The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category that replaced it, Category:Old Kingdom series is more appropriately named, and all entries have been moved there. I just need an admin to delete the old one. Nihiltres 00:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Calvin Klein models and Category:Versace models created instead.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and no longer needed, since the corresponding template has been redirected. -- Beland 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep - TexasAndroid 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated cat., only populated with one article. Ziggurat 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pluralisation, possible merge with Courtoom sketch artists if anyone can think of a sensible title. Tim! 19:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation and pluralisation. Tim! 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct legal terminology — see Litigant in person. Tim! 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't cover by the previous standardisation of the subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions by city as it was not in that category before I found it. Rename CalJW 00:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs amendment for capitalisation and I would like to see it brought into conformity with most other modern city street categories. The reason for the mention of roads is that it contained a subcategory for Ancient Roman roads, but I think it is more appropriate to make that a "see also" link as few or none of the roads in question were actually in Rome and I have done that. Rename CalJW 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent Category:Piazzas of Italy. CalJW 19:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures and on second thoughts (see below) I prefer a merge here. The churches and chapel categories are both in category:Places of worship in Rome alongside a synagogue and I expect someone will write an article about a mosque in Rome one day. ("A mosque in Rome", now that's a thought!) CalJW 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "cemeteries" should be mentioned first. Cemetery categories are more common and the parent category is category:Cemeteries in Italy. Rename Cemeteries and tombs in Rome CalJW 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A superfluous intermediate click. It is empty apart from two sub-categories which are both in category:Buildings and structures in Rome and it is incorrectly formatted.Delete CalJW 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parentheses aren't in line with standard practice and are redundant.
Palaces: There is a subcategory for ancient Roman palaces in Rome. Category:Palaces in Rome already exists, so merge.
Bridges: If someone thinks it is relevant to create a subcategory for Ancient Roman bridges in Rome that would be fine, but the top category should just be "Bridges" as for any other city. Rename. CalJW 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clearer name, confirming that the category includes a wide range of buildings. Rename CalJW 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was merge - TexasAndroid 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:John Peel. Category offers no organisational benefits (it belongs to no category other than Category:John Peel) and in navigational terms presents an extra level with no benefits. Contains just 2 subcats. Per discussion at Category talk:Artists who recorded Peel Sessions. kingboyk 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More succinct name. Per discussion at Category talk:Artists who recorded Peel Sessions. kingboyk 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename and delete as per David Kernow. - TexasAndroid 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We have two categories which only vary in spelling. The hyphenated form is correct. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename and delete as proposed. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was hesitant to put these categories up to CFD. But then I noticed-- their very existence is biased against a worldview. If you actually think about it, a huge percent of rappers are white-- perhaps even most of them The existence of these categories is biased towards the issues of identity within America-- because this is an English encyclopedia, we forget that hip hop is a worldwide movement-- there are hip hop scenes in every european country.--Urthogie 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Correct category is Category:Tasmania cricketers. I've already recategorised the one article that was in the erroneous category. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese term of the TurboGrafx 16 video game console, this category is currently empty. I moved everything to Category:TurboGrafx 16 games. Should be deleted. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all - TexasAndroid 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is to delete the following 36 categories:
Delete. Categorising cricketers by skill, in addition to by nationality and by first-class and national teams, seemed like a good idea, but in practice it hasn't worked well.
In brief, the main problem is that it is often doubtful which category a player belongs in. In cricket, all bowlers are required to bat, and many batsmen also bowl a bit, so there is no clear division between batsmen and all-rounders (players who are good at both batting and bowling); or between all-rounders and bowlers. Many fans perceive their heroes as being all-rounders, leading to NPOV problems in classification. As a result, these categories have never really caught on, and many (most?) players don't use them.
A straw poll at WikiProject Cricket showed unanimous support for deleting these categories. However, there is no consensus at WikiProject Cricket whether the parallel wicket-keeper categories should stay or go, so these are not being proposed for deletion.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes the naming in-line with other similar categories, such as Category:National Natural Landmarks of the United States and Category:National Memorials of the United States. — Eoghanacht talk 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as per mass renaming of NI categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 3. Kurando | ^_^ 12:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is a collection of all the descendent categories of Category:Cricket, flattened out. Its purpose appears to be to avoid people having to browse the category hierarchy in order to find the category they are looking for. I feel this is a bad precedent.
This category survived previous votes for deletion in January 2005 and in June 2005 with no consensus being reached. However, I feel it's time to revisit it. Its creator, jguk (t·c), has left Wikipedia, and there is now a consensus at WikiProject Cricket to delete it.
I intend to notify all the people who took part in the previous debates. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason this category was left out when the other subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions by city were standardised. (I'm leaving the contents of the U.S. category to one side for the moment. I'd like to rename them too, but I suspect that some American users wouldn't approve. In any case this doesn't match the American categories either). Rename Category:Visitor attractions in Hong Kong. CalJW 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't fit at all, and it's empty. see its talk page. Snargle 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep - TexasAndroid 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensous - TexasAndroid 17:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was deleted TexasAndroid 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep - TexasAndroid 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These two categories are redundant, as are their similarily named sub categories (World War II naval ships of country x and World War II ships of country x), however those sub categories are (generally) mutually exclusive (World War II battleships of country x will typically exist in either ships or naval ships but not both), which makes this a navigation nightmare. As an example, if you were looking for the United Kingdom's World War II ships, some (battleships, cruisers, etc.) would be in Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom, while others (destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.) are in Category:World War II ships of the United Kingdom. Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created by an inexperience user, and the only article in the category is a copyvio. It should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect capitalisation. Created new one with second word lowercase, before realising I could request speedy renaming. The category is new, however, and there were only a couple articles in it before I moved them to the more proper name. Drat (Talk) 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]