The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge into the older category. South Africa has a category:soccer in South Africa category because rugby union is a very prominent football code there. Choalbaton 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 14:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Created on Jan 7, rationale (from Talk page) is: a bit of a strange category yes but no stranger than "Vegetarians" - cat lovers are few and far between and sometimes their pets have influences on their works or personalities.
No vote from me but I laughed a lot seeing it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 14:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The main article of this category,
rapid transit, evolved out of a page move/scoping edit war that resolved early last year after getting bounced around from
metro to
subway to the unwieldy attempted compromise
urban heavy rail, due to variations in local usage (please note this is not an American/Commonwealth English issue, for the most part. For instance, compare the two largest American systems,
New York City Subway and
Washington Metro.) Since the adoption of
rapid transit as the accepted term on Wikipedia, it has garnered significant support, lacking inherent bias in both geography and dialect. However, the category has mostly languished in the meantime, and remains at the potentially confusing
Category:Metro. This category and its immediate subcats (listed below) should be renamed to replace the generic usage of metro or metros with rapid transit for consistency with the main article and common usage.
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Irredeemably POV. - choster 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty; appears to be a duplicate of the better-named Category:Politicians of African nations. - choster 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This category is not actually for Mexican ports— which would then be Category:Ports and harbours in Mexico— but about port cities. Rename proposed for specificity and capitalization. - choster 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 07:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, this category was created in error to contain Syed Mohammad Hadi properly listed under Category:Alumni of Cambridge University; the description is copied from List of University of Cambridge people. - choster 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already speedied. Syrthiss 14:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant to Category:Lakes of Bulgaria, which conforms to the established naming practice for such categories
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Syrthiss 14:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Is this left over from a previous CFR? It evidently formerly contained 3 articles by is now an empty duplicate of Category:Armies of the Confederate States of America. - choster 15:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied already. Syrthiss 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty. Scranchuse 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was speedied already. Syrthiss 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's empty and there already is a Category:United States Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare.— Markles 11:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
There are three categories here which do not match those for other countries:
Other categories exist for any that aren't telecommunications companies, eg media or distribution, but at a glance they are almost all involved in telecommunications, at least as one of their activities. It will be better to make it clear and consistent that these categories are about telecommunications, rather than having people add trucking companies and the like. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 07:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Like Category:Homosexual Wikipedians in which the decision was "delete", these categories haveno members other than subcategories that can also be found below Category:LGBT Wikipedians. It is not needed and redundant. Nobody that I have ever met has identified themselves as being "Monosexual" or "Bi-curious", and neither has any Wikipedians. I would not object to recreating if someone feels the need to self-identify in either way. -- Samuel Wantman 10:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
03:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 06:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Absurd overcategorisation. No description. Contains Marie Antoinette! Such cats should be speedable. Pavel Vozenilek 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename -- Latinus 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) The distinction between evaluation and assessment is controversial. Using both terms in the category name allows for grouping related subcategories under this high-level education category with a minimum of hair splitting. Rfrisbie talk 05:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't believe anyone would think that this would be a good idea. It only has one subcatagory cat:People with type AB blood which should also be deleted, and that catagory only has two articles in it. JeffW 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 06:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Category for beings for a non-notable Ruin Mist fantasy series by the astro-turfing Robert Stanek. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. Calton | Talk 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — TexasAndroid 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Having a category of pages that have been vandalized only draws attention to them. xaosflux Talk/ CVU 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete for now. Syrthiss 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an ugly phrase. The emigration and (hopefully to be renamed) immigration categories are in all the necessary subcategories. It is better to keep them separate as it emphasises that two different sets of people are involved. Delete ReeseM 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 14:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) "Immigration to Scotland" is clearer. There is no New Scots article. ReeseM 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
Note from closing admin - Clear consensus to rename, but split on Immigration to Scotland and Scottish immigration. I realize that Scottish immigration will balance Scottish emigration, but Golfcam's argument seems more germane: Scottish immigration has the question 'immigration to where?', whereas Immigration to Scotland clearly defines the category. -- Syrthiss 14:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 14:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This category isn't named in English and it only has one subcategory. Create a separate Category:Immigration to Wales if it becomes necessary, but please merge this grammatical abortion into Category:Welsh emigration. ReeseM 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete all. — akghetto talk 07:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm renominating these as I think the closing admin made a bad call. There were three keep votes, all in the early stages. One was made on the basis that this sort of thing is done for Western countries, which isn't true; one was made on the basis that the articles shouldn't be deleted, which is a misunderstanding of what deleting a category means; and two out of three were happy to delete all the categories except the main one. No one voted keep after the misunderstandings were pointed out. In my opinion that just shows how this process doesn't work well if people don't revisit the discussion.
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge blocks of categories at the bottom of their pages, which would not be a good thing.
Golfcam
22:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This should be corrected to match the categories for other countries. ReeseM 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC). Rename ReeseM 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge into the older category. South Africa has a category:soccer in South Africa category because rugby union is a very prominent football code there. Choalbaton 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 14:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Created on Jan 7, rationale (from Talk page) is: a bit of a strange category yes but no stranger than "Vegetarians" - cat lovers are few and far between and sometimes their pets have influences on their works or personalities.
No vote from me but I laughed a lot seeing it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 14:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The main article of this category,
rapid transit, evolved out of a page move/scoping edit war that resolved early last year after getting bounced around from
metro to
subway to the unwieldy attempted compromise
urban heavy rail, due to variations in local usage (please note this is not an American/Commonwealth English issue, for the most part. For instance, compare the two largest American systems,
New York City Subway and
Washington Metro.) Since the adoption of
rapid transit as the accepted term on Wikipedia, it has garnered significant support, lacking inherent bias in both geography and dialect. However, the category has mostly languished in the meantime, and remains at the potentially confusing
Category:Metro. This category and its immediate subcats (listed below) should be renamed to replace the generic usage of metro or metros with rapid transit for consistency with the main article and common usage.
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Irredeemably POV. - choster 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty; appears to be a duplicate of the better-named Category:Politicians of African nations. - choster 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This category is not actually for Mexican ports— which would then be Category:Ports and harbours in Mexico— but about port cities. Rename proposed for specificity and capitalization. - choster 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 07:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, this category was created in error to contain Syed Mohammad Hadi properly listed under Category:Alumni of Cambridge University; the description is copied from List of University of Cambridge people. - choster 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already speedied. Syrthiss 14:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant to Category:Lakes of Bulgaria, which conforms to the established naming practice for such categories
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Syrthiss 14:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Is this left over from a previous CFR? It evidently formerly contained 3 articles by is now an empty duplicate of Category:Armies of the Confederate States of America. - choster 15:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied already. Syrthiss 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty. Scranchuse 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was speedied already. Syrthiss 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's empty and there already is a Category:United States Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare.— Markles 11:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
There are three categories here which do not match those for other countries:
Other categories exist for any that aren't telecommunications companies, eg media or distribution, but at a glance they are almost all involved in telecommunications, at least as one of their activities. It will be better to make it clear and consistent that these categories are about telecommunications, rather than having people add trucking companies and the like. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 07:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Like Category:Homosexual Wikipedians in which the decision was "delete", these categories haveno members other than subcategories that can also be found below Category:LGBT Wikipedians. It is not needed and redundant. Nobody that I have ever met has identified themselves as being "Monosexual" or "Bi-curious", and neither has any Wikipedians. I would not object to recreating if someone feels the need to self-identify in either way. -- Samuel Wantman 10:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
03:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 06:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Absurd overcategorisation. No description. Contains Marie Antoinette! Such cats should be speedable. Pavel Vozenilek 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename -- Latinus 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) The distinction between evaluation and assessment is controversial. Using both terms in the category name allows for grouping related subcategories under this high-level education category with a minimum of hair splitting. Rfrisbie talk 05:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't believe anyone would think that this would be a good idea. It only has one subcatagory cat:People with type AB blood which should also be deleted, and that catagory only has two articles in it. JeffW 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 06:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Category for beings for a non-notable Ruin Mist fantasy series by the astro-turfing Robert Stanek. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. Calton | Talk 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — TexasAndroid 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Having a category of pages that have been vandalized only draws attention to them. xaosflux Talk/ CVU 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete for now. Syrthiss 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an ugly phrase. The emigration and (hopefully to be renamed) immigration categories are in all the necessary subcategories. It is better to keep them separate as it emphasises that two different sets of people are involved. Delete ReeseM 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 14:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) "Immigration to Scotland" is clearer. There is no New Scots article. ReeseM 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
Note from closing admin - Clear consensus to rename, but split on Immigration to Scotland and Scottish immigration. I realize that Scottish immigration will balance Scottish emigration, but Golfcam's argument seems more germane: Scottish immigration has the question 'immigration to where?', whereas Immigration to Scotland clearly defines the category. -- Syrthiss 14:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 14:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This category isn't named in English and it only has one subcategory. Create a separate Category:Immigration to Wales if it becomes necessary, but please merge this grammatical abortion into Category:Welsh emigration. ReeseM 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete all. — akghetto talk 07:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm renominating these as I think the closing admin made a bad call. There were three keep votes, all in the early stages. One was made on the basis that this sort of thing is done for Western countries, which isn't true; one was made on the basis that the articles shouldn't be deleted, which is a misunderstanding of what deleting a category means; and two out of three were happy to delete all the categories except the main one. No one voted keep after the misunderstandings were pointed out. In my opinion that just shows how this process doesn't work well if people don't revisit the discussion.
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge blocks of categories at the bottom of their pages, which would not be a good thing.
Golfcam
22:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This should be corrected to match the categories for other countries. ReeseM 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC). Rename ReeseM 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply