The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Unhelpful category, with potential for controversy. Only one entry so far anyway.
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not sure if it should be renamed or deleted. At a minimum, I know that we don't want the word Notable in category names. But there is also only one person in the category, so I'm not sure it makes sense to keep it at all. TexasAndroid 22:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a duplicate of Category:Arabic words. The only entry is in both categories. TexasAndroid 22:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category.
TexasAndroid 22:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. (Another chemical one, so there may be hope for this one getting populated by someone with the correct knowledge.) TexasAndroid 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty Category. TexasAndroid 20:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Submitting these three linked categories. Even looking at the three articles contained in the first one, I cannot make any sense of these things. If anyone can make these things useful, more power to you. But if not, they look to me to simply be an unneeded mess. TexasAndroid 20:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty Category. TexasAndroid 18:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Reverse Merge from Category:Rai albums. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty Category.
TexasAndroid 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. No idea what this is/was about, so I don't feel 100% confident tossing it up for Speedy. So I'll put it here instead just in case there's some reason it should be salvaged. TexasAndroid 18:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Here we go again. One article, five categories created that have only the same one article as their only member. Sorry, but no. (Like the last similar one, I'm not submitting the article for deletion, only the categories.) TexasAndroid 17:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. Could be populated, but I haven't been able to find any other examples of "Film by Actor" categories. So, while theoretically usable, I don't see where it fits in the current category structure. TexasAndroid 16:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I created this category before realizing Category:Drama television series already exists. Mea culpa.
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category was created by user:Huaiwei and populated with subcategories previously under category:countries (see special:recentchangeslinked/category:political entities starting from Sept 8 or Huaiwei's edit history). She/he has a record of equating countries with sovereign states, and removing/relocating non-sovereign territories from lists or categories by countries. Relevant policy: WP:POINT. — Insta ntnood 11:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC) (modified 11:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC))
Notice to admins and all I would like to hereby appeal to admins and all members of wikipedia, that going by the above process, we appear to be moving dangerously away from the basic tenants behind which wikipedia strives to be a viable source of information on the internet, that of its neutral point of view. It is without saying, that we have had numerous disputes over "country lists" precisely because wikipedians sometimes cannot agree over the political status of various entities. I recognise the fact that we do have conflicting definitions of what a country means, although we cannot deny that the dominant view of the world's English speakers assumes it to refer to a politically-independent entity, and this it the backdrop behind which much disputes took place. If I may recall, we have had disputes in pages such as List of countries, Lists of country-related topics, List of city listings by country and List of countries that only border one other country, amongst many others.
Besides having conflicting views involving the addition or removal of entities, why not use a term which does not incite arguments over their political status besides their very existance? I would think this would cut down very much on future disputes. We may consider replacing out articles named "XXX by country" as "XXX by political entities" in future as well.-- Huaiwei 09:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No change Not a valid Cfd. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Stoned_and_toped is an article about a series of parties where kids get drunk and stoned, with no context to suggest that these are in any way notable. There's an 'artists impression' in the form of a movie poster, but no evidence that such a movie exists. Googling the term turns up very little. Unless anyway can assert that these parties are notably huge, this has to go. TheMadBaron 10:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge/Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This Italian region is known as Piedmont in English, and that is what the article itself is called, but the categories are inconsistent. category:Piedmont already exists. I would like to see the following changes:
This is just the same as calling Roma Rome and Milano Milan and hopefully is not controversial. London is spelled around 20 different ways in various Wikipedias. CalJW 03:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Unhelpful category, with potential for controversy. Only one entry so far anyway.
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not sure if it should be renamed or deleted. At a minimum, I know that we don't want the word Notable in category names. But there is also only one person in the category, so I'm not sure it makes sense to keep it at all. TexasAndroid 22:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a duplicate of Category:Arabic words. The only entry is in both categories. TexasAndroid 22:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category.
TexasAndroid 22:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. (Another chemical one, so there may be hope for this one getting populated by someone with the correct knowledge.) TexasAndroid 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty Category. TexasAndroid 20:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Submitting these three linked categories. Even looking at the three articles contained in the first one, I cannot make any sense of these things. If anyone can make these things useful, more power to you. But if not, they look to me to simply be an unneeded mess. TexasAndroid 20:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty Category. TexasAndroid 18:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Reverse Merge from Category:Rai albums. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty Category.
TexasAndroid 18:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. No idea what this is/was about, so I don't feel 100% confident tossing it up for Speedy. So I'll put it here instead just in case there's some reason it should be salvaged. TexasAndroid 18:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Here we go again. One article, five categories created that have only the same one article as their only member. Sorry, but no. (Like the last similar one, I'm not submitting the article for deletion, only the categories.) TexasAndroid 17:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty category. Could be populated, but I haven't been able to find any other examples of "Film by Actor" categories. So, while theoretically usable, I don't see where it fits in the current category structure. TexasAndroid 16:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I created this category before realizing Category:Drama television series already exists. Mea culpa.
The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category was created by user:Huaiwei and populated with subcategories previously under category:countries (see special:recentchangeslinked/category:political entities starting from Sept 8 or Huaiwei's edit history). She/he has a record of equating countries with sovereign states, and removing/relocating non-sovereign territories from lists or categories by countries. Relevant policy: WP:POINT. — Insta ntnood 11:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC) (modified 11:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC))
Notice to admins and all I would like to hereby appeal to admins and all members of wikipedia, that going by the above process, we appear to be moving dangerously away from the basic tenants behind which wikipedia strives to be a viable source of information on the internet, that of its neutral point of view. It is without saying, that we have had numerous disputes over "country lists" precisely because wikipedians sometimes cannot agree over the political status of various entities. I recognise the fact that we do have conflicting definitions of what a country means, although we cannot deny that the dominant view of the world's English speakers assumes it to refer to a politically-independent entity, and this it the backdrop behind which much disputes took place. If I may recall, we have had disputes in pages such as List of countries, Lists of country-related topics, List of city listings by country and List of countries that only border one other country, amongst many others.
Besides having conflicting views involving the addition or removal of entities, why not use a term which does not incite arguments over their political status besides their very existance? I would think this would cut down very much on future disputes. We may consider replacing out articles named "XXX by country" as "XXX by political entities" in future as well.-- Huaiwei 09:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No change Not a valid Cfd. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Stoned_and_toped is an article about a series of parties where kids get drunk and stoned, with no context to suggest that these are in any way notable. There's an 'artists impression' in the form of a movie poster, but no evidence that such a movie exists. Googling the term turns up very little. Unless anyway can assert that these parties are notably huge, this has to go. TheMadBaron 10:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge/Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This Italian region is known as Piedmont in English, and that is what the article itself is called, but the categories are inconsistent. category:Piedmont already exists. I would like to see the following changes:
This is just the same as calling Roma Rome and Milano Milan and hopefully is not controversial. London is spelled around 20 different ways in various Wikipedias. CalJW 03:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply