< December 1 | December 3 > |
---|
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This category would, if fleshed out, largely duplicate the pre-existing and extensive Category:Christian rock. The only difference would be that the newly created Category:Christian rock musical groups wouldn't feature individual artists like Michael W. Smith or Amy Grant, and would only feature actual bands. I'm not seeing much of a value to that fine a granulation. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The only members of this are victims of the attack on the RMS Lusitania and they are already included in the easy-to-navigate Category:RMS Lusitania. Judging from the description of the category, its concept is already represented in other categories, e.g. Category:Murder victims. At a minimum, it should be more properly named. wknight94 19:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty and already exists as Category:Troop ships. Joshbaumgartner 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Both cover the same ground. Due to the diverse nature of research vessels, which can sometimes challenge conventional classification, vessels would seem to be the more appropriate name. Joshbaumgartner 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty. Another one that I would like to see return when we have some articles for it, but for now is barren. Joshbaumgartner 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty. I couldn't find any articles readily to populate this with, although it is a good category when such articles come up. Still, as an empty, it should be deleted until such time as we have articles for it. Joshbaumgartner 16:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Should be changed to match the parent Category:Churches in Israel and the convention of using the "in" form for man made objects. Rename Category:Churches in Jerusalem. CalJW 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty. If recreated with articles, probably better to name it Category:Coastal patrol vessels due to vagaries in names/classification for patrol ships, patrol craft, patrol boats, cutters, etc. Joshbaumgartner 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There are two variants of this, both created by the same user who then nominated one of them for speedy renaming, but neither complies with the capitalisation policy. Merge both Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists and Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists into a new category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. CalJW 14:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hello. I was the user that created the two almost identical categories. I had forgotten I had already created Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists when I created Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists so I listed the latter for deletion.It's probably best just to delete that and leave the version currently in use. Merging would not have much point - Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists is very basic and has some of the information from Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists, merging the two would have no difference to the new category and honeslty would not be at all productive. However, if it is decided that the name for the defunct Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists is better, recategorise the articles in Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists and delete that instead. No need for any merging, just use one and delete the other. Wikiwoohoo 17:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Summary as I rambled a lot in my message Don't merge the categories - no point. Use one of the categories and delete the other. Probably best to delete Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists as it the one I created after forgetting the existence of my earlier creation Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists. Therefore: Delete Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists and Keep Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists. Wikiwoohoo 17:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Move to category:BBC newsreaders and journalists as per CalJW; Wikiwoohoo's suggestion of just retaining one of the two existing categories isn't consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions: no word should be capitalized except for the acronym BBC, and the normative term is the one-word newsreader, not the two-word news reader. Bearcat 04:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This category seems to have become a parent category for other categories which may not be needed, and if they are should be better placed in a Category:African American sportspeople to match Category:American sportspeople. Hiding talk 12:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Given that over 80 percent of current NBA players are black, this category would include most of the NBA and would be similar to a "Category:White ice hockey players." There are no similar categories for black football or NHL, or categories in any of those sports divided by race. This is an unnecessary category. YHoshua 04:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be made for some fictional universe that User:UPC Starbase plans to write about. Its only content is itself and the name is completely unspecific. Delete. Kusma (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Also from the User:UPC Starbase fictional universe (whose notability is also not clear to me), has no useful content and an unspecific name. Delete. Kusma (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Category:Mountains of Texas already existed and follows naming convention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains; Category:Texas mountains is just a redirect and should be deleted. Mike Dillon 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Impossible to handle objectively - consensus from a website is not a validation of a TV show's quality. I suggest the category should be deleted as it is inherently biased. Barneyboo ( Talk) 00:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
< December 1 | December 3 > |
---|
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This category would, if fleshed out, largely duplicate the pre-existing and extensive Category:Christian rock. The only difference would be that the newly created Category:Christian rock musical groups wouldn't feature individual artists like Michael W. Smith or Amy Grant, and would only feature actual bands. I'm not seeing much of a value to that fine a granulation. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The only members of this are victims of the attack on the RMS Lusitania and they are already included in the easy-to-navigate Category:RMS Lusitania. Judging from the description of the category, its concept is already represented in other categories, e.g. Category:Murder victims. At a minimum, it should be more properly named. wknight94 19:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty and already exists as Category:Troop ships. Joshbaumgartner 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Both cover the same ground. Due to the diverse nature of research vessels, which can sometimes challenge conventional classification, vessels would seem to be the more appropriate name. Joshbaumgartner 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty. Another one that I would like to see return when we have some articles for it, but for now is barren. Joshbaumgartner 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty. I couldn't find any articles readily to populate this with, although it is a good category when such articles come up. Still, as an empty, it should be deleted until such time as we have articles for it. Joshbaumgartner 16:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Should be changed to match the parent Category:Churches in Israel and the convention of using the "in" form for man made objects. Rename Category:Churches in Jerusalem. CalJW 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty. If recreated with articles, probably better to name it Category:Coastal patrol vessels due to vagaries in names/classification for patrol ships, patrol craft, patrol boats, cutters, etc. Joshbaumgartner 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There are two variants of this, both created by the same user who then nominated one of them for speedy renaming, but neither complies with the capitalisation policy. Merge both Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists and Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists into a new category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. CalJW 14:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hello. I was the user that created the two almost identical categories. I had forgotten I had already created Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists when I created Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists so I listed the latter for deletion.It's probably best just to delete that and leave the version currently in use. Merging would not have much point - Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists is very basic and has some of the information from Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists, merging the two would have no difference to the new category and honeslty would not be at all productive. However, if it is decided that the name for the defunct Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists is better, recategorise the articles in Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists and delete that instead. No need for any merging, just use one and delete the other. Wikiwoohoo 17:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Summary as I rambled a lot in my message Don't merge the categories - no point. Use one of the categories and delete the other. Probably best to delete Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists as it the one I created after forgetting the existence of my earlier creation Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists. Therefore: Delete Category:BBC Newsreaders and Journalists and Keep Category:BBC News Readers and Journalists. Wikiwoohoo 17:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Move to category:BBC newsreaders and journalists as per CalJW; Wikiwoohoo's suggestion of just retaining one of the two existing categories isn't consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions: no word should be capitalized except for the acronym BBC, and the normative term is the one-word newsreader, not the two-word news reader. Bearcat 04:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This category seems to have become a parent category for other categories which may not be needed, and if they are should be better placed in a Category:African American sportspeople to match Category:American sportspeople. Hiding talk 12:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Given that over 80 percent of current NBA players are black, this category would include most of the NBA and would be similar to a "Category:White ice hockey players." There are no similar categories for black football or NHL, or categories in any of those sports divided by race. This is an unnecessary category. YHoshua 04:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be made for some fictional universe that User:UPC Starbase plans to write about. Its only content is itself and the name is completely unspecific. Delete. Kusma (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Also from the User:UPC Starbase fictional universe (whose notability is also not clear to me), has no useful content and an unspecific name. Delete. Kusma (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Category:Mountains of Texas already existed and follows naming convention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains; Category:Texas mountains is just a redirect and should be deleted. Mike Dillon 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Impossible to handle objectively - consensus from a website is not a validation of a TV show's quality. I suggest the category should be deleted as it is inherently biased. Barneyboo ( Talk) 00:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply