Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 1 >

October 31[edit]

Category:Mustela[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: Merge and redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Mustela to Category:Weasels
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. The article on the genus Mustela is called "weasel". Ucucha 22:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then Redirect rather than rename. That way the taxonomists can find their articles as can us common folk. I suspect the reason there are the two categories is that there is discomfort with putting various stoats and ferrets into a weasels category. Taxonomically it's fine, but for the average reader it looks odd. I also observe that there is Category:Ferrets as a sub-category to both Mustela & Weasels, but there is no Category:Stoats. Does this need clarifying? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:28, 1 November 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:Procyonids[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Procyonids to Category:Procyonidae
Nominator's rationale: Main article is titled Procyonidae. Ucucha 22:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - If you look in Category:Carnivorans and Category:Mammals (this category's parentage), all of the categories are pleural, while the main articles are singular. The categories contain members of the group name. Using more common terms, all types of mammals are located in Category:Mammals, yet the main article is the singular Mammal. Almost all of the mammal subcategories are pleural and follow this same scheme. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Procyonidae is already plural. This proposed move is from an English plural form to the equivalent Latin plural form. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - where taxonomic categories are used, the correct Latin form should be used. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 1 November 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:Fur seals and sea lions[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 9. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fur seals and sea lions to Category:Eared seals
Nominator's rationale: Main article is titled eared seal. Ucucha 22:49, 31 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:Felids[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Felids to Category:Felidae
Nominator's rationale: Main article is titled Felidae. Ucucha 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - If you look in Category:Carnivorans and Category:Mammals (this category's parentage), all of the categories are pleural, while the main articles are singular. The categories contain members of the group name. Using more common terms, all types of mammals are located in Category:Mammals, yet the main article is the singular Mammal. Almost all of the mammal subcategories are pleural and follow this same scheme. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Felidae is already plural. This proposed move is from an English plural form to the equivalent Latin plural form. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - where taxonomic categories are used, the correct Latin form should be used. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Though there are obviously exceptions (including some successful renames listed on this page). I look over the subcats (and subcats of subcats of subcats) of Category:Mammals, and the english plural seems to be predominant in usage. This really should be discussed among those knowledgable about such things, like at a Wikiproject. I would guess that there is an WP:MoS related to this somewhere... - jc37 22:02, 9 November 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:Macropods[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 15. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Macropods to Category:Macropodidae
Nominator's rationale: To agree with the main article. Ucucha 22:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - If you look in Category:Diprotodonts and Category:Marsupials (this category's parentage), all of the categories are pleural, while the main articles are singular. The categories contain members of the group name. Using more common terms, all types of marsupials are located in Category:Marsupials, yet the main article is the singular Marsupial. Almost all of the marsupial subcategories are pleural and follow this same scheme. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Macropodidae is already plural. This proposed move is from an English plural form to the equivalent Latin plural form. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, note also that "macropod" is ambiguous; see Talk:Macropodidae#Requested move. Ucucha 11:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - where taxonomic categories are used, the correct Latin form should be used. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Though there are obviously exceptions (including some successful renames listed on this page). I look over the subcats (and subcats of subcats of subcats) of Category:Mammals, and the english plural seems to be predominant in usage. This really should be discussed among those knowledgable about such things, like at a Wikiproject. I would guess that there is an WP:MoS related to this somewhere... - jc37 22:02, 9 November 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:Fictional tasmanian devils[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 - could have been speedy, as a capitalization fix. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional tasmanian devils to Category:Fictional Tasmanian devils
Nominator's rationale: Capitalization (though with only two articles, I guess we could as well upmerge it). Ucucha 22:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as category creator. Clearly a capitalization error on my part. If left to my own devices, I'd speedy-rename this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to fix capitalization in title. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The main article does not use a single capitalization variant ("Tasmanian devil" - 75 instances; "Tasmanian Devil" - 50 instances). -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:38, 8 November 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:Tragulidae[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, retain old name as {{category redirect}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tragulidae to Category:Chevrotains
Nominator's rationale: To agree with the main article. Ucucha 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect rather than rename. That way the taxonomists can find their articles as can us common folk. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support - This one seems odd at first glance, due to how we categorise things. in technical terms, we're recategorising Category:Chevrotains (which doesn't currently exist) up one level past Category:Tragulidae to be categorised directly under Category:Even-toed ungulates (a category which seems to be a mixed bag of classification "levels", already). And this is, AFAICT, fairly common practice. - jc37 22:02, 9 November 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:Tayassuidae[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, retain old name as {{category redirect}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tayassuidae to Category:Peccaries
Nominator's rationale: To agree with main article; unambiguous and widely used common name. Ucucha 22:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect rather than rename. That way the taxonomists can find their articles as can us common folk. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match parent article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:42, 4 November 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:Federal buildings[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: delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Federal buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by shared naming feature. The category is defined as "government buildings named Federal Building or similar". The fact that they now or formerly were called "the _____ Federal Building" or similar is a trivial commonality. The applicable guideline is here. These should simply be categorized in the appropriate subcategory of Category:Buildings of the United States government. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per linked guideline; non-defining characteristic. jonkerz♠ 18:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Since when is the United States the sole "Federal" place in the world? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 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:United Football League Quarterbacks[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: merge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:United Football League Quarterbacks to Category:American football quarterbacks
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:National Football League quarterbacks and Category:American Football League quarterbacks were merged to Category:American football quarterbacks in this discussion. The same should be done for this category. These should be appropriately categorized under the proper team category in Category:United Football League (2009) players. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all league-position categories being merged into general position categories.--TM 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Must have missed that one in the QB merges.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, Mike, you did not. It was created today, along with many other categories probably heading for deletion. You may want to look at the contributions of the user because I've already nominated one and there seem to be many others which should be deleted.--TM 04:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I shall check it out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:16, 1 November 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 Polar bear swimmers[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: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Polar bear swimmers to Category:Wikipedian ice swimmers
Nominator's rationale: Per the main article Ice swimming. Alternatively, the category could be deleted, since the scope of any potential encyclopedic collaboration seems to be limited to one article only. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Collaboration potential limited to only one article, and the fact of being an ice swimmer does not necessarily make such users interested in improving the page on ice swimming. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why just one? The practice involves a whole bunch of health issues, physical conditioning, closely related cultural phenomena etc. weak keep as harmless (weak because I don't really care).East of Borschov

Creator´s comment: There are a lot of different topics to create and improve, for example: Ice triathlon and Ice swimming competitions, Traditions and customs related to ice swimming, List of famous ice swimmers, etc. But, considering that it´s only me, who will do it, and that this category is doomed to be one-man-theater, than it´s really better to delete it. -- George Serdechny 12:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per author and single membership. - Once upon a time, I might have joined you in the cat (and perhaps in the early morning dip) but alas, no longer. - jc37 22:02, 9 November 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 interested in Georgia-USA[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: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Georgia-USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category redirect with non-standard disambiguation style ("-USA"), unlikely to be used as a search term for the target page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 31 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 interested in Georgian culture[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 as nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in Georgian culture to Category:Wikipedians interested in the culture of Georgia (country)
Nominator's rationale: The current name follows the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in culture, but it is ambiguous. It should be renamed for consistency with Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of Georgia (country) and the main article, Culture of Georgia (country). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:49, 31 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 giving their support to PuntuEus[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: Delete - Straight-forward advocacy. Simply put: That's not what we're here for. A user page notice (such as a userbox - which apparently already exists) should be enough. - jc37 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians giving their support to PuntuEus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated user category—for users who "support the .eus domain for the Basque language and culture" (and the website PuntuEus.org)—groups users by advocacy of an issue that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Userboxes need not automatically include user categories, and grouping users by this characteristic, which does not reflect a particular, identifiable and encyclopedically-relevant interest, ability, skill, knowledge or understanding, does not help to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users, especially since the encyclopedic scope of the category is limited to one article (.eus redirects to Proposed top-level domain).
Editors interested in improving Wikipedia content related to Basque culture may be encouraged to categorize themselves in Category:Wikipedians interested in Basque culture (entirely different scope), which expresses a neutral interest and can support collaboration on many pages (see Category:Basque culture).
See here for precedents for deleting similar advocacy user categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:08, 31 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:Pacific-10 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament championship seasons[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 15. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pacific-10 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament championship seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary over-categorization. I'm assuming the creator of this wanted to mirror Category:NCAA men's basketball championship seasons and/or Category:National Invitation Tournament championship seasons, but this is way too specific and not relevant enough to warrant a category. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:59, 31 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:Spanish Civil War media[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: Reverse merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Spanish Civil War media to Category:Spanish Civil War by medium
Nominator's rationale: If there is supposed to be a difference between those two, I don't see it. The parent categories, Category:Wars by medium and Category:Media by war, also appear to be duplicates. No problem with merging in the other direction. Ucucha 20:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reverse merge; "Spanish Civil War media" is a more intuitive wording. Ucucha 21:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:22, 31 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:Australian saints[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: keep as part of the 'Saints by country' structure. Please initiate a new nomination to merge the subcategory, but note the existence of Category:Roman Catholic saints by country. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australian saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty, has 1 subcategory: Category:Australian Roman Catholic saints only has 1 article. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:50pm • 10:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – part of Category:Saints by country. It isn't empty (empty: no articles, no subcats with articles). This has a subcat with 1 article. (The category is not tagged.) Occuli (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge the subcategory into it. There is one Catholic saint and none of any other denomination, so that it is the denominational category that is the redundnat one. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the overall structure by country. Alansohn (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it part of the Category:Saints by country structure, but merge subcategory into it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:11, 4 November 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:Entrepreneurs in Greece[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: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Entrepreneurs in Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion, where it was decided to avoid the label "entrepreneur" in categorization. The single article in the category already is in Category:Oil and gas companies of Greece. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – an entrepreneur is a person, not a company. Occuli (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- entrepreneurs are probably categorised as "businesspeople", but the sole article is on a company; when this is removed it will be empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I'm the creator of the page! I subsequantly found out there are adequate other castegory pages for that content (e.g. "Greek businessmen", etc). -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 3 November 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:Moody Broadcasting Network[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Moody Broadcasting Network to Category:Moody Radio
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Name of network changed. azumanga (talk) 06:29, 31 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:Absolutist Wikipedians[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: Deelte. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Absolutist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I did not notice this userbox-populated category when I nominated Category:Absolute Theocratic Wikipedians (see CfD discussion), which was populated by the same userbox. However, I think that the same reasoning applies in both cases:

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) 04:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per same rationale as last discussion. VegaDark (talk) 07:48, 1 November 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.

Arabs in Israel[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. the weightiest arguments/concerns, were concerning WP:OC#CATGRS. And also the question of "What do they call themselves". (And also clarifying: what do secondary sources (which meet WP:V/WP:RS) call them?) If this hadn't been relisted once already, I might have relisted this for more discussion. So with that in mind, no prejudice against immediately renominating, though preferrably with a fresh nomination explanation, which hopefully more clearly addresses the WP:OC#CATGRS concerns, and answering the two questions I noted. - jc37 22:47, 9 November 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]
  • Oppose - "Arab footballers in Israel" does not mean the same thing as "Arab-Israeli footballers" or "Arab Citizens of Israel who are footballers" (which is what discussion you linked to would support. Ditto for the "Christians" category. "in Israel" is not the same as "Israeli" or "Israeli citizen". HupHollandHup (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly certain they aren't synonymous. sonia♫ 10:43, 26 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]
  • Rename per nom. HupHollandHup is being too pedantic. With Israel normally only accepting Jewish immigrants, it is unlikely that many Arabs of these types live in Israel proper without being citizens. Strictly he is right in saying that the categories are not the same, but the degree of non-intersection between the present category and the target must be small. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being Arab in Israel is akin to being African American in the United States and I don't think anyone would suggest we upmerge African American baseball players or African American Christians.--TM 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted above) -- Upmerge would be the worst of all outcomes. We need to find an acceptable designation for Israeli citizens who are not Jewish. "Arab-Israeli" might have been acceptable, but for nom's comment that it is rejected by them. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem is that there is a huge disconnect between mainstream western and Jewish Israeli sources (which almost exclusively refer to them as "Israeli Arabs" or "Arab Israeli's" and what most of them call themselves, which is "Arabs 48 or "Palestinian citizens of Israel". I don't mind the Arab citizens of Israel term because it is about as neutral as one can get in terms of naming on this issue and I think my nom is the best way to depoliticize the name, but I am open to other suggestions. We just cannot keep the politically-loaded status quo.--TM 23:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What would these people call themselves?—that seems to be the question we need to answer. It's been mentioned that some refer to themselves as "Palestinian citizens of Israel", or "48 Arabs", or "48 Palestinians", but would they ever combine these designations with "footballers" or "Christians" to define themselves and who they are? If not, the best solution may be just to upmerge to the parents per Occuli. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerging is a bad idea and the worst of all results. The Guardian has noted how this is a legitimate sub designation and I cannot see how merging solves any problems. Yes, we are going to have an inconvenient name, but destroying the category seems unwarranted. I think a breakdown Category:Israeli footballers by ethno-religious background (i.e. Category:Jewish footballers in Israel and Category:Arab footballers in Israel is the best result and not inappropriate given the context.--TM 04:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion it is; in my opinion it is not, unless someone can provide some evidence that these people join their ethnic/citizenship status and profession/religion in describing themselves. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of examples of media covering the Arab Christians in Israel and I just showed you a Guardian article about Arab footballers in Israel. There are many more if you care to google and see for yourself. Upmerging is essentially a call for deletion of this information and should be dealt with in a separate cfd.--TM 05:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you should be able to easily answer this question: how do they refer to themselves? I'm not talking about if and how the Guardian or anyone else identifies them—do they combine these features to define themselves, and if so—what terminology do they use? It doesn't require a separate CFD for me to express my opinion that upmerging might be the best option here. Once you open up a category for discussion, all options may be placed on the table. You can't limit the scope of the discussion just because you are the nominator. Besides, I wasn't the one who placed this option on the table first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 8 November 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[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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:47, 13 November 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 31 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:Watersheds of the Nevada-California border[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: merge to both.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of the Nevada-California border to both watershed categories
Propose merging Category:Watersheds of the Nevada-Utah border to both watershed categories (added 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC))
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to both watershed categories. The articles are about watersheds and not the borders. I fail to see the need to classify features like watersheds into categories for the states that they jointly border since this does not appear to be an aid to navigation for the average reader. How is this a defining feature that needs categorization? Maybe if we were writing a geography wiki that type of organization could make sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nom. This is overcategorization in my view. It's not important that these happen to be on borders. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_31&oldid=1138394544"