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: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]
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]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I had proposed this as a speedy rename. The text in the category was moved to Central Nevada Desert since that is what it was claiming to be. Since then, someone has clarified this by changing the new article to a redirect to Central Nevada Desert Basins. So if that redirect is correct, the contents of this category are not needed since they are not about basins. If kept, rename to Category:Central Nevada desert basins. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, absurd characteristic to categorize users by. Note that this is not vandalism, as it's part of the {{User large cock}} template. Whether that userbox is inappropriate or not I'll leave to others with experience in that area. — ξxplicit 21:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad humour. Misuse of categorisation. Category membership joined unintentionally. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massive delete - Per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've got a raging clue that the template should be userfied. VegaDark (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template should be deleted as well. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These users often have a different perspective on many things, for example, round vs. oval toilet design preference, brand of condom, or most comfortable type of underwear. Zaphraud (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no real reason to remove this. I have found that articles writen, in part, by those with large cocks are better, possibly because of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.203.28 (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why not, really? If people want to tell us they have large cocks, let 'em. Let 'em do it in style. Flyingfeck (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established consensus that "Wikipedian" categories are only for groupings which specifically serve the purpose of facilitating collaboration on encyclopedic subjects. Also unverifiable in the absence of reliable sources attesting to the cock size of its members. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. This does nothing to serve the purpose of facilitating collaboration on an encyclopedia. "Round vs. oval toilet design preference, brand of condom, or most comfortable type of underwear" etc. are not what I would call encyclopedic issues in need of collaboration among Wikipedians. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete, does not serve any useful purpose. sonia♫ 10:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for God sake this is an encyclopedia... Adrian (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale - Delete - According to our Wiktionary definition, a curmudgeon is "An ill-tempered (and frequently old) person full of stubborn ideas or opinions.". This is an unencyclopedic category that can't possibly be used for collaboration. It does not help the encyclopedia in any foreseeable way to group such users together in a category. VegaDark (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a benefit from allowing wikipedians to associate according to their challenges, for mutual support, and I reject the notion that "unencyclopedic" is an argument applicable to user-categories even if we ignore that "unencyclopedic" is specious. But delete, because, from experience, curmudgeons should be kept separated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further thinking, this category could have beneficial use (eg. for locating and studying the curmudgeons, to find ways to help support the community of editors), but it is hopelessly incomplete, and tracking people under this label without their consent would be a bad thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; charming self-descriptive word, but it doesn't deserve a whole category. sonia♫ 10:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated user category—for users who "in an ideal world, ... would favour an Absolute Theocratic Monarchy, much like the Papacy," although "this ... may not reflect this user's actual beliefs"—is vaguely defined and groups users on the basis of advocacy of a position unrelated to Wikipedia. The first problem (definition) stems from the fact that the second sentence of the userbox conflicts with the first sentence. The second problem (scope) is that grouping users by their support for a particular form of government—a characteristic which does not reflect any particular, identifiable interest, ability, skill, knowledge or understanding—does not help to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users. See here for precedents for deleting similar political ideology user categories. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot reasonably be used for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unintentional categorisations due to code in userbaxes seems to be a bad idea. Joining an association should require an active decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that Category:Absolutist Wikipedians seems to be identical to this category. If this is deleted, that one almost certainly should be as well, but that one isn't tagged. We could tag it now, add it to the discussion, and let the discussion run longer, or we can just nominate it. Note that it wouldn't be G4-able since it was created before this CfD concludes. VegaDark (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think nominate it separately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 29 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. The emptying was out of process, but the nominator has apologized, and the result would be to move the articles to the "University" categories anyhow. So no need for bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. (Just don't do it again, please.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale - Delete - Basically the colleges have been renamed and I have already created new categories to reflect this. I'm proposing their deletion so that they will be deleted within process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have emptied these out of process. By deleting the categories instead of moving them, we are losing information.--TM 03:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and overwrite edit history —La Pianista♫ ♪ 03:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support last contribution or do whatever is necessary to recover the out of process action. This may be a reverse merge from the new categories, followed by a rename back to it. The practice is that alumni of merged or renamed colleges are treated as alumni of the successor college. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Articles with excessive "see also" sections[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 מישהוOd Mishehu 08:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As you can see at the "Categories improperly up for speedy" section of this version of the Help Desk, the quotation marks in the category name are inappropriately placing some of the subcategories in CAT:CSD when they plainly shouldn't. Simply removing the quotation marks from this page's name will solve that problem. What's more, since this category is populated by a template, moving all of the articles will require a single edit. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "excessive" is POV/OR. Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most maintenance categories are POV and OR; you won't find a reliable source that says that an article (or its subject!) needs to be wikified or to have more references added, for example. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – this is a hidden maintenance category populated by {{Too many see alsos}} and is of course both POV and OR. Occuli (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The problem with special characters in page names in {{PAGESINCAT:{{PAGENAME}}}} is in the old bugzilla:16474 with no fix or signs of work. Renaming seems the best solution here. "excessive" in the hidden maintenance category is OK. Editors concerned about what normal readers see can suggest changes to the displayed {{Too many see alsos}} which currently says "may contain an excessive number of suggestions" (I would prefer "links" over "suggestions" but that's another matter). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename is fine, POV doesn't apply outside mainspace and I'm fairly certain that even "needs cleanup" is POV- our maintenance tags have to be. sonia♫ 10:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
