Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1



Category:People from Lebanon by city

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. After Midnight 0001 04:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * people from lebanon by city
 * Merge into Category:People by city in Lebanon, convention of Category:People by city. -- Prove It (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge - The two categories are clearly duplicates. The standard name should be used.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Sorry, I created the newer category, believing the original to be bad grammatically, however that appears to indeed be the convention. Actually, I still view it as grammatically inferior, but convention is convention. — George [ talk  ] 07:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge The convention is appropriate because not everyone in these categories is from the country where the city in question is located. That is some of them are expatriates with a significant connection with the city. Haddiscoe 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Highways in Simcoe County

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, empty  --Kbdank71 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Highways in Simcoe County to Category:Ontario provincial highways
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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: debate closed. This is presently under discussion on WP:DRV. There's no sense in two simultaneous divergent debates on the same topic.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional affluent characters

 * fictional affluent characters


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Addendum: The category creator removed "or appear to be". The creator's edit history shows that the individual participated in the previous CfD and therefore fully knew that this was a recreation. Doczilla 06:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy? Delete does changing a word to a synonym bypass the speedy-ability of deleting this recreation of deleted stuff? I hope not. In any event it ought to be deleted per nom & for the same reasons as its predecessor. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - The inclusion criteria are too subjective, as editors will need to use their own judgment to determine whether characters have enough wealth or material possessions to be characterized as "affluent". This is more or less a recreation of "wealthy fictional characters", and so it should be speedy deleted.  Note that the category's creator, User:Angie Y., was involved in the 12 Jun 2007 discussion.  It is likely that the user knew that the previous category was deleted and chose to use "affluent" in this new category in an attempt to avoid speedy deletion.  Nonetheless, the recreation of deleted content, even under a slightly different name, is still disruptive.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as disruptive as admins taking it upon themselves to delete without consensus, as was quite unarguably done in this instance. How can one have any confidence in Wikipedia's processes if this sort of thing is allowed to happen? Choalbaton 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per 12 Jun 2007 discussion. Addhoc 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On which the majority of the arguments were for retention. The tired old argument for deletion has  has been refuted in detail and to the satisfaction of many users. Craig.Scott 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as recreation. LeSnail 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the debate? Do you not see that the deletion was incorrect? Craig.Scott
 * Keep I don't know any other synonyms for "rich" and all these characters - and MORE - needs to be categorized in some form. This persecuation of this perfectly harmless category needs to STOP! Angie Y. 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Category:Fictional wealthy characters. The closure of the last discussion was a clear cut defiance of the fact that there has been no consensus to delete in any of the last three discussions, indeed the last one was moving strongly towards keep. Choalbaton 21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as blatant recreation of deleted category, even though I was on the "losing side" last time. Objections to the outcome should be taken to WP:DRV not used as a justification for quickly recreating a category.  Bencherlite 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is on deletion review. If you want this material why don't you support it, when it is so obvious that there is no consensus for deletion? Craig.Scott 00:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Category:Fictional wealthy characters. The so-called outcome was patently not the real outcome. Haddiscoe 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True. And besides, what's wrong with having a category about fictional characters who are rich or livin' large? Nothing. ;) If it's confusing or as you say "subjective", just say so nicely and it'll be done. Angie Y. 00:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge into Category:Fictional wealthy characters when that is recreated, as it must be if consensus counts for anything. Craig.Scott 00:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a deliberate recreation in what appears to be a case of POINT. I have to wonder if Xdamr would have closed the May 15 2007 CfD differently is it had referenced the October 12 2006 one. Even with that, if one or more of the editors that want the cat kept felt the June 12 CfD was flawed, procedurally or otherwise, the route to fix it would have been a deletion review. None, however, were posted until after this recreation was CfD, it went straight to "Create an all but identical cat as a point." I'm tempted to add "Salt" to my recommendation, as well as suggesting someone, yea, nay, or admin, take all four CfD debates to DRV after this one closes so this can be nailed shut one way or the other. - J Greb 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above rationale. Pointless category. We can't keep it just because it's "harmless". Seraphim Whipp 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename The delete arguments have been dealt with comprehensively. If the suggestion that the criteria should be whether the wealth of the character is a feature of the book is applied, there is not a problem with subjectivity. Wimstead 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and rename to Category:Fictional wealthy characters It could hardly be plainer that this should not have been deleted, and therefore the current debate is on the wrong foot. It has not been demonstrated that this category should not exist, so it should exist, because it is a defining characterstic in many cases. AshbyJnr 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Category:Fictional wealthy characters The category does not violate NPOV, only misuse of it does. Misuse is easily corrected. Olborne 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as above. I think this should have been a "no consensus" before. Regardless, the calls for speedy anything are clearly unwarranted, as seen in the back and forth nature of this debate.--Mike Selinker 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as above. Fictional characters are often stereotypes, so a stereotyped rich character cannot be categorized adequately without such a category as this. It should be useful for more sophisticated characters. If it gets huge, perhaps it can be looked at again then, but on the other hand, why not just subdivide it? OrchWyn 02:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed that this has been deleted, and I have complained on the administrators noticeboard. Any further expressions of support for the category may be of use in getting this actions corrected. OrchWyn 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:African American Medal of Honor recipients

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * african american medal of honor recipients


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per WP:OC and WP:OC. Doczilla 21:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Doczilla. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Horvat Den 21:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Examples of false flag operations

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Examples of false flag operations to Category:False flag operations
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Support renaming As per GregorB. -Interested2 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename - The phrase "examples of" is unneeded. However, note that Category:False flag operations was previously deleted; see Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 22.  The previous category apparently suffered from POV problems, as anything that was claimed to be a false flag operation by any conspiracy theorist was placed in the category.  However, the current version of the category seems to be composed of incidents that are documented as actual false flag operations or articles on conspiracy theories claiming the existence of false flag operations.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Isn't every category full of "examples of" something? Craig.Scott 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Canada Censuses

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Censuses in Canada  --Kbdank71 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Canada Censuses to Category:Canadian censuses
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Speedy rename - This is the type of uncontroversial request that can be handled in the speedy renaming section. Dr. Submillimeter 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. It clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria, and I'm not sure myself whether "Canada" or "Canadian" is preferable, and invite comments from people with a better grasp of the grammatical nuances. The form I have proposed is not used by any of the three such categories for other states. Æthelwold 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps it should be Category:Censuses in Canada? Æthelwold 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Censuses in Canada and make that the convention for this type of category. Wimstead 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Censuses in Canada, which uses the best English of the suggestions made. Hawkestone 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Hull City A.F.C. fans

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was '''close and take it to WP:UCFD. There is currently a userbox associated with this category, and userboxen are strictly for wikipedians. Hence, UCFD.''' --Kbdank71 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Hull City A.F.C. fans to Category:Wikipedian Hull City A.F.C. fans
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete as overcategorization by opinion and per precedent, most recently Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 12. Bencherlite 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) see below. Bencherlite 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put it up for renaming, not deletion. Mattythewhite 17:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We were both going for the category at the same time: I started this section here (which is why my text proposing deletion is timed before your text proposing renaming) and I was completing the tagging on the category when I got an edit conflict, showing that you'd put it up for renaming. I was suggesting deletion as it was being used on mainspace articles; however, now that it's not, I'm happy for it to be renamed per Matty.  Bencherlite 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beve 18:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Close and take it to WP:UCFD Lugnuts 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Close and reopen at WP:UCFD - This is a discussion on a user category, and so it should be moved to WP:UCFD. Dr. Submillimeter 22:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep open and rename here As it presently stands this is not a user category. It should be renamed to make this clear. Haddiscoe 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Pages under Construction

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Michael Billington (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * pages under construction
 * Merge into Category:Articles in progress, or at least Rename to Category:Pages under construction. Aren't they all under construction, at least to some degree? -- Prove It (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete both All articles are under construction/in progress. Dominictimms 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Neutralitytalk 18:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per Dominictimms. Doczilla 21:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both I vaguely recall that these get assigned by a template that someone is doing some major rewrite, so the templates need to be axed or changed to stop adding cats. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - delete the cat if you want, but keep the corresponding temp: it is useful. Im talking articles being created. Like you know, when you start an article, sometimes you cant fin ish the main content in one go. I thought it was a good idea... Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should be renamed to Category:Pages being created. Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's normal for articles to be very incomplete to start with. Adding that to all of those articles wouldn't help in any way. Craig.Scott 00:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment isn't this populated by the templates from Category:Under-construction templates? 132.205.44.5 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All but one (recently created) were actually populating Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit, which is a more accurate and appropriate cat; I've changed it so no 'in use' templates populate Category:Pages under Construction, so it's empty and can be deleted, along with the parent Category:Articles in progress. Sohelpme 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Corporates under Criticism

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Michael Billington (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * corporates under criticism


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete - "Criticism" could encompass many different things from many different people (including customers, employees, stockholders, activist groups, news agencies, government officials). The all-inclusive nature of the category makes it worthless.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Corporates" is a nonexistant word. "Under Criticism" is inherently subjective POV, and singling out particular companies for this category is a violation of WP:NPOV.  I'm tempted to say that we could find criticism about every company if we tried hard enough.  /Blaxthos 13:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Corporates" is a word, but this category is NPOV with no objective standards for inclusion. -N 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dominictimms 17:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments above; irremediable POV stuff. Plus it's a stupid-sounding name. Pete Tillman 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete vaguely named and incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 21:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as an attack page. Not a defining characteristic.  POV and subjective.  Over classification. Duplicates Category:Companies since no company is without criticism.  Vegaswikian 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the case. Millions of companies are just pieces of paper in larger corporate structures that no-one outside the corporation has ever heard of or are dormant throughout their lives. Haddiscoe 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Millions of companies don't have Wikipedia articles. Any company notable enough to have a Wikipedia article will have its critics, and therefore this does duplicate Category:Companies.  Xtifr tälk 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't relevant to my criticism of Vegaswikian factually incorrect comment. Haddiscoe 00:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Any corporation can be criticized for any reason by practically any person. This category seems silly ++Arx Fortis 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete When does criticism start and stop? For major corporations never, so this is not a usable category and it can easily be read as disparaging, even if that is not the intention. Haddiscoe 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. OrchWyn 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is there a corporation anywhere that hasn't been criticised by someone, somewhere, for some real or imagined offense? (If there is, let me know, and I'll think of something to correct the situation!)   Zsero 02:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Dragonlance dragons

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge dragons as suggested, keep deities  --Kbdank71 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Dragonlance dragons to Category:Dragonlance characters
 * Suggest merging Category:Dragonlance deities to Category:Dragonlance characters
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Comment. I don't have any issue with this, but if it happens, these also need to merge into into their D&D parent categories, Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities and Category:Dungeons & Dragons dragons.--Mike Selinker 06:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge but with a caveat or two: Dragons to D&D Dragons, Dragonlance characters & Dragonlance creatures (the last may need to be merged into D7D creatures, but that's another discussion); Deities to D&D deities only, though I have reservations about this on. The D&D deities looks like it has multiple "Deities by campaign setting" subs, and a lot of the articles are catted to the parent and one or more subs. - J Greb 02:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, good point. OK, merge the dragons, but leave the deities alone.--Mike Selinker 09:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wikipedians with iPhones

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Close and move to WP:UCFD - non-admin close. Bduke 10:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * wikipedians with iphones


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Close and take it to WP:UCFD. Otto4711 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.