The result of the debate was nomination moved by proposer. Timrollpickering 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Timrollpickering 01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Note that both are empty so there's nothing to actually merge. Timrollpickering 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete/redirect. Timrollpickering 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was reverse merge. Timrollpickering 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, Category only contains
Hypernova, an article about a hypothetical astrophysical object. Unlike
supernovae, there are no known hypernovae, hence nothing else for the category to hold. Of course, hypernovae could be discovered in the future, at which point this category would be of use, but there's no point in keeping the category around "just in case".
Mike Peel 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. It is impossible to accurately apply narcissism to a fictional character. This seems to rather be Category:Fictional characters who appear to be somewhat vain and/or arrogant. Like the similar Category:Fictional psychopaths and Category:Fictional sociopaths, it includes many characters who are only present in the category due to a misunderstanding of the term - I also believe these terms can only be applied to something fictional if the medium or creator identifies them as such (e.g. Marc Cherry clearly calls Andrew Van De Kamp a sociopath, and even that requires citation a category cannot provide). And finally, to list some entries to show why this category is useless: E-123 Omega, Rachel Green, Hyacinth Bucket, Butt-head, Daffy Duck. Awful category. The last CfD was no consensus but, the votes to keep shouldn't have counted because they failed to make valid points, and were themselves very POV. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, Author nom. Ling.Nut 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, this is going nowhere. Discussion should continue at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals or
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life.
the wub
"?!" 08:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
This way Rattus can be appropriately grouped with Mus, but the Pack rat will remain distinct and grouped with the Grasshopper mouse as a New World rat and mouse subfamily as described in Cricetidae. I realize the circular hierarchy is to be typically avoided, but i think this is an exception, because apparently the current taxonomy is in question. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I would propose that the discussion would be better off moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. This is where it would gain the notice of resident experts and will allow things to come more in line with how it is done for related taxa. -- Aranae 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn Circeus 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, This category has extended well beyond the definition in list of invasive species (namely species that are introduced and invasive) to species that are invasive in some countries only. For example, the red fox is invasvive in Australia, but not in the UK. As such the category gives a false impression of whether individual species are invasive. MikeHobday 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Strong objection to deletion - one of the most useful categories for me - problem mentioned above can be dealt with individually. Pollinator 15:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was superseded by UCFD. >Radiant< 09:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
same as Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee †Bloodpack† 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was listify and delete. Timrollpickering 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination moved by proposer. Timrollpickering 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Timrollpickering 01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Note that both are empty so there's nothing to actually merge. Timrollpickering 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete/redirect. Timrollpickering 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was reverse merge. Timrollpickering 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, Category only contains
Hypernova, an article about a hypothetical astrophysical object. Unlike
supernovae, there are no known hypernovae, hence nothing else for the category to hold. Of course, hypernovae could be discovered in the future, at which point this category would be of use, but there's no point in keeping the category around "just in case".
Mike Peel 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. It is impossible to accurately apply narcissism to a fictional character. This seems to rather be Category:Fictional characters who appear to be somewhat vain and/or arrogant. Like the similar Category:Fictional psychopaths and Category:Fictional sociopaths, it includes many characters who are only present in the category due to a misunderstanding of the term - I also believe these terms can only be applied to something fictional if the medium or creator identifies them as such (e.g. Marc Cherry clearly calls Andrew Van De Kamp a sociopath, and even that requires citation a category cannot provide). And finally, to list some entries to show why this category is useless: E-123 Omega, Rachel Green, Hyacinth Bucket, Butt-head, Daffy Duck. Awful category. The last CfD was no consensus but, the votes to keep shouldn't have counted because they failed to make valid points, and were themselves very POV. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, Author nom. Ling.Nut 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, this is going nowhere. Discussion should continue at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals or
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life.
the wub
"?!" 08:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
This way Rattus can be appropriately grouped with Mus, but the Pack rat will remain distinct and grouped with the Grasshopper mouse as a New World rat and mouse subfamily as described in Cricetidae. I realize the circular hierarchy is to be typically avoided, but i think this is an exception, because apparently the current taxonomy is in question. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I would propose that the discussion would be better off moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. This is where it would gain the notice of resident experts and will allow things to come more in line with how it is done for related taxa. -- Aranae 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn Circeus 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, This category has extended well beyond the definition in list of invasive species (namely species that are introduced and invasive) to species that are invasive in some countries only. For example, the red fox is invasvive in Australia, but not in the UK. As such the category gives a false impression of whether individual species are invasive. MikeHobday 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Strong objection to deletion - one of the most useful categories for me - problem mentioned above can be dealt with individually. Pollinator 15:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was superseded by UCFD. >Radiant< 09:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
same as Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee †Bloodpack† 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was listify and delete. Timrollpickering 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply