The result of the debate was rename to Category:Members of The Beatles -- Kbdank71 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. I have transposed it to a more proper category name, Category:Beatles members. Marcus2 22:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty. There is also a populated Category:Olympic competitors for the USSR and Category:Olympic competitors for Russia -- Kbdank71 14:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Using a hyphen emphasizes duality and should be used to describe things such as foreign relations between two nations, for example, Japanese-American relations. When describing people we should not use a hyphen. "Asian" is an adjective describing the American. Using the hyphen is a bad representation because it creates the notion of a hybrid. — J3ff 11:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The category has three articles in it. It is currently a subcategory of Category:Heirs apparent and a merge request was made on March 26. I believe the latter follows the pural convention for lists. Sympleko 10:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is a formal constitutional name given to the person who is next-in-line to the throne. As such, being a formal constitutional name, it is capitalised. States may choose a specific term to give to the Heir Apparent. I can understand the comparison with President-elect but it isn't the same. A President-elect exists for a short time, usually weeks, before taking office. An Heir Apparent may exist as such for decades - Prince Albert Edward was the Heir Apparent for 60 years before becoming King Edward VII. There are numerous titles given to different Heirs Apparent (Prince of Wales, Dauphin, Prince of Asturias, Prince of Piedmont, etc). Some Heirs Apparent have become almost leaders of the opposition to the King (George IV as Prince of Wales). Some die through assassination ( Luis Filipe, Duke of Braganza), some are surrounded by controversy ( Charles, Prince of Wales), some are active shapers of public opinion (Charles, Prince of Wales on architecture), some lose their future thrones when republics are declared, ( Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples, Otto von Hapsburg, some kill themselves ( Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria), some never become king ( Frederick, Prince of Wales, Henry, Duke of Cornwall) and at least one in Nepal killed his own family. It is a far more complicated category than President-elect and deserves inclusion. I also don't see why it needs subcategorisation. I doubt if it will have more than 100 members. There are categories with many hundreds of members. FearÉIREANN 22:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I didn't mark either of them for CfD. I'm putting this notice here because I don't know where else to put it. The categories cover the same topic, but I'm sure discussing which to keep and which to delete will lead to all kinds of POV chaos. I suspect this issue will need an admin to ride herd for a few days. Also
2003 Iraq War and
2003 Invasion of Iraq are in the middle of a messy fight about naming/splitting/redirecting.
Feco 04:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The South Downs are a range of hills in England. This category is being used for everything in the vicinity. There is a well established system for allocating articles about places and things in England by county and city. This category is unique (it was placed directly into category:geography of England "after much consideration" because there were no like categories it could be pooled with) and I don't think it is helpful. The South Downs, which are not very large hills even by English standards, are best covered by an article. There is a proposed South Downs National Park, but it doesn't exist yet, and if there is to be a category for the national park, it should be named appropriately and contain stictly relevant articles, not articles for large nearby towns. Oliver Chettle 01:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Members of The Beatles -- Kbdank71 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. I have transposed it to a more proper category name, Category:Beatles members. Marcus2 22:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty. There is also a populated Category:Olympic competitors for the USSR and Category:Olympic competitors for Russia -- Kbdank71 14:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Using a hyphen emphasizes duality and should be used to describe things such as foreign relations between two nations, for example, Japanese-American relations. When describing people we should not use a hyphen. "Asian" is an adjective describing the American. Using the hyphen is a bad representation because it creates the notion of a hybrid. — J3ff 11:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The category has three articles in it. It is currently a subcategory of Category:Heirs apparent and a merge request was made on March 26. I believe the latter follows the pural convention for lists. Sympleko 10:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is a formal constitutional name given to the person who is next-in-line to the throne. As such, being a formal constitutional name, it is capitalised. States may choose a specific term to give to the Heir Apparent. I can understand the comparison with President-elect but it isn't the same. A President-elect exists for a short time, usually weeks, before taking office. An Heir Apparent may exist as such for decades - Prince Albert Edward was the Heir Apparent for 60 years before becoming King Edward VII. There are numerous titles given to different Heirs Apparent (Prince of Wales, Dauphin, Prince of Asturias, Prince of Piedmont, etc). Some Heirs Apparent have become almost leaders of the opposition to the King (George IV as Prince of Wales). Some die through assassination ( Luis Filipe, Duke of Braganza), some are surrounded by controversy ( Charles, Prince of Wales), some are active shapers of public opinion (Charles, Prince of Wales on architecture), some lose their future thrones when republics are declared, ( Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples, Otto von Hapsburg, some kill themselves ( Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria), some never become king ( Frederick, Prince of Wales, Henry, Duke of Cornwall) and at least one in Nepal killed his own family. It is a far more complicated category than President-elect and deserves inclusion. I also don't see why it needs subcategorisation. I doubt if it will have more than 100 members. There are categories with many hundreds of members. FearÉIREANN 22:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I didn't mark either of them for CfD. I'm putting this notice here because I don't know where else to put it. The categories cover the same topic, but I'm sure discussing which to keep and which to delete will lead to all kinds of POV chaos. I suspect this issue will need an admin to ride herd for a few days. Also
2003 Iraq War and
2003 Invasion of Iraq are in the middle of a messy fight about naming/splitting/redirecting.
Feco 04:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The South Downs are a range of hills in England. This category is being used for everything in the vicinity. There is a well established system for allocating articles about places and things in England by county and city. This category is unique (it was placed directly into category:geography of England "after much consideration" because there were no like categories it could be pooled with) and I don't think it is helpful. The South Downs, which are not very large hills even by English standards, are best covered by an article. There is a proposed South Downs National Park, but it doesn't exist yet, and if there is to be a category for the national park, it should be named appropriately and contain stictly relevant articles, not articles for large nearby towns. Oliver Chettle 01:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)