies chose to register in states which afford certain privelleges that suit their purposes (takeover protection is a classic example). Astrotrain 09:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom and various others. Choalbaton 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Yorkshire Phoenix 09:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly with name changed. This is for reasons mainly put forward by Mais oui!. Not that I encourage ad hominem arguments but for the sake of transparency I declare my interest as having been born in Scotland, of an English mother, and until recently a trainee solicitor in Scotland. It is correct to say that company law is for the most part the same (but not completely contra Normalmouth) throughout the U.K. but as Mais oui! points out, differences do exist as to, e.g. liquidation. The place of the head office also is relevant to the jurisdiction of the courts. It is simply quite wrong to say that a company is only "registered in the U.K." (although obviously Englsih companies can trade in Scotland). It is actually quite difficult to change your registered head office to another jurisdiction (i.e. England to Scotland or vice versa) (you need to change your memorandum of association, I think). I would think that the same compnay register operates for both England and Wales and if that is correct I would suggest re-naming the category accordingly.--Lucifer(sc) 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge The company law details outlined by Lucifer(sc) are of only marginal relevance. Wikipedia is for the general public so it operational realities which are key. Nathan Mercer 10:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:*Comment I accept that the company law aspects are of relative marginal relevance to matters such as market, etc., but of course it does not follow that the issue is completely pointless or academic, and as both categories can exist alongside each other quite rationally then what is the problem?--Lucifer(sc) 12:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge If I use the services of a company, it matters little whether the HQ is in Liverpool or Glasgow.--Runcorn 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus Tim! 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

:Category:Wikipedia Sock Puppet Master to :Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts

• Merge - These two categories appear to serve the same purpose. Cswrye 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per the discussion below. --Cswrye 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is One is supposed to be for the primary account, the other is supposed to be for listed sockpuppets of a user. As in, my socks that I use (in accordance with policy), are in Alternate Wikipedia accounts, while myself would be in the sock puppet master category. Unfortunatly, the former is not used very much, but that's no reason to merge them. Kevin_b_er 20:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment could we rename the former to :Category:Wikipedia Authorized Sock Puppet Master or :Category:Wikipedia Approved Sock Puppet Master? People might be hestitant to use the category because usually on Wiki and elsewhere on the internet, sock puppet is a pejorative. --M@rēino 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - How about renaming it to :Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts? It's not as glamorous a name, but it removes any ambiguity. --Cswrye 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• OK. --M@rēino 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete Tim! 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|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 [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Schwarzm|action=edit§ion=new}} (add)] 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete per nom. Osomec 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete per nom. Crumbsucker 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While the term "fictional" is something you can objectively verify, being a "hypocrite" is very subjective and open to debate. Dugwiki 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete Tim! 16:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|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)
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete no point in a category that basically includes every user. DrunkenSmurf 16:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, so all-inclusive as to be pointless. CameoAppearance 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A more useful category is :category:Wikipedians whose hobby is Wikipedia, which at least requires you to make it a personal preference rather than just a fact that you're here.--Mike Selinker 11:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I can certainly see the appeal of stating the obvious, an actual category really isn't necessary. -- Jade Keira 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Chili14 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} No consensus. Runcorn 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|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)
• Keep. Category hasn't been filled yet. There are plenty of alleged and/or suspected terrorists who are Northern Irish. The one article included notes that it has been alleged that the subject is a member of the IRA. --Mal 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A legal minefield. --kingboyk 08:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As long as there are proper citations, there shouldn't be any problems with libel. For example, I believe the one member of the category had, on its article, a citation from a newspaper which ran a story about the person in question. --Mal 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. Runcorn 12:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete Leave this to myspace. Osomec 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per Osomec. --M@rēino 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --kingboyk 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hasn't this been done before? --Cswrye 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 14#MySpace categories Crumbsucker 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mr. C.C. 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• This is speedy delete stuff. Pavel Vozenilek 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Keep. --Runcorn 17:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• Merge per nom. --musicpvm 06:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• What is the rationale for this merger? Bollywood films are a subset of Indian cinema. Is there a problem with the current arrangement? - EurekaLott 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• That is true, but :Category:Hindi-language films already exists. As Bollywood films are Indian Hindi-language films, it is redundant. Maybe the cat should be merged into :Category:Hindi-language films though. --musicpvm 03:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (I think). I'm not sure about this. In my mind, Bollywood films are generally over-the-top melodramas with singing and dancing, and specifically based out of Mumbai. Surely not all Indian films are like this, or from Mumbai. This nomination seems analagous to making :category:Britpop the same as :category:English music. But I could be wrong.--Mike Selinker 11:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm still not completely sure about it either. But after futher research I'm inclined to let it stay. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is a very high level of overlap with :Category:Hindi-language films, but they are not the same and the by-language category needs to exist. Choalbaton 21:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, There is really no distincition between :Category:Hindi-language films and :Category:Bollywood films. If both exist, they will contain all the same articles. :Category:Hollywood films does not exist, so neither should this. --musicpvm 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per user Mike Selniker. "Bollywood" is a distinctive style of filmmaking. 12.73.195.163 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful category. --kingboyk 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:Hindi-language films due to extensive overlap. Create :Category:Non-Bollywood Hindi-language films if there is anything to put in it. Calsicol 14:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)