< February 6 | February 8 > |
---|
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
People from Wolverhampton are known as Wulfrunians, not Wolverhamptoners. Steven J 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The category, Category:Civil War regiments by state, created a few minutes ago is the same thing as, Category:Union Army regiments. With one exception - it lists the southern states as well. A separate category for southern states should be created. evrik 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Serves no useful purpose. See also comments on the category talk page. -- Longhair 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I've copied my reasoning from talk - 'Mobsters' is not commonly used to describe organised criminals within Australia, and even then you can't be convicted for being a 'Mobster'. 'Gangster' is a more popular term but even this is quite subjective, and difficult to substantiate. Articles have all been put in Category:Australian criminals Agnte 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Constituencies are already categorised in Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies and its subcategories, which include Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic). Warofdreams talk 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Change the abbreviation to the long form. — Markles 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
misspelling Nikai 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
There's already a 'Fixed shooters' category, which does the same thing.
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete as per argument given in nomination immediately below Mayumashu 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete. topic is too irrelevant a distinction to be encyclopedic. also all articles that populate it appear in more encyclopedically sound categories for Nova Scotia politicians. (i erroneously created it last year) Mayumashu 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
There is nothing in this category. There are maybe two articles on Wikipedia that could go in this category. Five if you really push it and create some new ones. There's just no need. AdelaMa e ( talk - contribs) 09:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Forests of the United States -- Kbdank71 14:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Historic Sites of the United States -- Kbdank71 14:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Historical Parks of the United States -- Kbdank71 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 14:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Is Pearl Buck better known by Chinese name than just "Pearl Buck"? Delete. -- Puzzlet Chung 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate is delete -- Latinus ( talk (el:)) 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense; looks like sandbox testing. Delete JonHarder 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This attempt to divide Category:Transgender by assigned sex at birth (which isn't necessarily the implication of the name) is problematic, questionably useful and possibly offensive. It seems less than useful to group drag queen (which refers mostly to people who identify as male) with kathoey and two-spirit (who aren't even necessarily 'male-bodied'). Even so, to describe (mtf) people who have hormones or sex reassignment surgery, as is the case with some of the articles in the category, as 'male-bodied' is not exactly accurate, and quite likely offensive. And the capitalization is wrong. Delete. Mairi 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I am not conversant with the topic, however: I think it is useful to distinguish mtf from ftm; Thus the solution here might be to rename rather than delete. The argument about it being offensive is not applicable to this work. As for the inclusion of two-spirit . . . two spirit could be either, and thus probably belongs in both mtf and ftm categories. I will refrain from voting because I am simply not familiar with naming conventions in this field. Haiduc 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was oppose. — akghetto talk 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
misspelling. Arniep 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
< February 6 | February 8 > |
---|
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
People from Wolverhampton are known as Wulfrunians, not Wolverhamptoners. Steven J 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The category, Category:Civil War regiments by state, created a few minutes ago is the same thing as, Category:Union Army regiments. With one exception - it lists the southern states as well. A separate category for southern states should be created. evrik 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Serves no useful purpose. See also comments on the category talk page. -- Longhair 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I've copied my reasoning from talk - 'Mobsters' is not commonly used to describe organised criminals within Australia, and even then you can't be convicted for being a 'Mobster'. 'Gangster' is a more popular term but even this is quite subjective, and difficult to substantiate. Articles have all been put in Category:Australian criminals Agnte 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Constituencies are already categorised in Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies and its subcategories, which include Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic). Warofdreams talk 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Change the abbreviation to the long form. — Markles 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
misspelling Nikai 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
There's already a 'Fixed shooters' category, which does the same thing.
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete as per argument given in nomination immediately below Mayumashu 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete. topic is too irrelevant a distinction to be encyclopedic. also all articles that populate it appear in more encyclopedically sound categories for Nova Scotia politicians. (i erroneously created it last year) Mayumashu 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
There is nothing in this category. There are maybe two articles on Wikipedia that could go in this category. Five if you really push it and create some new ones. There's just no need. AdelaMa e ( talk - contribs) 09:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Forests of the United States -- Kbdank71 14:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Historic Sites of the United States -- Kbdank71 14:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Historical Parks of the United States -- Kbdank71 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 14:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Is Pearl Buck better known by Chinese name than just "Pearl Buck"? Delete. -- Puzzlet Chung 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate is delete -- Latinus ( talk (el:)) 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense; looks like sandbox testing. Delete JonHarder 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This attempt to divide Category:Transgender by assigned sex at birth (which isn't necessarily the implication of the name) is problematic, questionably useful and possibly offensive. It seems less than useful to group drag queen (which refers mostly to people who identify as male) with kathoey and two-spirit (who aren't even necessarily 'male-bodied'). Even so, to describe (mtf) people who have hormones or sex reassignment surgery, as is the case with some of the articles in the category, as 'male-bodied' is not exactly accurate, and quite likely offensive. And the capitalization is wrong. Delete. Mairi 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I am not conversant with the topic, however: I think it is useful to distinguish mtf from ftm; Thus the solution here might be to rename rather than delete. The argument about it being offensive is not applicable to this work. As for the inclusion of two-spirit . . . two spirit could be either, and thus probably belongs in both mtf and ftm categories. I will refrain from voting because I am simply not familiar with naming conventions in this field. Haiduc 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was oppose. — akghetto talk 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
misspelling. Arniep 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply