< December 2 | December 4 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Remove the 'List of' Flamesplash 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep.
the wub
"?!" 11:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Given the debate on other religious/ethnic categories, it seems that a review of any religious categorization in Wikipedia is in order to ensure consistency. I personally do not support deletion of this category and vote Neutral Delete pending outcome of the preceding discussions. See
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Roman_Catholic_entertainers for more information.
Endless blue 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename all. David Kernow (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Follow-up from this CfD from October; per use of "country subdivision" in related categories – cf Category:Country subdivisions etc – request:
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!" 10:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to
Category:Mystery!.
the wub
"?!" 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was merge with Online music databases. David Kernow (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This category has been around for about 10 months and has still only 3 articles. A non-notable category. King Bee 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename in line with main article. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
rename as main page. Dzpqn 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, The band has only produced one album before disbanding. Since they've remained disbanded for years with no sign of coming back, there's no potential growth for this category. WarthogDemon 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep / no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, no apparant relationship between being an atheist and being a mathematician. Mairi 09:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
( Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename both per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, and the fact that Irish-American criminals does not seem like a distinct topic that could potentially have an article. Also the only ethnic subcategory of Category:American criminals. Mairi 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, same reasoning as the other American religious leaders by ethnicity categories below ( WP:CATGRS, mainly), and no apparently reason why Irish-American religious figures (or leaders) are any different. This category for some reason also uses 'figures' instead of 'leaders'. Mairi 09:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, POV. "Dislike " is too vauge a description as to who would fall in this category and is doomed to POV problems. Category:Fictional racists and Category:Fictional sexists were both recently deleted for POV problems and I felt this one should follow suit. if it is decied to keep the category, then a stricter definition on who is included must be placed. Animedude 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Military of the United Kingdom in Cornwall, at least for the time being. Suggest, however, that Xdamr's proposed creation of British Army bases in X, Royal Air Force stations in X and Royal Navy shore establishments in X (where, in this case, X = Cornwall) may be a preferable solution. David Kernow (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Cornwall has never had a distinct military identity, so it is meaningless to label something as being the "Military of Cornwall". More generally, militaries are categorized by states (or non-state actors which have armed forces), not by purely geographic regions within states. The issue has been discussed by the Military history WikiProject. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
As for the point about military units moving around all the time, well, the DCLI (and its predeccessor, the 32nd Foot) is inextricably linked to Cornwall (see eg. 'Queen Victoria's Little Wars' by Byron Farwell for discussion of the contribution made by Cornish miners during the Siege of Lucknow) - hence the controversy which surrounded its merger with the SLI, and then the Light Infantry, just as with all the other now-defunct County regiments. No-one, as far as I can see, is suggesting that anu unit which may sometimes have been based in Cornwall should be in the cat - just those which are strongly linked to the County. RAF Davidstow Moor has hardly moved about at all! Just because a cat has 'military' in its name, doesn't mean that it's only of use or interest to military historians. Please try to consider the effect deletion would have on users with other interests to your own! DuncanHill 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comments The position seems to me to be:
Suggestion rename Category:Military of Cornwall to Category:Military in Cornwall, remove it from the tree of military cats and place it as a sub-cat of Category:Cornwall, and also ensure that any members of it are appropriately additionally catted in the Military cat tree. I would suggest including a note on the Category:Military in Cornwall page to the effect that members must be also appropriately catted in the Military tree. This would ensure:
The result of the debate was category already deleted at closure. However, will create redirect per JROBBO. David Kernow (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as per the other protagonist categories. Almost all of these are video game characters, and many of them actually aren't actually silent; ffor example, the player inputs what the protagonist is saying in the Quest for Glory series, but the series' protagonist is categorized as "silent" here.
The result of the debate was delete.
Delete, This category has been created to group together areas and sub areas that happen to have Norwood in the name. Whilst they are adjacent they are distinct areas that have little in common. Also, London is categorised by borough, and this only adds confusion. Regan123 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi, IIRC categories can have contents that overlap? However the contents of the Norwood categories do seem incomplete, at first glance, & I suspect it would be tricky to keep them 100% complete. But judging from where everyone came from at the Crissie P. firework show last Wednesday I suggest the areas do have a lot in common; its only the unusual circumstances of being at the crossroads of 5 local political boundaries that have 'riven them asunder', and societies like, say, the Norwood Society have long been fighting that problem.
Seeing your comment elsewhere re C.P. & Upper N., might you get the clarity you seek with better disambiguation, links & statements in the first paras. of the affected articles? Ephebi 03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. -- RobertG ♬ talk 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
< December 2 | December 4 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Remove the 'List of' Flamesplash 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep.
the wub
"?!" 11:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Given the debate on other religious/ethnic categories, it seems that a review of any religious categorization in Wikipedia is in order to ensure consistency. I personally do not support deletion of this category and vote Neutral Delete pending outcome of the preceding discussions. See
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Roman_Catholic_entertainers for more information.
Endless blue 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename all. David Kernow (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Follow-up from this CfD from October; per use of "country subdivision" in related categories – cf Category:Country subdivisions etc – request:
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!" 10:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to
Category:Mystery!.
the wub
"?!" 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was merge with Online music databases. David Kernow (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This category has been around for about 10 months and has still only 3 articles. A non-notable category. King Bee 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename in line with main article. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
rename as main page. Dzpqn 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, The band has only produced one album before disbanding. Since they've remained disbanded for years with no sign of coming back, there's no potential growth for this category. WarthogDemon 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep / no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, no apparant relationship between being an atheist and being a mathematician. Mairi 09:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
( Radiant) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename both per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, and the fact that Irish-American criminals does not seem like a distinct topic that could potentially have an article. Also the only ethnic subcategory of Category:American criminals. Mairi 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, same reasoning as the other American religious leaders by ethnicity categories below ( WP:CATGRS, mainly), and no apparently reason why Irish-American religious figures (or leaders) are any different. This category for some reason also uses 'figures' instead of 'leaders'. Mairi 09:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, POV. "Dislike " is too vauge a description as to who would fall in this category and is doomed to POV problems. Category:Fictional racists and Category:Fictional sexists were both recently deleted for POV problems and I felt this one should follow suit. if it is decied to keep the category, then a stricter definition on who is included must be placed. Animedude 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Military of the United Kingdom in Cornwall, at least for the time being. Suggest, however, that Xdamr's proposed creation of British Army bases in X, Royal Air Force stations in X and Royal Navy shore establishments in X (where, in this case, X = Cornwall) may be a preferable solution. David Kernow (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Cornwall has never had a distinct military identity, so it is meaningless to label something as being the "Military of Cornwall". More generally, militaries are categorized by states (or non-state actors which have armed forces), not by purely geographic regions within states. The issue has been discussed by the Military history WikiProject. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
As for the point about military units moving around all the time, well, the DCLI (and its predeccessor, the 32nd Foot) is inextricably linked to Cornwall (see eg. 'Queen Victoria's Little Wars' by Byron Farwell for discussion of the contribution made by Cornish miners during the Siege of Lucknow) - hence the controversy which surrounded its merger with the SLI, and then the Light Infantry, just as with all the other now-defunct County regiments. No-one, as far as I can see, is suggesting that anu unit which may sometimes have been based in Cornwall should be in the cat - just those which are strongly linked to the County. RAF Davidstow Moor has hardly moved about at all! Just because a cat has 'military' in its name, doesn't mean that it's only of use or interest to military historians. Please try to consider the effect deletion would have on users with other interests to your own! DuncanHill 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comments The position seems to me to be:
Suggestion rename Category:Military of Cornwall to Category:Military in Cornwall, remove it from the tree of military cats and place it as a sub-cat of Category:Cornwall, and also ensure that any members of it are appropriately additionally catted in the Military cat tree. I would suggest including a note on the Category:Military in Cornwall page to the effect that members must be also appropriately catted in the Military tree. This would ensure:
The result of the debate was category already deleted at closure. However, will create redirect per JROBBO. David Kernow (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as per the other protagonist categories. Almost all of these are video game characters, and many of them actually aren't actually silent; ffor example, the player inputs what the protagonist is saying in the Quest for Glory series, but the series' protagonist is categorized as "silent" here.
The result of the debate was delete.
Delete, This category has been created to group together areas and sub areas that happen to have Norwood in the name. Whilst they are adjacent they are distinct areas that have little in common. Also, London is categorised by borough, and this only adds confusion. Regan123 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi, IIRC categories can have contents that overlap? However the contents of the Norwood categories do seem incomplete, at first glance, & I suspect it would be tricky to keep them 100% complete. But judging from where everyone came from at the Crissie P. firework show last Wednesday I suggest the areas do have a lot in common; its only the unusual circumstances of being at the crossroads of 5 local political boundaries that have 'riven them asunder', and societies like, say, the Norwood Society have long been fighting that problem.
Seeing your comment elsewhere re C.P. & Upper N., might you get the clarity you seek with better disambiguation, links & statements in the first paras. of the affected articles? Ephebi 03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. -- RobertG ♬ talk 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply