The result of the debate was rename to Category:Kentucky colonels. Conscious 13:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Delete - breaking down military personnel by rank is problematic for several reasons. Rank is generally temporary, due to promotion, demotion, etc. In addition, since this category doesn't distinguish by nationality or branch of service, the title colonel is almost pointless. Each military has different criteria for promotion, different levels of responsibility, etc etc. Some people, such as Colonel Khadafy (incidentally not in this category) are self-appointed colonels. Most countries' militaries have well-maintained categories like "XXX Army officers" which makes this category redundant. And finally, since it doesn't include criteria, I would imagine even Colonel Sanders or Colonel Tom Parker could be included in this category. Nobunaga24 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename As the parentage and category text indicate, this category is for historians who study Southeast Asia, whereas the current name would be used for historians who are from Southeast Asia. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
These were created just the other day and are barely populated. The existing categories by country, by era, by subject are and by tradition are perfectly adequate, generating a large number of cateogories in some cases, especially when one takes into account that some philosophers are quite a few non-philosophy categories as well, so these ones are category clutter. The justifications put forward in defence of them are just as marginal as the case for classifying people by language as a general practice. Chicheley 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The Jews on this list should be removed... They are not considered Germans
* Says you! They, most likely, considered themselves Germans.
Yikes. This does bring up one question I've had, namely: who is a "German" "philosopher"? Wouldn't it be easier, more pragmatic, and more inclusive to have a list (or category) of people who wrote German-language philosophy? For example, Salomon Maimon wrote very important German-language philosophy around 1800. (Kant said he was one of the only people who understood him.) But Maimon would by no means have identified himself as German: he was a Lithouanian Jew, and German was not his first language. But according to the title of this category (German philosophers), one would have to exclude this important German-language philosopher on ethnic grounds. I will hereby call for discussion on this, but I move that the category be renamed. I might actually suggest the following, as less cumbersome than "Writers of German-language philosophy"... How about "German-language philosophers"? I think that would be useful for categorizing, but also not exclusionary in unsavory ways. Universitytruth 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that what most people care about is important philosophy written in German, as opposed to written by philosophers with German blood or with a German passport. Since Germany has only existed since 1871, and has only existed with its current borders since 1991, sorting according to nation will *create* category problems. That's what I'm trying to avoid. I'd be interested in hearing responses from Chicheley, Caerwine, and Osomec. If anyone has alternate suggestions that can deal with the concerns I raise, I'm open to discussing them. Thanks! Universitytruth 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete both as categories duplicate Category:Fairy opera - Kleinzach 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This category has no entrants, as all stations on this line are in Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations. Marc Shepherd 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As British overseas territories notes, "colonies" haven't been known as "colonies" since 1981; they should be referred to as category:British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. — Dunc| ☺ 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Canadian spelling and consistency with sibling categories. Usgnus 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename At a minimum "Entrpreneurs" needs to be decapitalized, but it also needs a change of modifier from "Young" to "Child" to match the other subcats of Category:Children. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
There's no need for the "(role-playing game)" - even the main article is Exalted, not Exalted (role-playing game). Percy Snoodle 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was unanimous support, so I think I may close it without making someone unhappy. Conscious 10:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
After Football World Cup was moved to FIFA World Cup, almost all categories were brought to this new format, except these two. Conscious 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
An "area" is a 2-dimensional concept, space is 3-D, so this should not be called area. "zone", "region", or "volume" would be better. I also think using "of" instead of "in" would be better. 70.51.9.28 11:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as Category:Tragédies en musique already exists and is unambiguous in its French form. (It's a 17th/18th century genre of opera associated with Lully and Rameau). - Kleinzach 10:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Category Redirect -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As with "Truck", this category was created on 2006-06-24 despite there already being a suitable existing cat. I've recategorised all affected pages so now this category is empty. DeLarge 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Film is synonymous with cinema. Geopgeop 10:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as Category:Romantic opera already exists. - Kleinzach 09:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as this is not a meaningful opera category. - Kleinzach 09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Category Redirect -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Created on 2006-06-24, although the category "Trucks" already existed. I recategorised all relevant articles so now the cat is empty DeLarge 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Acronyms are a no-no, right? -- Howard t he Du c k 05:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This is supposed to be for both Japanese people in Japan (lots of them) and other people in Japan, but it is barely used. It is confusing and other countries don't have a matching category so Merge into Category:Japanese people. Nathcer 08:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 10:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The current name is ungrammatical. This category is about the Japanese style of gardening, both inside and outside Japan. "Japanese style of gardening" is perhaps the best option. Nathcer 08:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I have a feeling this will not exactly generated heated discussion... I think the categories should be merged. Currently, Monoid theory is a subcategory of semigroup theory. That's not an absurd idea in principle but in fact a lot of pages (for instance "aperiodic monoid") are very much relevant to semigroup theory and are in some sense hidden to the main page of the category. Given that both categories are scarcely populated there is not much advantage, at least for now, to distinguish the two categories. A unified category makes it easier to navigate the current content. Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Radio frequency antennas. Conscious 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Based both on the "main" article for this category and on the population of articles already categorized in it, this category isn't really about terminology. It's about the entire subject of antennas in general. Terminology articles would focus on the origin and usage of terms, perhaps analyze their linguistic structure, etc. whereas the articles here have almost none of that and are instead chock full of information about how antennas work. (As a side note, I checked the American Heritage Dictionary via Answers.com and the proper plural here is indeed "antennas" rather than "antennae". [1]) Bryan 03:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Proposal is to apply the "based in X" naming convention of organizations by country categories (Ex Category:Organizations based in India) to organizations by city categories. This will ensure consistency, clarity of wording, and will align nicely with the names of Category:Companies by city, which are sub-cats of the following, such as Category:Companies based in Philadelphia.
-- Kurieeto 02:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Kentucky colonels. Conscious 13:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Delete - breaking down military personnel by rank is problematic for several reasons. Rank is generally temporary, due to promotion, demotion, etc. In addition, since this category doesn't distinguish by nationality or branch of service, the title colonel is almost pointless. Each military has different criteria for promotion, different levels of responsibility, etc etc. Some people, such as Colonel Khadafy (incidentally not in this category) are self-appointed colonels. Most countries' militaries have well-maintained categories like "XXX Army officers" which makes this category redundant. And finally, since it doesn't include criteria, I would imagine even Colonel Sanders or Colonel Tom Parker could be included in this category. Nobunaga24 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename As the parentage and category text indicate, this category is for historians who study Southeast Asia, whereas the current name would be used for historians who are from Southeast Asia. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
These were created just the other day and are barely populated. The existing categories by country, by era, by subject are and by tradition are perfectly adequate, generating a large number of cateogories in some cases, especially when one takes into account that some philosophers are quite a few non-philosophy categories as well, so these ones are category clutter. The justifications put forward in defence of them are just as marginal as the case for classifying people by language as a general practice. Chicheley 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The Jews on this list should be removed... They are not considered Germans
* Says you! They, most likely, considered themselves Germans.
Yikes. This does bring up one question I've had, namely: who is a "German" "philosopher"? Wouldn't it be easier, more pragmatic, and more inclusive to have a list (or category) of people who wrote German-language philosophy? For example, Salomon Maimon wrote very important German-language philosophy around 1800. (Kant said he was one of the only people who understood him.) But Maimon would by no means have identified himself as German: he was a Lithouanian Jew, and German was not his first language. But according to the title of this category (German philosophers), one would have to exclude this important German-language philosopher on ethnic grounds. I will hereby call for discussion on this, but I move that the category be renamed. I might actually suggest the following, as less cumbersome than "Writers of German-language philosophy"... How about "German-language philosophers"? I think that would be useful for categorizing, but also not exclusionary in unsavory ways. Universitytruth 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that what most people care about is important philosophy written in German, as opposed to written by philosophers with German blood or with a German passport. Since Germany has only existed since 1871, and has only existed with its current borders since 1991, sorting according to nation will *create* category problems. That's what I'm trying to avoid. I'd be interested in hearing responses from Chicheley, Caerwine, and Osomec. If anyone has alternate suggestions that can deal with the concerns I raise, I'm open to discussing them. Thanks! Universitytruth 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete both as categories duplicate Category:Fairy opera - Kleinzach 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This category has no entrants, as all stations on this line are in Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line stations. Marc Shepherd 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As British overseas territories notes, "colonies" haven't been known as "colonies" since 1981; they should be referred to as category:British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. — Dunc| ☺ 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Canadian spelling and consistency with sibling categories. Usgnus 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename At a minimum "Entrpreneurs" needs to be decapitalized, but it also needs a change of modifier from "Young" to "Child" to match the other subcats of Category:Children. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
There's no need for the "(role-playing game)" - even the main article is Exalted, not Exalted (role-playing game). Percy Snoodle 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was unanimous support, so I think I may close it without making someone unhappy. Conscious 10:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
After Football World Cup was moved to FIFA World Cup, almost all categories were brought to this new format, except these two. Conscious 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
An "area" is a 2-dimensional concept, space is 3-D, so this should not be called area. "zone", "region", or "volume" would be better. I also think using "of" instead of "in" would be better. 70.51.9.28 11:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as Category:Tragédies en musique already exists and is unambiguous in its French form. (It's a 17th/18th century genre of opera associated with Lully and Rameau). - Kleinzach 10:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Category Redirect -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As with "Truck", this category was created on 2006-06-24 despite there already being a suitable existing cat. I've recategorised all affected pages so now this category is empty. DeLarge 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Film is synonymous with cinema. Geopgeop 10:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as Category:Romantic opera already exists. - Kleinzach 09:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as this is not a meaningful opera category. - Kleinzach 09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Category Redirect -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Created on 2006-06-24, although the category "Trucks" already existed. I recategorised all relevant articles so now the cat is empty DeLarge 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Acronyms are a no-no, right? -- Howard t he Du c k 05:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This is supposed to be for both Japanese people in Japan (lots of them) and other people in Japan, but it is barely used. It is confusing and other countries don't have a matching category so Merge into Category:Japanese people. Nathcer 08:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 10:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The current name is ungrammatical. This category is about the Japanese style of gardening, both inside and outside Japan. "Japanese style of gardening" is perhaps the best option. Nathcer 08:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I have a feeling this will not exactly generated heated discussion... I think the categories should be merged. Currently, Monoid theory is a subcategory of semigroup theory. That's not an absurd idea in principle but in fact a lot of pages (for instance "aperiodic monoid") are very much relevant to semigroup theory and are in some sense hidden to the main page of the category. Given that both categories are scarcely populated there is not much advantage, at least for now, to distinguish the two categories. A unified category makes it easier to navigate the current content. Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Radio frequency antennas. Conscious 13:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Based both on the "main" article for this category and on the population of articles already categorized in it, this category isn't really about terminology. It's about the entire subject of antennas in general. Terminology articles would focus on the origin and usage of terms, perhaps analyze their linguistic structure, etc. whereas the articles here have almost none of that and are instead chock full of information about how antennas work. (As a side note, I checked the American Heritage Dictionary via Answers.com and the proper plural here is indeed "antennas" rather than "antennae". [1]) Bryan 03:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Proposal is to apply the "based in X" naming convention of organizations by country categories (Ex Category:Organizations based in India) to organizations by city categories. This will ensure consistency, clarity of wording, and will align nicely with the names of Category:Companies by city, which are sub-cats of the following, such as Category:Companies based in Philadelphia.
-- Kurieeto 02:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply