< October 25 | October 27 > |
---|
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More pieces of the unofficial renameings mentioned way below. Not sure where these went. Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States certainly looks right for the first one, but I see no "by year" US aircraft carrier categories in current use. Putting these up for either validation of the rename, or repudiation of it, in which case we'll need to find the articles. TexasAndroid 18:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to Category:World War II military equipment --Kbdank71 18:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate categories. It's all Military equipment, and it's all by nation, so proposed new name reflects both of these facts. TexasAndroid 16:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Frigates of the United States Navy --Kbdank71 18:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy --Kbdank71 18:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate categories, merging into new category to expand abbreviation. TexasAndroid 16:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was reverse merge --Kbdank71 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Battleships of the United States Navy --Kbdank71 18:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy --Kbdank71 18:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate categories, but neither struck me as the right name. So proposing a new name to merge both into. TexasAndroid 16:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. This one is just my gut feeling of which direction this one should go. I'm persuadible that the other direction is proper. But one way or another, they need to merge, IMHO. TexasAndroid 15:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 21:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty Category. COvered by the category just below this one, I beleive. TexasAndroid 15:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move for consistency. TexasAndroid 15:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 21:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. (None of the other WWII ship categories have separate categories for "ships" and "naval ships"") - TexasAndroid 15:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 21:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 14:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate categories. TexasAndroid 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of a number of situations where a user has been working through WWII military pages, and doing unofficial category renames. (Create new category, move articles, then orphan the old one.) I do not have a strong opinion on these myself, but they do need to go through official CFR, so I'm placing his moves up here. Please vote Merge if you agree with the move, or Reverse Merge if you think that the older naming is the proper one. TexasAndroid 14:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only one cat needed, although Wikipedia:Reference_desk is capitalised thusly. MeltBanana 13:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a forlorn hope to get these deleted, but the creation of sub-cats of Category:British screenwriters hasn't been that helpful. "Scottish screenwriters" contains only 3 articles, while English screenwriters are now divided between "English" and "British" (most of them are under "British screenwriters"). Using only Category:British screenwriters would bring this into line with Category:British film directors and Category:British film producers, otherwise its confusing, especially for non-British editors. JW 13:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was discussion moved to WP:SFD --Kbdank71 20:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect and move existing content to the standard named Category:Scotland-related stubs. Both were created on the same day by the same user, and they were clearly aware of the standard "Foo-related stubs" naming convention, because they pointed the non-standard Category:Scotland stubs towards the standard Category:Scotland-related stubs (incidentally, I notice that Category:Belarus stubs, and one or two others, have the same problem). This new supercat (there are three subcats: Scotland-geo-stub, Scotland-bio-stub and Hebrides-geo-stub) was subsequently noticed by someone at WikiProject Stub sorting, the discussion to which is here: WikiProject - Scotland-stub / Cat:Scotland-related stubs, but the course of action decided on was to reverse the redirect to point at the non-standard "Foo stubs". I embarked on putting it back the way it had originally been set up, but due to my pathetic "newbieness" I could not comprehend why the articles in Category:Scotland stubs did not magically shift over to Category:Scotland-related stubs. It was only at that point that I discovered the Wikiproject stub sorting discussion. In short, it is a mess at the moment, admittedly partly due to my own inexperience. Please provide your wise counsel. Mais oui! 12:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting. Please propose new stub templates and categories here before creation. |
DUPLICATE DELETION DISCUSSION UNDERWAY AT WP:SFDWhat on earth is going on here? I thought that this was a little bit of a mess, but now a new deletion discussion has been initiated here: WP:SFD#Cat:Scotland-related_stubs. I would like to point out that my actions, and the history of these categories, are being misrepresented on that page.--Mais oui! 23:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay folks. Several things here.
The main problem with anyone being able to create new stub categories is that, because stub typoes are an aid for the editor as much as, or more than, the reader, it is important to keep categories to maintainable sizes and in some maintainable order. It would be impossible to sort stubs into categories if new stub categories were able to be created willy-nilly without having some central record of what there was and where, and it would be completely pointless to have them created in such a way that one stub article could theoretically have any of twenty or thirty different stub templates. As such, one group of around 100 dedicated wikipedians spends an inordinate amount of time trying to maintain the stub categories in some semblance of clear and practical order. The wikiproject doesn't ghave any special authority, per se, but most people who have spent any great time here realise that the stub categories need to be kept in some form of order, and if WP:WSS is willing to devote a huge amount of energy to doing that then they should be allowed to do so. Before the WikiProject was created, all stub articles were simply marked with ((stub)) - 20,000+ articles in one category - and no-one could easily find anything. With the expansion of Wikipedia, there are now close to 100,000 stubs, but they have been sorted in ways that aid editors greatly. In other wirds, it isn't a right of the project, but it's seen as such an advantage by many wikipedians that it's l9ogical that it's handled in that way. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Films in Cantonese --Kbdank71 15:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the unnecessary hyphen. Edit dropped "language" too to avoid contentious issues over the status of Chinese languages/dialects--Huaiwei 09:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Films in Chinese --Kbdank71 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the unnecessary hythen.--Huaiwei 08:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (dropping original nomination request in favour for a new suggestions as below)--Huaiwei 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a legitimate category. It's one individual's poorly-written list of a few politicians and movie stars who aren't veterans but are sometimes cited as/mistaken as such. No references are given. It's also not organized as a category, and the only actual entry under "subcategories" is a mis-classification. Alsorises 02:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]