The result of the debate was duplicate discussion.
the wub
"?!" 10:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Category:American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran democrat politicians
American Veteran Politicians(Republican) -> Category:American veteran republican politicians
American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran deceased politicians
Category:American veteran independent politicians
There seems to be an urge to merge these categories when all that is necessary is making the names lower case. I think the categories should remain separate so that wikipedia can provide a more useful delination fo this information to people. I don;t have a problem changing the names, I'll even do the work myself. How Do I declare the discussion ended? -- Dr who1975 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!" 09:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!" 09:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Article created in the category space, I think Stifle ( talk) 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge.
the wub
"?!" 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!" 23:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep status quo, withdrawn by nominator. — CharlotteWebb 11:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment The objective of the two categories is to provide readers with a needed temporal analysis so that they can see which players were active before Bangladesh began playing Test cricket and which after. Bangladesh's first Test match was right at the end of the 20th century so this is not a mere "century split". The country also needs a spatial analysis of players by first-class team (e.g., Category:Barisal Division cricketers). This follows the English model whereby you have the huge "master category" category:English cricketers which is of no real benefit to readers who are interested in particular teams or eras. Hence you have spatial categories such as category:Kent cricketers and temporal such as category:English cricketers of the 18th century. The only difference between England (300 seasons) and Bangladesh (30 seasons) is scale. It is not "overcategorisation" to provide readers with separate analyses of a huge file of names. Furthermore, category:Bangladeshi cricketers is nowhere near complete even in past and present terms (let alone future players) and it is NOT the "parent category" of the two categories under discussion: their parent (indeed grandparent) is category:History of Bangladeshi cricket which again underlines the temporal reason for their existence. -- BlackJack | talk page 06:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all to "Football (soccer) in [Continent]". — CharlotteWebb 10:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename all to the same format as the national categories for sports:
Wilchett 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. — CharlotteWebb 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename all to Railway stations in foo.
the wub
"?!" 09:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
These categories are not named consistently. Perhaps they should all be renamed to "Category:Railway stations in ..." as they are subcategories of
Category:Railway stations in the United States.
Craig.Scott 14:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep.
the wub
"?!" 09:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
rename. Mighty Max (TV series) episode article category.-- Rocking1 12:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!" 09:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
This category is empty, except of the categorization of Category:American motivational writers into it (!) and the text: In Cambodia have only one famous Khmer motivational author. His name was Vichey. This is his pen-name. The category itself is categorized into Category:Khmer Motivational Writers (only diffference: capital "W"). Delete. Béka 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 09:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Category for celebrities who have made guest appearances on a gossip/talk show. Overly broad; simply appearing on a talk show is not something that should appear in a celebrity's biography. — tregoweth ( talk) 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!" 10:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Empty category, does not seem to serve much purpose since I'm pretty sure that 95% of articles created about magic dealers will be speedied under G11 anyways... If by some miracle this is kept, the capitalization should be fixed. Pascal.Tesson 05:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 10:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, Category is vague, and almost too far-reaching -- it could easily contain every fictional bad guy ever. Additionally, the title of the category is very vague. Until you read the description on the page, one could argue that history's greatest villains might belong here also. Right now, it appears to merely be a list of Power Rangers or Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. What's next? Zany Sidekicks? JPG-GR 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 10:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
No indication that the term is used anywhere. In any case, obvious vandal creation. Pascal.Tesson 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge.
the wub
"?!" 10:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus — P ilotguy ( ptt) 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a definite over-categorization. Not clear how subdividing the category into tiny parcels will be helpful. Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent contains 83 people, not so huge as to merit subcategories. Pascal.Tesson 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply