The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Similar to other subcategories of Category:United States navigational boxes. — Markles 00:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Lists of films by location. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Lower case. `' mikka (t) 01:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Media people is more concise and matches Category:Media occupations its corresponding occupations category. And being broader than mass-media it will allow inclusion of categories like Category:Photographers. JeffW 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A bit too fine-tuned. -- SPUI ( T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was upmerge. - TexasAndroid 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The category is too contemporary for an encyclopedia, and could very quickly become excessively large. McPhail 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason: It is complex enough devising a system to categorise all food companies by country and by type and this just makes things more confusing. Anyway, it only has 5 articles. Nathcer 20:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was merge all. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
[Lots of South Korean company categories whose format doesn't mtach those for other countries. Re "Steel and iron..." to "Steel",] Relatively little iron is produced nowadays and it is conventional to refer to the companies simply as "steel companies" Nathcer 19:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete both. - TexasAndroid 17:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
About five months ago, I nominated Category:Pro-choice celebrities and Category:Pro-life celebrities for deletion (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15#Pro-choice and pro-life celebrities). After a tumultuous discussion, with heavy outside voter canvassing by talk page spamming, the debate resulted in no consensus, defaulting in keep. My original reasoning still stands: there is no intrinsic encyclopedic link between being pro-choice or pro-life, and being a celebrity. This position is irrelevant to their presence in the public sphere. At the time, I used Lance Armstrong as an example: he is notable as a cyclist, as a Tour de France winner and as a cancer survivor. That's what he should be categorized as. The fact that he is pro-choice is irrelevant. If it had been relevant, he shouldn't have been in Category:Pro-choice celebrities, but in Category:Pro-choice activists, or something to that extent. In other words: if celebrities are notable for a position on abortion, they shouldn't be categorized as celebrities; if they are not notable for their position, they shouldn't be categorized for it. Either way, these particular categories are unencyclopedic. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 17:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Linking actors from random remakes tells us nothing significant about them and makes the lists of articles on categories too long. Delete Hawkestone 17:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This category is a daughter of Category:Anthems. Its sister is Category:National anthems. I believe that the category name should be in line with this. I also believe that the current name, "Regional songs", doesn't denote the official status of the anthems. That explains the anthem part of my proposal. The category should probably also be a daughter of Category:Subnational entities. Hence the proposal for Category:Anthems of subnational entities or, in keeping with the adjective-noun structure of Category:National anthems, Category:Subnational anthems. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is just categorisation for the sake of it. It doesn't define these people in an encyclopedic manner. Hawkestone 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The categories should indicate the same; It appears that an error in the text of Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics caused some users to mistakenly add articles to a new category. -- Mysidia ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Superceded by Category:Move to Wiktionary. It was populated by {{ dict}}, which is now a redirect . Since the template is not populating the category, it won't be used anymore. SeventyThree( Talk) 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated. - TexasAndroid 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been proposed for merger few months ago but removed due to procedural reasons (merge article template used). This mostly forgotten subcat (sfn by milieu) is confusingly named (milieu redirects to environment). I have a vague notion that the original author wanted to create 'science fiction novels by fictional universe', but it is not in Category:Fictional universes, so until this is confirmed I'd suggest merging this with sfseries category to avoid having this strange, confusing category.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge - however I don't agree that one is a dup of the other. Milieu speaks of the setting of the narrative, i.e. "where" it takes place. So it is really a 'in context' a way of saying 'by world'. However the subtleties of this are lost on most. So, merge. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Merge — per nom. Fra nkB 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate category Category:Accounting systems already exists. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. - EurekaLott 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Recreation of a recently deleted category. Bhoeble 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
"Writers" is the convention in Wikipedia. Having categorised hundreds of American writers, it seems to me that quite a few Americans think "author" is almost a synomym of "novelist", much more so than British people do anyway, so it is best avoided, given that the clearer contrasting terms "writer" and "novelist" are are available. Bhoeble 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
Keep Regardless of what the "Wikipedia convention" is, the term used in the occult field is and has always been "occult author" and not "occult writer."
Check google with both terms in quotes: "occult author" = 9,240 results and "occult writer" = 844 results, a ratio of almost 11-to-1 favouring "occult author" over "occult writer."
No doubt near-alliteration is at the root of this convention, but there it is: a person who writes about the occult is not an oocult writer -- he or she is an occult author.
Comment Term set usage aside, as the one who created the category, there is a lot worse going on for me than your understandable ignorance about the term "occult author" and i really don't get it.
I asked three admins on #wikipedia channel to help me get full category status for my project Category:occult authors according to the best WP guidleines, and all three told me to "just do it" with the instructions they gave. I did it EXACTLY AS TOLD, INCLUDING USING THE TERM "OCCULT AUTHORS" -- WHICH THEY APPROVED, and then my husband and i spent a total of 21 hours creating new pages for the 19 occult authors whose names appeared on the static name-list but had no Wiki pages and thus could not appear on a dynamically-generated cat page, and then we went back through the entire list of 91 authors, adding piped category entries for each author, which took us another 4 hours, and then we went to bed satisfied that we had added a viable category with 91 entries in it.
Nobody thanked us. Nobody gave us a barnstar. But we were happy that we had made something useful according to the guidelines we were given by the admins in #wikipedia.
And today i see that the category is slated for deletion.
Is this a bad joke?
Somebody needs to explain this to me quick, because i really am not getting it. Why -- when i asked for help in creating a viable category, including telling the name of the proposed cat -- was i told by three admins to "just do it" and then, after i had followed their instructions to the letter, was the cat slated for deletion?
This is not the way to treat volunteers.
I take pride in my work and can perform well under self-motivated conditions wihtout praise, but i will not work when what i create is ripped apart as soon as i make it by one set of admins opposing another set of admins.
Catherineyronwode 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment JeffW, please don't patronize me. I did not object to having my "writing [...] edited mercilessly." I am a professional writer with 40 years experience in the publishing field and have no sensitivities on that regard. What i wrote was that i objected to having a category i was instructed to create slated for "deletion" as soon as i made it "by one set of admins opposing another set of admins" -- with the keywords here being DELETION and ADMINS OPPOSING ADMINS. I also asked "Why -- when i asked for help in creating a viable category, including telling the name of the proposed cat -- was i told by three admins to "just do it" and then, after i had followed their instructions to the letter, was the cat slated for deletion" -- with the keywords being ASKED FOR HELP, TOLD BY ADMINS, and DELETION.
Two points:
The fact that this is being treated as if i were objecting to "editing" is ridiculous. I am objecting to being jerked around -- first by admins who told me that "authors" was a viable category title when it was not, and second by a screwy WP template that says the category i created was slated for "deletion" when it was not.
These are administrative problems that can and should be remediated at the admin level, and i leave them to you. My function here is as a volunteer writer and editor only, requiring a calm atmosphere in which to work, with friendly and accurate admin help on call when i need it. And that is the last i have to say on this subject at this time.
Catherineyronwode 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (Empty). - TexasAndroid 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Please see entry below, same case.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
At the time I was spamming names looking to keep 'the natives' happy, as 163x wasn't communicating much of anything to customers. (Woops- there's a redirect (163x) I didn't know about!)
The result of the debate was delete (Empty). - TexasAndroid 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge. Update to this old debate, as per the result of renaming of the first proposed merge category.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
* '''MERGE ALL TO''' [[:Category:Ring of Fire alternate history series]], as the publisher <s>uses ''Ring of Fire'' to indicate this series.</s> ...Pardon the correction ONCE USED on two books of '''ten''' 1632 books. (<B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font>) [[User:132.205.45.110|132.205.45.110]] 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to clarify this: (inserted numbered italicized notes)
Fra
nkB
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
All the members of the category have been moved to Category:Royal Air Force stations where they belong. Bases are known as stations, not Bases in the RAF. Sc147 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Too long and not obvious into short and obvious.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename as per nomination immediately below Mayumashu 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Delete or Oppose per my comments on the nomination immediately below. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Group rename of the children of Category:Mobile phone companies by country
I can't see a consensus in children of Category:Companies by country, so I suggest Mobile phone companies of Foo. I've listed all the categories so that they end up consistent. SeventyThree( Talk) 15:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty, and no inward links. Past contents consisted of categorisation and a redlink to an article which never existed. SeventyThree( Talk) 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The following categories need to be renamed for proper grammar:
— Doug Bell talk• contrib 10:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Disability rights. - TexasAndroid 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I propose that this category be renamed in line with the terminology generally preferred by disabled activists. Talking about 'the disabled' is seen as derogatory, in the same way that talking about 'the gays', 'the blacks' or 'the jews' would be. Sjoh0050 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
to better distinguish from the category for municipalities of the Spanish province, also called León (ie, Category:Municipalities in León, Spain). Consistent with other similarly ambiguously-named provinces/depts, such as Category:Municipalities in Granada, Nicaragua, etc. cjllw | TALK 08:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I propose we delete all of that as per npov. It is not for us to decide who qualifies as terrorist, much less hold a navigation list like this. -- Cat out 08:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The following categories need to be renamed for proper grammar:
— Doug Bell talk• contrib 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
CommentBut this is inconsistent with our century articles which do not use hyphens. 2nd century, not 2nd-century which is only a redirect. User:Dimadick
The result of the debate was Keep the first two, delete the third. - TexasAndroid 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see why we have to have two different category lists for zoos and aquaria in Canada. There is already a category list for Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada. Anyways does it really matter if it is listed differently? It all deals with seeing animals in Canada through tanks and cages. Besides there are zoos who have aquarium elements in their business and vice versa with aquariums. So having both of these categories being listed differently does not make since. For example Marineland (Ontario) is listed in both categories. 04:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestghuran ( talk • contribs)
I would like to add that you two users have this our way or the highway attitude and just put this category under deletion out of spite, to show me that I am not welcomed to touch or create things, which I will add is unclassy and unprofessional. The thing is I have actually inputted more info about this subject than the both of you did and I even created two new pages, recently. You have done stuff hypocritical like I am not allowed to put contact information on certain pages, but the African Lion Safari, which you probably created has contact information. In addition, to your hypocritical behaviour, is that you can't comprehend putting Marineland (Ontario) and Montreal Biodome in one category under Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada, but can comprehend putting them under two different categories, Category:Zoos in Canada and Category:Aquaria in Canada is just mind-boggling. 11:18 Pacific 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
{{ Various artists album infobox}} used to automatically sort articles here, before it was redirected to {{ Album infobox}}. However, a bunch of articles were manually sorted here. Now, I don't really think there's a useful purpose to collecting all albums by "various artists" in one place, since they are generally all covered in more specific ways by Cat:Compilation albums, Cat:Soundtracks, and Cat:Tribute albums. As it happens, everything in this category is already either in Cat:Compilation albums or Cat:Compilation album stubs, so we don't even need to spend time merging (is it all by hand, these days?). Unint 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It is logical to rename this as a follow up to the recent merging of the monument and memorial categories. CalJW 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Similar to other subcategories of Category:United States navigational boxes. — Markles 00:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Lists of films by location. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Lower case. `' mikka (t) 01:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Media people is more concise and matches Category:Media occupations its corresponding occupations category. And being broader than mass-media it will allow inclusion of categories like Category:Photographers. JeffW 21:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A bit too fine-tuned. -- SPUI ( T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was upmerge. - TexasAndroid 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The category is too contemporary for an encyclopedia, and could very quickly become excessively large. McPhail 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason: It is complex enough devising a system to categorise all food companies by country and by type and this just makes things more confusing. Anyway, it only has 5 articles. Nathcer 20:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was merge all. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
[Lots of South Korean company categories whose format doesn't mtach those for other countries. Re "Steel and iron..." to "Steel",] Relatively little iron is produced nowadays and it is conventional to refer to the companies simply as "steel companies" Nathcer 19:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete both. - TexasAndroid 17:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
About five months ago, I nominated Category:Pro-choice celebrities and Category:Pro-life celebrities for deletion (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15#Pro-choice and pro-life celebrities). After a tumultuous discussion, with heavy outside voter canvassing by talk page spamming, the debate resulted in no consensus, defaulting in keep. My original reasoning still stands: there is no intrinsic encyclopedic link between being pro-choice or pro-life, and being a celebrity. This position is irrelevant to their presence in the public sphere. At the time, I used Lance Armstrong as an example: he is notable as a cyclist, as a Tour de France winner and as a cancer survivor. That's what he should be categorized as. The fact that he is pro-choice is irrelevant. If it had been relevant, he shouldn't have been in Category:Pro-choice celebrities, but in Category:Pro-choice activists, or something to that extent. In other words: if celebrities are notable for a position on abortion, they shouldn't be categorized as celebrities; if they are not notable for their position, they shouldn't be categorized for it. Either way, these particular categories are unencyclopedic. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 17:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Linking actors from random remakes tells us nothing significant about them and makes the lists of articles on categories too long. Delete Hawkestone 17:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This category is a daughter of Category:Anthems. Its sister is Category:National anthems. I believe that the category name should be in line with this. I also believe that the current name, "Regional songs", doesn't denote the official status of the anthems. That explains the anthem part of my proposal. The category should probably also be a daughter of Category:Subnational entities. Hence the proposal for Category:Anthems of subnational entities or, in keeping with the adjective-noun structure of Category:National anthems, Category:Subnational anthems. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is just categorisation for the sake of it. It doesn't define these people in an encyclopedic manner. Hawkestone 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The categories should indicate the same; It appears that an error in the text of Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics caused some users to mistakenly add articles to a new category. -- Mysidia ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Superceded by Category:Move to Wiktionary. It was populated by {{ dict}}, which is now a redirect . Since the template is not populating the category, it won't be used anymore. SeventyThree( Talk) 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated. - TexasAndroid 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been proposed for merger few months ago but removed due to procedural reasons (merge article template used). This mostly forgotten subcat (sfn by milieu) is confusingly named (milieu redirects to environment). I have a vague notion that the original author wanted to create 'science fiction novels by fictional universe', but it is not in Category:Fictional universes, so until this is confirmed I'd suggest merging this with sfseries category to avoid having this strange, confusing category.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge - however I don't agree that one is a dup of the other. Milieu speaks of the setting of the narrative, i.e. "where" it takes place. So it is really a 'in context' a way of saying 'by world'. However the subtleties of this are lost on most. So, merge. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Merge — per nom. Fra nkB 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate category Category:Accounting systems already exists. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. - EurekaLott 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Recreation of a recently deleted category. Bhoeble 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
"Writers" is the convention in Wikipedia. Having categorised hundreds of American writers, it seems to me that quite a few Americans think "author" is almost a synomym of "novelist", much more so than British people do anyway, so it is best avoided, given that the clearer contrasting terms "writer" and "novelist" are are available. Bhoeble 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply
Keep Regardless of what the "Wikipedia convention" is, the term used in the occult field is and has always been "occult author" and not "occult writer."
Check google with both terms in quotes: "occult author" = 9,240 results and "occult writer" = 844 results, a ratio of almost 11-to-1 favouring "occult author" over "occult writer."
No doubt near-alliteration is at the root of this convention, but there it is: a person who writes about the occult is not an oocult writer -- he or she is an occult author.
Comment Term set usage aside, as the one who created the category, there is a lot worse going on for me than your understandable ignorance about the term "occult author" and i really don't get it.
I asked three admins on #wikipedia channel to help me get full category status for my project Category:occult authors according to the best WP guidleines, and all three told me to "just do it" with the instructions they gave. I did it EXACTLY AS TOLD, INCLUDING USING THE TERM "OCCULT AUTHORS" -- WHICH THEY APPROVED, and then my husband and i spent a total of 21 hours creating new pages for the 19 occult authors whose names appeared on the static name-list but had no Wiki pages and thus could not appear on a dynamically-generated cat page, and then we went back through the entire list of 91 authors, adding piped category entries for each author, which took us another 4 hours, and then we went to bed satisfied that we had added a viable category with 91 entries in it.
Nobody thanked us. Nobody gave us a barnstar. But we were happy that we had made something useful according to the guidelines we were given by the admins in #wikipedia.
And today i see that the category is slated for deletion.
Is this a bad joke?
Somebody needs to explain this to me quick, because i really am not getting it. Why -- when i asked for help in creating a viable category, including telling the name of the proposed cat -- was i told by three admins to "just do it" and then, after i had followed their instructions to the letter, was the cat slated for deletion?
This is not the way to treat volunteers.
I take pride in my work and can perform well under self-motivated conditions wihtout praise, but i will not work when what i create is ripped apart as soon as i make it by one set of admins opposing another set of admins.
Catherineyronwode 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment JeffW, please don't patronize me. I did not object to having my "writing [...] edited mercilessly." I am a professional writer with 40 years experience in the publishing field and have no sensitivities on that regard. What i wrote was that i objected to having a category i was instructed to create slated for "deletion" as soon as i made it "by one set of admins opposing another set of admins" -- with the keywords here being DELETION and ADMINS OPPOSING ADMINS. I also asked "Why -- when i asked for help in creating a viable category, including telling the name of the proposed cat -- was i told by three admins to "just do it" and then, after i had followed their instructions to the letter, was the cat slated for deletion" -- with the keywords being ASKED FOR HELP, TOLD BY ADMINS, and DELETION.
Two points:
The fact that this is being treated as if i were objecting to "editing" is ridiculous. I am objecting to being jerked around -- first by admins who told me that "authors" was a viable category title when it was not, and second by a screwy WP template that says the category i created was slated for "deletion" when it was not.
These are administrative problems that can and should be remediated at the admin level, and i leave them to you. My function here is as a volunteer writer and editor only, requiring a calm atmosphere in which to work, with friendly and accurate admin help on call when i need it. And that is the last i have to say on this subject at this time.
Catherineyronwode 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (Empty). - TexasAndroid 18:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Please see entry below, same case.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
At the time I was spamming names looking to keep 'the natives' happy, as 163x wasn't communicating much of anything to customers. (Woops- there's a redirect (163x) I didn't know about!)
The result of the debate was delete (Empty). - TexasAndroid 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge. Update to this old debate, as per the result of renaming of the first proposed merge category.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
* '''MERGE ALL TO''' [[:Category:Ring of Fire alternate history series]], as the publisher <s>uses ''Ring of Fire'' to indicate this series.</s> ...Pardon the correction ONCE USED on two books of '''ten''' 1632 books. (<B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font>) [[User:132.205.45.110|132.205.45.110]] 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to clarify this: (inserted numbered italicized notes)
Fra
nkB
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
All the members of the category have been moved to Category:Royal Air Force stations where they belong. Bases are known as stations, not Bases in the RAF. Sc147 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Too long and not obvious into short and obvious.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename as per nomination immediately below Mayumashu 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Delete or Oppose per my comments on the nomination immediately below. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Group rename of the children of Category:Mobile phone companies by country
I can't see a consensus in children of Category:Companies by country, so I suggest Mobile phone companies of Foo. I've listed all the categories so that they end up consistent. SeventyThree( Talk) 15:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty, and no inward links. Past contents consisted of categorisation and a redlink to an article which never existed. SeventyThree( Talk) 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The following categories need to be renamed for proper grammar:
— Doug Bell talk• contrib 10:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Disability rights. - TexasAndroid 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I propose that this category be renamed in line with the terminology generally preferred by disabled activists. Talking about 'the disabled' is seen as derogatory, in the same way that talking about 'the gays', 'the blacks' or 'the jews' would be. Sjoh0050 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
to better distinguish from the category for municipalities of the Spanish province, also called León (ie, Category:Municipalities in León, Spain). Consistent with other similarly ambiguously-named provinces/depts, such as Category:Municipalities in Granada, Nicaragua, etc. cjllw | TALK 08:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I propose we delete all of that as per npov. It is not for us to decide who qualifies as terrorist, much less hold a navigation list like this. -- Cat out 08:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The following categories need to be renamed for proper grammar:
— Doug Bell talk• contrib 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
CommentBut this is inconsistent with our century articles which do not use hyphens. 2nd century, not 2nd-century which is only a redirect. User:Dimadick
The result of the debate was Keep the first two, delete the third. - TexasAndroid 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see why we have to have two different category lists for zoos and aquaria in Canada. There is already a category list for Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada. Anyways does it really matter if it is listed differently? It all deals with seeing animals in Canada through tanks and cages. Besides there are zoos who have aquarium elements in their business and vice versa with aquariums. So having both of these categories being listed differently does not make since. For example Marineland (Ontario) is listed in both categories. 04:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestghuran ( talk • contribs)
I would like to add that you two users have this our way or the highway attitude and just put this category under deletion out of spite, to show me that I am not welcomed to touch or create things, which I will add is unclassy and unprofessional. The thing is I have actually inputted more info about this subject than the both of you did and I even created two new pages, recently. You have done stuff hypocritical like I am not allowed to put contact information on certain pages, but the African Lion Safari, which you probably created has contact information. In addition, to your hypocritical behaviour, is that you can't comprehend putting Marineland (Ontario) and Montreal Biodome in one category under Zoos, Aquariums and Insectoriums of Canada, but can comprehend putting them under two different categories, Category:Zoos in Canada and Category:Aquaria in Canada is just mind-boggling. 11:18 Pacific 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
{{ Various artists album infobox}} used to automatically sort articles here, before it was redirected to {{ Album infobox}}. However, a bunch of articles were manually sorted here. Now, I don't really think there's a useful purpose to collecting all albums by "various artists" in one place, since they are generally all covered in more specific ways by Cat:Compilation albums, Cat:Soundtracks, and Cat:Tribute albums. As it happens, everything in this category is already either in Cat:Compilation albums or Cat:Compilation album stubs, so we don't even need to spend time merging (is it all by hand, these days?). Unint 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It is logical to rename this as a follow up to the recent merging of the monument and memorial categories. CalJW 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC). reply