The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've re-categorized the articles under Category:HTML editors. The term "web development software" is too broad. I can say text editor is also a "web development software". There are not too many HTML editors, so there is no need to split the category into sub-category according to OS. minghong 18:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've re-categorized the articles under Category:HTML editors. The term "web development software" is too broad. I can say text editor is also a "web development software". There are not too many HTML editors, so there is no need to split the category into sub-category according to OS. minghong 18:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Members have been recategorised under Category:Battles of the Nez Percé War. Urhixidur 18:02, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Members have been recategorised under Category:Nez Percé tribe. Urhixidur 18:02, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As it stands, this category is a re-creation of the previously deleted Category:Wonders of the World. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Category:Wonders_of_the_World2 for the deletion discussion.
The list of the seven wonders of the ancient world is the only widely accepted list of wonders of the world. The consensus previously reached was that any other list is arbitrary and POV. I think this category should be renamed Category:Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and restricting it to the seven. Worldtraveller 00:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete and not being used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Only contains one article, FLCL. Any other information on FLCL should just be added to the FLCL article. -℘yrop (talk) 02:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Journalism --Kbdank71 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some articles consider the "news trade" to be a superset of "journalism", the latter being reporting only and the former including non-reporting jobs in support of news publishing and broadcasting. As for what articles belong in these categories, the overlap seems to be between 90%-100%. It just seems confusing to have them both. So let's chuck one, I don't care which. -- Beland 02:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Maurreen and Postdif, the catagory Journalism is a valid and established one, whereas "news trade" is not. "News trade" is an invented and I think dubious category. There's an article called news trade which is itself a "totally disputed" stub and one which should not serve as some meta-catagory covering all of media and journalism. I reject "news trade" as the basis for any -- template, categroy and article, the concept is seriously out of wack. Calicocat 20:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)