The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I merged all the articles in this category to Bold As Love (book series) this category is now empty Melaen 22:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Is membership in a particular college club notable enough for a category? Gamaliel 19:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy rename. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalization error. I created Category:Time travel films to replace it before I remembered Categories can be renamed. I've moved all existing articles (as of this posting) from old to new category. Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
speedy -- Mkill 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I think the proposed new name reflects the original intention, and it is clearer. The ambiguity of the existing name has allowed Merton College Library to creep into the category.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The new name will match the parent category:Construction and civil engineering companies. It allows civil engineering companies which do not actually do construction work, such as ARUP, to be included, and it is helpful to have them all together. Carina22 17:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
One of these was in speedy before. Australian Football League is a proper noun but I don't see how "Australian rules football" can be a proper noun any more than are Canadian football or American football. The article is not capitalised and the parent category is category:Australian rules football. Most of the subcategories do not capitalise Rules or Football. We should in any case be inconsistent.
Rename all CalJW 14:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
"Destron" is the Japanese term for " Decepticon", so under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), we should use the term "Decepticon" throughout WP, and the category is redundant in any case.-- Sean| Bla ck 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Having both Category:Solid state physics and Category:Condensed matter physics is an unnecessary duplication which can only cause confusion. CMP is a widely accepted term which is replacing the older SSP. I propose that Category:Solid state physics be eliminated and that the articles be merged into Category:Condensed matter physics. Eventually the same merger should be completed with the articles condensed matter physics and solid state physics. Alison Chaiken 08:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
more or less a copy of Category:Islamic organizations created by the author of Bay Area Shiite-Muslims Association who I think is too new to understand our categorization system. Basically, it's a semantic difference between associations and organizations chosen by whoever creates the groups. Therefore it'd be futile for us to decide which is which. I think the user created it since association is in the title of the group whose page he has created. It therefore seems to me that there is no need to have both, and I would have deleted it but I suppose it doesn't really meet any CSD. gren グレン 07:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Far too vague to be useful. Gamaliel 05:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy rename -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category; obvious misspelling of Category:German government images. Andrew Levine 01:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Useless category that duplicates the purpose of Template:DYK archive nav. Not even used on all the archival pages. It makes more sense for Wikipedia:Recent additions to be in some Wikipedia category and the archive pages not to be in any category at all. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I merged all the articles in this category to Bold As Love (book series) this category is now empty Melaen 22:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Is membership in a particular college club notable enough for a category? Gamaliel 19:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy rename. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalization error. I created Category:Time travel films to replace it before I remembered Categories can be renamed. I've moved all existing articles (as of this posting) from old to new category. Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
speedy -- Mkill 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I think the proposed new name reflects the original intention, and it is clearer. The ambiguity of the existing name has allowed Merton College Library to creep into the category.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The new name will match the parent category:Construction and civil engineering companies. It allows civil engineering companies which do not actually do construction work, such as ARUP, to be included, and it is helpful to have them all together. Carina22 17:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
One of these was in speedy before. Australian Football League is a proper noun but I don't see how "Australian rules football" can be a proper noun any more than are Canadian football or American football. The article is not capitalised and the parent category is category:Australian rules football. Most of the subcategories do not capitalise Rules or Football. We should in any case be inconsistent.
Rename all CalJW 14:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
"Destron" is the Japanese term for " Decepticon", so under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), we should use the term "Decepticon" throughout WP, and the category is redundant in any case.-- Sean| Bla ck 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Having both Category:Solid state physics and Category:Condensed matter physics is an unnecessary duplication which can only cause confusion. CMP is a widely accepted term which is replacing the older SSP. I propose that Category:Solid state physics be eliminated and that the articles be merged into Category:Condensed matter physics. Eventually the same merger should be completed with the articles condensed matter physics and solid state physics. Alison Chaiken 08:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
more or less a copy of Category:Islamic organizations created by the author of Bay Area Shiite-Muslims Association who I think is too new to understand our categorization system. Basically, it's a semantic difference between associations and organizations chosen by whoever creates the groups. Therefore it'd be futile for us to decide which is which. I think the user created it since association is in the title of the group whose page he has created. It therefore seems to me that there is no need to have both, and I would have deleted it but I suppose it doesn't really meet any CSD. gren グレン 07:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Far too vague to be useful. Gamaliel 05:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy rename -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category; obvious misspelling of Category:German government images. Andrew Levine 01:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Useless category that duplicates the purpose of Template:DYK archive nav. Not even used on all the archival pages. It makes more sense for Wikipedia:Recent additions to be in some Wikipedia category and the archive pages not to be in any category at all. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply