The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I wasn't actually expecting this to be one of Mais Oui's as it sounds like it was created by a non native speaker of English. Having both of these is confusing. Merge into the less awkward name. England is a country so it has never emigrated, only people (and animals) do that. Merchbow 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Created by the usual person and populated with a token one item Merge the well established Category:National parks of England and Wales because that is the way things are organised, it matches the article National Parks of England and Wales and it is just obviously the right way to do things unless you are trying to divide everything in the UK up to make a political point. Merchbow 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
More pain in the butt unnecessary England categorisation from the same source. Contains one obscure item. The money enthusiasts (what's the word?) are happy with a UK category, so let's leave them to it, rather than disrupting things for the sake of it. Delete Merchbow 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This contains only the two subcategories nominated below. No one has added anything to it in nearly a month, confirming that it is a pointless intervention in the established Category:United Kingdom environment. It is Britain that is a state, and also much more of a separate entity in physical geography. Having two tiers of category will only cause confusion. Delete Merchbow 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Another category which is more trouble than it is worth created by the usual person and ignored for a month by everyone else. It is hard enough to divide plants and animals etc on national lines at all as they ignore them, so it doesn't help to have two tiers where there only needs to be one. Delete. Merchbow 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Contained only a subcategory for forests and woodlands, which is hardly appropropriate and has better homes, so I have moved it out. Even the UK category is of dubious merit, and seems to have dubiously appropriate content, making it mostly an inferior semi-duplicate of the conservation category. Now empty Delete Merchbow 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
As per previous Films by Star categories. JW 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Even though word nephology is defined in dictionaries as study of clouds it is used only sporadically in meteorological context these days. For example, almost all if not all books in the last 50 years use "cloud physics" in its title (I list some of them below). All university graduate classes use "Cloud Physics" name. I added "fog" to incude in the category a related phenomena.
Example books using cloud physics in their title
by M K Yau, R R ROGERS ,
by Louis J. Battan (Hardcover - October 15, 1979)
(unsigned CfD added by User:Pflatau [1])
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I propose merging these categories under 'Klezmer musicians'. 'Klezmorim' means 'Klezmer musicians' in Yiddish - the categories are thus identical. There are 4 entries (so far) in 'Klezmer musicians' and only one in 'Klezmorim'. -- Smerus 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
For consistency with the parent category, Category:Macau, main article, Macau, and a number of other existing categories, as per the naming conventions, and similarly to these recent renamings. Last one we could easily go with personal preference on, as obviously this isn't intended to be a "main namespace category". Alai 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The category seems too specific in its current scope.— Eoghanacht talk 18:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep, this category is specifically for those units administered by the National Park Service and should be a child of
Category:National parks of the United States. It could also be made a child of a generic American Civil War battlefields category, of course, which could contain non-National battlefields and parks, but IMHO that purpose is served by
Category:American Civil War sites. -
choster 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn following further discussion. -
choster 15:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn -- Kbdank71 16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I've suggested this on the Category talk:People by occupation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories with no response so I'm just going to propose it. These two catagories are basically the same. I think they should be merged under the new name Athletics which I prefer to Athletes because it can include related occupations like Coaching and Officiating. There are only two hobbies listed in the "People in connection..." category, Philatelists and Pranksters, which can be moved back to the main level for now. JeffW 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:People who were pardoned by the President of the United States. If someone wants to create the other category and move articles from here to there, please feel free. -- Kbdank71 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm a little uncertain of this, as there may be non-Americans in this, but as the description defines it and as the entries appear to conform to, it only includes those who have received pardons from the U.S. president or U.S. state governors. Maybe Category:Pardon recipients in the United States? Or should it be subdivided into Category:People who were pardoned by the President of the United States and Category:People who were pardoned by state governors in the United States? I'd be fine with any of those. Postdlf 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
All the current examples are mammals, and I suspect all future members will be as well. This renaming would also entail this category being changed from a subcategory of Category:Animals to Category:Mammals. Stemonitis 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
They are the same thing. Right now, cat:USCongress redirects to cat:LBoftheUSG. However, the cat ought to be called Category:United States Congress and cat:LBoftheUSG should redirect to it. — Markles 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
In the categorization of the editors on this site, they are referred to as Wikipedians, not users. All the other categories are called "Blank" Wikipedians - Esprit15d 14:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename in accordance with local usage as in Saint Lucia's Ministry of Communications, Works, Transport & Public Utilities CalJW 10:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems that this category should use "station" like the UK and Australia rather than "plant" like the U.S. because five of the entries use "station" but none use "plant". Rename Choalbaton 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This should be renamed as all the other by sport subcategories of Category:Sports by country use "country" rather than "nation". Choalbaton 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This should have been deleted at the same time as its three sparsely populated subcategories. The system in place is to use Category:Sports venues by country. Choalbaton 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was No action. Category was confirmed removed by deletion review mentioned below, so a rename debate is moot. — TexasAndroid 15:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Correct English usage and clarify scope. (Since it was no concensus on delete, but there were also several proposals for renaming.) JRP 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: Since posting, category has been deleted, recreated, and deleted again. If an admin wants to delete this CFR, please go ahead. The category is currently in Wikipedia:Deletion_review and could be created again... JRP 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Replaced by Category:Malagasy alpine skiers (harmonization of Category:Alpine skiers). -- Citius 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename. Currently the category contains an abbreviation, and the "Apple" is slightly ambiguous. By unambiguously naming the company and expanding the category from mere CEOs to all senior executives it has more potential for growth and brings it in line with, for instance, Category:Disney executives and Category:Ford executives. - choster 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A strange way of categorising fictional characters based on the company producing or distributing the film they appeared in - one from Wallace and Gromit, one from Shrek and one group from Madagascar. I could understand Disney characters, or Aardman animations characters, but the characters in this category don't really have much in common. JW 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I wasn't actually expecting this to be one of Mais Oui's as it sounds like it was created by a non native speaker of English. Having both of these is confusing. Merge into the less awkward name. England is a country so it has never emigrated, only people (and animals) do that. Merchbow 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Created by the usual person and populated with a token one item Merge the well established Category:National parks of England and Wales because that is the way things are organised, it matches the article National Parks of England and Wales and it is just obviously the right way to do things unless you are trying to divide everything in the UK up to make a political point. Merchbow 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
More pain in the butt unnecessary England categorisation from the same source. Contains one obscure item. The money enthusiasts (what's the word?) are happy with a UK category, so let's leave them to it, rather than disrupting things for the sake of it. Delete Merchbow 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This contains only the two subcategories nominated below. No one has added anything to it in nearly a month, confirming that it is a pointless intervention in the established Category:United Kingdom environment. It is Britain that is a state, and also much more of a separate entity in physical geography. Having two tiers of category will only cause confusion. Delete Merchbow 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Another category which is more trouble than it is worth created by the usual person and ignored for a month by everyone else. It is hard enough to divide plants and animals etc on national lines at all as they ignore them, so it doesn't help to have two tiers where there only needs to be one. Delete. Merchbow 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Contained only a subcategory for forests and woodlands, which is hardly appropropriate and has better homes, so I have moved it out. Even the UK category is of dubious merit, and seems to have dubiously appropriate content, making it mostly an inferior semi-duplicate of the conservation category. Now empty Delete Merchbow 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
As per previous Films by Star categories. JW 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Even though word nephology is defined in dictionaries as study of clouds it is used only sporadically in meteorological context these days. For example, almost all if not all books in the last 50 years use "cloud physics" in its title (I list some of them below). All university graduate classes use "Cloud Physics" name. I added "fog" to incude in the category a related phenomena.
Example books using cloud physics in their title
by M K Yau, R R ROGERS ,
by Louis J. Battan (Hardcover - October 15, 1979)
(unsigned CfD added by User:Pflatau [1])
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I propose merging these categories under 'Klezmer musicians'. 'Klezmorim' means 'Klezmer musicians' in Yiddish - the categories are thus identical. There are 4 entries (so far) in 'Klezmer musicians' and only one in 'Klezmorim'. -- Smerus 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
For consistency with the parent category, Category:Macau, main article, Macau, and a number of other existing categories, as per the naming conventions, and similarly to these recent renamings. Last one we could easily go with personal preference on, as obviously this isn't intended to be a "main namespace category". Alai 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The category seems too specific in its current scope.— Eoghanacht talk 18:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep, this category is specifically for those units administered by the National Park Service and should be a child of
Category:National parks of the United States. It could also be made a child of a generic American Civil War battlefields category, of course, which could contain non-National battlefields and parks, but IMHO that purpose is served by
Category:American Civil War sites. -
choster 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn following further discussion. -
choster 15:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn -- Kbdank71 16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I've suggested this on the Category talk:People by occupation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories with no response so I'm just going to propose it. These two catagories are basically the same. I think they should be merged under the new name Athletics which I prefer to Athletes because it can include related occupations like Coaching and Officiating. There are only two hobbies listed in the "People in connection..." category, Philatelists and Pranksters, which can be moved back to the main level for now. JeffW 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:People who were pardoned by the President of the United States. If someone wants to create the other category and move articles from here to there, please feel free. -- Kbdank71 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm a little uncertain of this, as there may be non-Americans in this, but as the description defines it and as the entries appear to conform to, it only includes those who have received pardons from the U.S. president or U.S. state governors. Maybe Category:Pardon recipients in the United States? Or should it be subdivided into Category:People who were pardoned by the President of the United States and Category:People who were pardoned by state governors in the United States? I'd be fine with any of those. Postdlf 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
All the current examples are mammals, and I suspect all future members will be as well. This renaming would also entail this category being changed from a subcategory of Category:Animals to Category:Mammals. Stemonitis 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
They are the same thing. Right now, cat:USCongress redirects to cat:LBoftheUSG. However, the cat ought to be called Category:United States Congress and cat:LBoftheUSG should redirect to it. — Markles 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
In the categorization of the editors on this site, they are referred to as Wikipedians, not users. All the other categories are called "Blank" Wikipedians - Esprit15d 14:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename in accordance with local usage as in Saint Lucia's Ministry of Communications, Works, Transport & Public Utilities CalJW 10:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems that this category should use "station" like the UK and Australia rather than "plant" like the U.S. because five of the entries use "station" but none use "plant". Rename Choalbaton 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This should be renamed as all the other by sport subcategories of Category:Sports by country use "country" rather than "nation". Choalbaton 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This should have been deleted at the same time as its three sparsely populated subcategories. The system in place is to use Category:Sports venues by country. Choalbaton 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was No action. Category was confirmed removed by deletion review mentioned below, so a rename debate is moot. — TexasAndroid 15:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Correct English usage and clarify scope. (Since it was no concensus on delete, but there were also several proposals for renaming.) JRP 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: Since posting, category has been deleted, recreated, and deleted again. If an admin wants to delete this CFR, please go ahead. The category is currently in Wikipedia:Deletion_review and could be created again... JRP 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Replaced by Category:Malagasy alpine skiers (harmonization of Category:Alpine skiers). -- Citius 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename. Currently the category contains an abbreviation, and the "Apple" is slightly ambiguous. By unambiguously naming the company and expanding the category from mere CEOs to all senior executives it has more potential for growth and brings it in line with, for instance, Category:Disney executives and Category:Ford executives. - choster 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A strange way of categorising fictional characters based on the company producing or distributing the film they appeared in - one from Wallace and Gromit, one from Shrek and one group from Madagascar. I could understand Disney characters, or Aardman animations characters, but the characters in this category don't really have much in common. JW 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply