< January 9 | January 11 > |
---|
The result of the debate was Merge as nominated. Syrthiss 15:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of this category isn't very clear in British English until you read the blurb. It seems to be taken as read in North American English that a "power company" is in the electricity business, but I thought gas companies might be in here too. Rename Calsicol 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Merge. Syrthiss 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It's a meaningless title, to me; aren't all alternative medicine therapies, or any therapy for that matter, based on biology if they're meant to improve health? CDN99 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Syrthiss 15:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct name is Category:U.S. Congress Joint committees. There are no articles in the wrong category, there are two in the correct one. —Markles 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merge/Rename. Syrthiss 15:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created yesterday. Category:English art already existed of course. Merge Calsicol 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename. Syrthiss 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of "of" is the standard for categories of companies. Calsicol 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Convicted child sex offenders. Syrthiss 15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's an existing cfd ongoing for Category:Sex offenders with a growing consensus for deletion. Relatedly, Category:Child sex offenders is unworkably vague, broken, and has spawned at least one ongoing edit war as a result of inability to determine what, exactly, it means. I've tried to narrow it down, but ultimately feel it should be deleted. Somewhere, someone listed herein is almost certainly being libeled.
Adrian Lamo 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Syrthiss 15:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "recent" part isn't easily maintainable. Most of these articles fall into illustration, cartooning or comics categories, though drawing certainly could be a category as legitmate as painting or sculpture. In which case "British drawing" would fit with the scheme of visual art categories. Sparkit 04:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was meant to provice a gap in 'British Drawing'. Half those on the list are (major) visual artists; the need for a drawing category is that it is a discipline that cuts across professional categories. As such drawing has a visibilty issue; it is valuable as an encyclopedic entry as a practice as against professional/commercial job categories. The term 'draughtsman' is too slippery and problematic. 'Recentness' has categorical qualites and should be used more: to mean those that are active (alive/producing) as opposed to 'contemporary' which describes genre and style. 'British drawing' doesn't distinguish the historical from the active (and worth maintaining). Perhaps sub-categories? There is increasing interest in drawing as a singular practice and as such structures need to be developed to accomodate this.Controller 09:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]