The result of the debate was relisting under umbrella for the in/of debate. Syrthiss 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_17#Internet_providers_standardization reply
Ian3055 10:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was relisting under umbrella for the in/of debate. Syrthiss 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_17#Internet_providers_standardization reply
Ian3055 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Railway companies of the United Kingdom. — akghetto talk 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Ian3055 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, perhaps restructure the criteria. Syrthiss 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Poorly defined grab-bag of a "genre", whose scope is, and I quote in full, "Novels whose fictional structure is being used as a device to communicate ideas." Contents are a jumble of Rand (but of course), Dostoevsky and Pirsig. Not usefully usable. Alai 22:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was oppose rename/keep all. — akghetto talk 17:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Defense companies and its sub-categories are contained within Category:Military industry. There needs to be consistency in wording between these categories. In this regard, " military", and not " defense", is the macro-level term used the strong majority of the time for armed forces categories and articles on Wikipedia. For example, there are a series of military budget articles like Military budget of the United States, Military budget of the People's Republic of China, and Military budget of Canada. Moreover, armed forces by country articles and categories use the word "military", such as Military of India, Military of New Zealand, Military of North Korea, and Category:Military of France. Category:Defence companies of France for example is currently within Category:Military of France, a hierarchy that is also done with the defense company/military categories of other countries.
It is improper on Wikipedia that the companies that provide for and service what we have termed a "military" have been termed differently, as "defense" companies. As concluding evidence of this improper wording, Category:Defense companies describes itself as containg articles about companies involved in the production of things ranging from "military vehicles to naval vessels to military aircraft and satellites". Category:Defense companies is also described in Category:Firearms manufacturers as: "See category:Defence companies for companies which make other types of military equipment such military vehicles, naval vessels and military aircraft." "Military" and not "defense" is the most appropriate word to use in the following categories. I am proposing the following renamings:
-- Kurieeto 14:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge. — akghetto talk 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not exactly identical, but close enough for a merge, I think.-- Mike Selinker 13:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete G7. — akghetto talk 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Created by myself in error, already exist at Category:Northern Ireland comedians. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty, and almost totally redundant given Category:Prehistoric arthropods
The result of the debate was rename. — akghetto talk 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
"Programming" does not always refer to computers! There is also television programming, mental programming, etc. Most if not all of the articles in here seem to refer to programming of the computer variety, however. Programming redirects to Computer programming. Lankiveil 12:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
US Army soldiers in Iraq is too limiting and ignores other service members. In addition, all other veterans categories are by conflict, not branch of service. Nobunaga24 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all as nominated. — akghetto talk 10:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename to avoid possible confusion with Georgia (country). - EurekaLott 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — akghetto talk 17:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Simply rediculous --- Lancini87 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
delete unnecessary duplication, and not being used as a supra-category page of the category pages Category:Swedish Canadians, Category:Norwegian Canadians, Category:Danish Canadians, etc. but has listed under it all people listed under these specific national/ethnic origin cats. i don t however see the need to have it as a supra-cat page even if properly used as such Mayumashu 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. — akghetto talk 09:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The format "The Xs" for a family X is very nonstandard, and found nowhere else in Category:Families or Category:Royal families. The convention of just using the name "Bonaparte" by itself follows the pattern of Category:Habsburg, Category:Bernadotte, Category:Sobieski, Category:Beauharnais, etc., and the article Bonaparte itself. Saforrest 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was relisting under umbrella for the in/of debate. Syrthiss 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_17#Internet_providers_standardization reply
Ian3055 10:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was relisting under umbrella for the in/of debate. Syrthiss 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_17#Internet_providers_standardization reply
Ian3055 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Railway companies of the United Kingdom. — akghetto talk 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Ian3055 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, perhaps restructure the criteria. Syrthiss 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Poorly defined grab-bag of a "genre", whose scope is, and I quote in full, "Novels whose fictional structure is being used as a device to communicate ideas." Contents are a jumble of Rand (but of course), Dostoevsky and Pirsig. Not usefully usable. Alai 22:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was oppose rename/keep all. — akghetto talk 17:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Defense companies and its sub-categories are contained within Category:Military industry. There needs to be consistency in wording between these categories. In this regard, " military", and not " defense", is the macro-level term used the strong majority of the time for armed forces categories and articles on Wikipedia. For example, there are a series of military budget articles like Military budget of the United States, Military budget of the People's Republic of China, and Military budget of Canada. Moreover, armed forces by country articles and categories use the word "military", such as Military of India, Military of New Zealand, Military of North Korea, and Category:Military of France. Category:Defence companies of France for example is currently within Category:Military of France, a hierarchy that is also done with the defense company/military categories of other countries.
It is improper on Wikipedia that the companies that provide for and service what we have termed a "military" have been termed differently, as "defense" companies. As concluding evidence of this improper wording, Category:Defense companies describes itself as containg articles about companies involved in the production of things ranging from "military vehicles to naval vessels to military aircraft and satellites". Category:Defense companies is also described in Category:Firearms manufacturers as: "See category:Defence companies for companies which make other types of military equipment such military vehicles, naval vessels and military aircraft." "Military" and not "defense" is the most appropriate word to use in the following categories. I am proposing the following renamings:
-- Kurieeto 14:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge. — akghetto talk 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not exactly identical, but close enough for a merge, I think.-- Mike Selinker 13:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete G7. — akghetto talk 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Created by myself in error, already exist at Category:Northern Ireland comedians. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty, and almost totally redundant given Category:Prehistoric arthropods
The result of the debate was rename. — akghetto talk 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
"Programming" does not always refer to computers! There is also television programming, mental programming, etc. Most if not all of the articles in here seem to refer to programming of the computer variety, however. Programming redirects to Computer programming. Lankiveil 12:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
US Army soldiers in Iraq is too limiting and ignores other service members. In addition, all other veterans categories are by conflict, not branch of service. Nobunaga24 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all as nominated. — akghetto talk 10:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename to avoid possible confusion with Georgia (country). - EurekaLott 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — akghetto talk 17:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Simply rediculous --- Lancini87 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto talk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
delete unnecessary duplication, and not being used as a supra-category page of the category pages Category:Swedish Canadians, Category:Norwegian Canadians, Category:Danish Canadians, etc. but has listed under it all people listed under these specific national/ethnic origin cats. i don t however see the need to have it as a supra-cat page even if properly used as such Mayumashu 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. — akghetto talk 09:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The format "The Xs" for a family X is very nonstandard, and found nowhere else in Category:Families or Category:Royal families. The convention of just using the name "Bonaparte" by itself follows the pattern of Category:Habsburg, Category:Bernadotte, Category:Sobieski, Category:Beauharnais, etc., and the article Bonaparte itself. Saforrest 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply