< October 20 October 22 >

October 21

Arabs in Israel

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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 31. Dana boomer (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arab-Israeli footballers to Category:Arab footballers in Israel
Propose renaming Category:Israeli Arab Christians to Category:Arab Christians in Israel
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match prior consensus on not using Arab Israeli or Israeli Arabs in category name. Arab Israeli or Israeli Arab is a political term rejected many Arabs in Israel. Some call themselves Palestinian citizens of Israel, some 48 Arabs, some 48 Palestinians etc. By renaming these categories, we are using a neutral term rather than a political one.TM 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what name do you propose? Because the current format is POV. Category:Arab citizens of Israel who are footballers?--TM 15:38, 26 October 2010 (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:Central Nevada desert

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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 31. Dana boomer (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Central Nevada desert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I had proposed this as a speedy rename. The text in the category was moved to Central Nevada Desert since that is what it was claiming to be. Since then, someone has clarified this by changing the new article to a redirect to Central Nevada Desert Basins. So if that redirect is correct, the contents of this category are not needed since they are not about basins. If kept, rename to Category:Central Nevada desert basins. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2010 (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:Wikipedians with large cocks

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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with large cocks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, absurd characteristic to categorize users by. Note that this is not vandalism, as it's part of the ((User large cock)) template. Whether that userbox is inappropriate or not I'll leave to others with experience in that area. — ξxplicit 21:03, 21 October 2010 (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:Wikipedian curmudgeons

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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian curmudgeons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • There could be a benefit from allowing wikipedians to associate according to their challenges, for mutual support, and I reject the notion that "unencyclopedic" is an argument applicable to user-categories even if we ignore that "unencyclopedic" is specious. But delete, because, from experience, curmudgeons should be kept separated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (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:Absolute Theocratic Wikipedians

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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Absolute Theocratic Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated user category—for users who "in an ideal world, ... would favour an Absolute Theocratic Monarchy, much like the Papacy," although "this ... may not reflect this user's actual beliefs"—is vaguely defined and groups users on the basis of advocacy of a position unrelated to Wikipedia. The first problem (definition) stems from the fact that the second sentence of the userbox conflicts with the first sentence. The second problem (scope) is that grouping users by their support for a particular form of government—a characteristic which does not reflect any particular, identifiable interest, ability, skill, knowledge or understanding—does not help to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users. See here for precedents for deleting similar political ideology user categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2010 (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.

Massachusetts State College categories

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: delete. The emptying was out of process, but the nominator has apologized, and the result would be to move the articles to the "University" categories anyhow. So no need for bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. (Just don't do it again, please.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have emptied these out of process. By deleting the categories instead of moving them, we are losing information.--TM 03:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2010 (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:Articles with excessive "see also" sections

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Articles with excessive "see also" sections to Category:Articles with excessive see also sections
Nominator's rationale: As you can see at the "Categories improperly up for speedy" section of this version of the Help Desk, the quotation marks in the category name are inappropriately placing some of the subcategories in CAT:CSD when they plainly shouldn't. Simply removing the quotation marks from this page's name will solve that problem. What's more, since this category is populated by a template, moving all of the articles will require a single edit. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (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.
More