The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Theoretically, if a place in Lithuania is on Wikipedia, it has to be notable to begin with, or would be deleted as NN. There is a sense that the places on this article are somehow especially significant, perhaps culturally more than anything else, but we do have e.g. Category:World Heritage Sites in Lithuania for that. Especially old buildings could be put into e.g. a Category:Medieval buildings and structures in Lithuania if that helped. I don't know whether Category:Culturally significant places in Lithuania or Category:Historically important places in Lithuania would be any better than the category as it stands. TheGrappler 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Materials engineers to Category:Materials scientists and engineers
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Materials scientists and engineers. — akghetto talk 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No obvious distinction between the two (e.g. which one should Category:Polymer personalities belong to?), and both seem to deserve being subcategories of the three categories material science, engineers and scientists. Rather than picking one name over the other it seems to make sense to combine the two. TheGrappler 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 00:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as unnecessary. It is the only subcategory of Category:Italian engineers while containing only one subcategory itself, a mildly bizarre and rather unnecessary arrangement, and apparently unique among the "Fooian engineers" categories. TheGrappler 14:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was adopted all changes as proposed. — akghetto talk 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
More established and heavily populated than the equivalent
Category:Aerospace engineers. However, that category links better with the rest of the categorisation, including
Category:Aerospace engineering and the accompanying main article
Aerospace engineering, to which
Aeronautical engineering is a redirect. I suggest:
Merge
Category:Aeronautical engineers to
Category:Aerospace engineers
As for its subcats,:
Delete
Category:Aeronautical engineers by nationality (as redundant; unlikely to be any other subcategorisation of the category)
Rename
Category:British aeronautical engineers to
Category:British aerospace engineers
Rename
Category:Italian aeronautical engineers to
Category:Italian aerospace engineers
Rename
Category:German aeronautical engineers to
Category:German aerospace engineers
Rename
Category:Russian aircraft designers to
Category:Russian aerospace engineers
TheGrappler 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 17:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No real connection between members, Things like Soviet Union certainly do not gain by being in the catagory. Perhaps a list instead. SimonLyall 09:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Already covered by Category:Matter. Brian Jason Drake 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was renamed to Category:Assistant Attorneys General of the United States. — akghetto talk 00:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vegaswikian 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was oppose move. — akghetto talk 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The name "Top 10" is not informative (somebody has already mentioned this on the talk page) and is inaccurate anyway, as there are now 11 categories on the category bar. Brian Jason Drake 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. — akghetto talk 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 17:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete both. Category:Knut Hamsun contains one article and a subcat, Category:Knut Hamsun novels, which itself contains one article. Could easily be covered by Category:Norwegian novelists and Category:Norwegian novels. Deborah-jl Talk 07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge
Category:Construction companies into
Category:Construction and civil engineering companies
Move
Category:Construction companies of South Korea to
Category:Construction and civil engineering companies of South Korea;
Category:Construction companies of Germany to
Category:Construction and civil engineering companies of Germany
Category:Construction companies was recently created by an apparent vandal ( Mirmo!, probably the same as 211.245.243.189) in ignorance of Category:Construction and civil engineering companies which has been here for over a year and has the advantage of a more unambiguous name. Subcats should be moved for consistency. -- TheGrappler 07:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. — Feb. 24, '06 [13:26] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Category:Companies traded on KOSDAQ->
Category:Companies listed on KOSDAQ
Category:Companies traded on NASDAQ->
Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ
Category:Companies traded on Warsaw Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the American Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the American Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Australian Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores->
Category:Companies listed on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores
Category:Companies traded on the Bombay Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Irish Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Irish Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Korea Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Korea Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the London Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the New York Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the New Zealand Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the OTC Bulletin Board->
Category:Companies listed on the OTC Bulletin Board
Category:Companies traded on the Oslo Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Philippine Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Philippine Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Singapore Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the TSX Venture Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the TSX Venture Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Zagreb Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Zagreb Stock Exchange
Back again, the other way round this time! Rationale put better below, but essentially shares are traded, companies only listed. These renamings would make everything consistent. --
TheGrappler 06:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename all. — akghetto talk 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Already done by an anon out of process, and subsequently tagged afd by someone else; I'm just bringing them here for resolution since they don't look like speedies. — Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Theoretically, if a place in Lithuania is on Wikipedia, it has to be notable to begin with, or would be deleted as NN. There is a sense that the places on this article are somehow especially significant, perhaps culturally more than anything else, but we do have e.g. Category:World Heritage Sites in Lithuania for that. Especially old buildings could be put into e.g. a Category:Medieval buildings and structures in Lithuania if that helped. I don't know whether Category:Culturally significant places in Lithuania or Category:Historically important places in Lithuania would be any better than the category as it stands. TheGrappler 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Materials engineers to Category:Materials scientists and engineers
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Materials scientists and engineers. — akghetto talk 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No obvious distinction between the two (e.g. which one should Category:Polymer personalities belong to?), and both seem to deserve being subcategories of the three categories material science, engineers and scientists. Rather than picking one name over the other it seems to make sense to combine the two. TheGrappler 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 00:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as unnecessary. It is the only subcategory of Category:Italian engineers while containing only one subcategory itself, a mildly bizarre and rather unnecessary arrangement, and apparently unique among the "Fooian engineers" categories. TheGrappler 14:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was adopted all changes as proposed. — akghetto talk 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
More established and heavily populated than the equivalent
Category:Aerospace engineers. However, that category links better with the rest of the categorisation, including
Category:Aerospace engineering and the accompanying main article
Aerospace engineering, to which
Aeronautical engineering is a redirect. I suggest:
Merge
Category:Aeronautical engineers to
Category:Aerospace engineers
As for its subcats,:
Delete
Category:Aeronautical engineers by nationality (as redundant; unlikely to be any other subcategorisation of the category)
Rename
Category:British aeronautical engineers to
Category:British aerospace engineers
Rename
Category:Italian aeronautical engineers to
Category:Italian aerospace engineers
Rename
Category:German aeronautical engineers to
Category:German aerospace engineers
Rename
Category:Russian aircraft designers to
Category:Russian aerospace engineers
TheGrappler 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 17:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No real connection between members, Things like Soviet Union certainly do not gain by being in the catagory. Perhaps a list instead. SimonLyall 09:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Already covered by Category:Matter. Brian Jason Drake 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was renamed to Category:Assistant Attorneys General of the United States. — akghetto talk 00:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vegaswikian 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was oppose move. — akghetto talk 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The name "Top 10" is not informative (somebody has already mentioned this on the talk page) and is inaccurate anyway, as there are now 11 categories on the category bar. Brian Jason Drake 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. — akghetto talk 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 17:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete both. Category:Knut Hamsun contains one article and a subcat, Category:Knut Hamsun novels, which itself contains one article. Could easily be covered by Category:Norwegian novelists and Category:Norwegian novels. Deborah-jl Talk 07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge
Category:Construction companies into
Category:Construction and civil engineering companies
Move
Category:Construction companies of South Korea to
Category:Construction and civil engineering companies of South Korea;
Category:Construction companies of Germany to
Category:Construction and civil engineering companies of Germany
Category:Construction companies was recently created by an apparent vandal ( Mirmo!, probably the same as 211.245.243.189) in ignorance of Category:Construction and civil engineering companies which has been here for over a year and has the advantage of a more unambiguous name. Subcats should be moved for consistency. -- TheGrappler 07:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. — Feb. 24, '06 [13:26] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Category:Companies traded on KOSDAQ->
Category:Companies listed on KOSDAQ
Category:Companies traded on NASDAQ->
Category:Companies listed on NASDAQ
Category:Companies traded on Warsaw Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the American Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the American Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Australian Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores->
Category:Companies listed on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores
Category:Companies traded on the Bombay Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Irish Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Irish Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Korea Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Korea Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the London Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the New York Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the New Zealand Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the OTC Bulletin Board->
Category:Companies listed on the OTC Bulletin Board
Category:Companies traded on the Oslo Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Philippine Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Philippine Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Singapore Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the TSX Venture Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the TSX Venture Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange
Category:Companies traded on the Zagreb Stock Exchange->
Category:Companies listed on the Zagreb Stock Exchange
Back again, the other way round this time! Rationale put better below, but essentially shares are traded, companies only listed. These renamings would make everything consistent. --
TheGrappler 06:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename all. — akghetto talk 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Already done by an anon out of process, and subsequently tagged afd by someone else; I'm just bringing them here for resolution since they don't look like speedies. — Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply