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.
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
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.
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
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
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 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
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.
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
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... -
jc3722:02, 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
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.
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
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... -
jc3722:02, 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
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.
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
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.
'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. -
jc3722:02, 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
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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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.--
TM04:49, 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
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.
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 Serdechny12:39, 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. -
jc3722:02, 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
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.
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
Delete -- a pointless cat-redirect. A user adding it to his page would do better to be told at once that he has a non-existent catgory, rather than adding a redirected one.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:02, 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
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 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
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.
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).
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.
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 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
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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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 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
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 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
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.
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.
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
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. -
jc3722:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
TM00:02, 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
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
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.--
TM18:03, 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.--
TM23:25, 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
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
dozensofexamplesofmedia 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.--
TM05:06, 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
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 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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 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
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.
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
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... -
jc3722:02, 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
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.
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
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... -
jc3722:02, 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
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.
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
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.
'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. -
jc3722:02, 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
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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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.--
TM04:49, 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
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.
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 Serdechny12:39, 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. -
jc3722:02, 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
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.
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
Delete -- a pointless cat-redirect. A user adding it to his page would do better to be told at once that he has a non-existent catgory, rather than adding a redirected one.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:02, 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
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 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
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.
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).
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.
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 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
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 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
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.
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
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
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.
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 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
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 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
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.
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.
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
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. -
jc3722:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
TM00:02, 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
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
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.--
TM18:03, 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.--
TM23:25, 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
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
dozensofexamplesofmedia 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.--
TM05:06, 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
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 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
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.
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
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.