The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposal is in line with other Georgia (U.S. state) categories. Nathcer 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the only such national category, and it adds little. Delete Hawkestone 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename (action has already taken by Elonka (talk • contribs)). --RobertG ♬ talk 12:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A recent discussion/poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland concluded, and the consensus was that the correct spelling of this administrative unit should be Voivodeship not Voivodship [1]. This nomination is intended to cover all of the subcategories in this category as well. --Elonka 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At present this category does not match category:Housing in the United Kingdom. Olborne 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We now have "fauna of" categories for many,if not most countries, but there are still discrepancies left over from previous attempts at similar categorization, which now needs flattening into a "Animal type of country" format:
For these 4 oddballs, a choice needs to be made. At worst, a subcat can always be added specifically for introduced fauna.
And while at it, some other "fooian extinct animals":
The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much too broad to be useful, and its presence in Template:ChemicalSources means it's the first category in almost every article about a chemical. —Keenan Pepper 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A userbox that states "This box is kept empty for tax purposes" places this category on user pages. It should be deleted as it is very ambiguously titled. Also, joke userboxes should not have categories. --musicpvm 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about at all.--Regeane Silverwolf 11:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. No other U.S. state has separate categories for houses and "historic houses" and it isn't a useful distinction. Only notable houses should have articles and any notable house that was built yesterday or earlier is "historic". Sumahoy 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this category under the umbrella of "women by nationality." Before commenting here, please consult the DRV, which contains the arguments in favor of retention, as well as a history of this category's listings on CfDs. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain Xoloz 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This category contains one article, which is also in Category:Yoruba mythology, which is a subcategory of Category:Yoruba, which is a subcatgory of Category:Ethnic groups in Nigeria.Honbicot 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know what they're going for here, but "hood film" is hardly an encyclopedic term. Should probably be renamed to Category:Urban crime films or something similar. --FuriousFreddy 16:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename all as nominated except Category:Wikipedians interested in TV --Kbdank71 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a group of Wikipedian categories that have no rhyme or reason to their naming and so this is a step to get things consistent. The "fans" don't even know how they want their categories named, so those who just like a television show have been more consistent. Also, this will keep from having two separate categories, those who just like a show and those who are fans. The parent category is also up for renaming to be consistant with the children. At the end are two categories to be merged.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 13:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposal is to rename:
All other sub-cats of Category:Mosques by city use the "in city" naming, such as Category:Mosques in Cairo, Category:Mosques in Islamabad, Category:Mosques in Istanbul, and Category:Mosques in Jerusalem. At the Category:Mosques by country level the naming convention is "in region" as well, such as Category:Mosques in Bahrain. Kurieeto 13:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To match similarly scoped categories Category:Histories of cities in the United States, Category:Histories of cities in India, Category:Histories of cities in Germany, and more. Kurieeto 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was cat redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is empty and the non U.S. centric category already exists at Category:Indoor football (soccer). Twittenham 11:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too specific for a separate category. Punkmorten 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
empty category Melaen 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename both as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was merge both to Category:Sister cities and twin towns --Kbdank71 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both terms mean the same thing. The singer-lyrcist categories were created much later and are much less populated. They should be merged into the singer-songwriter categories as that is the more common term. --musicpvm 06:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose renaming Category:Sea and river deities to Category:Water deities (it could be Category:Aquatic deities, which is used in the Greek deities info-box -- see Harpina -- but IMHO more people are likely to think of "water" than "aquatic"). Doesn't seem appropriate to limit H2O gods and goddesses to just seas and rivers. What about lakes, ponds, springs, streams, rain, etc? For example, Wuluwaid (rain god), Underwater panthers (which include lakes and streams), Oceanids (springs, clouds, rain), Jengu (which include streams and estuaries), Wentshukumishiteu (waterfalls as well as rivers]], Varuna (god of rain as well as of sea), and many more. I also notice that the Category:Sea and river deities page has a "see also Category:Rain deities, which doesn't exist, so this would solve that problem as well...)
Would also require renaming the subcats Category:Sea and river gods and Category:Sea and river goddesses. Bookgrrl 03:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Streets and squares are permanently located man-made entities. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects, by country categories of such things are named "in country". I believe this should be applied to the following by city categories as well. There's no reason to change the naming convention in this case when going from countries to cities, as "in place" remains the most natural, precise, and appropriate wording choice possible. All other permanently located man-made entity by city categories have followed the "in country" wording of the by country model, including for example Category:Churches by city (Ex: Category:Churches in Toronto) and Category:Skyscrapers by city (Ex: Category:Skyscrapers in Phoenix). The following renamings are proposed:
--Kurieeto 02:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as part of clear out of superfluous opera cats. - Kleinzach 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duplicate categories. Merge. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category populated by a deleted and protected userbox. Delete. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This cryptic category populated by a userbox duplicates a better-named category. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Category:Children's operas already exists. - Kleinzach 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Missing definite article. Related nomination here.
David Kernow 00:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC), updated 04:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Folk opera is something of a contradiction in terms. Folk music, folksong may be written by the folk, but folk opera is not! As a descriptive term folk opera may sometimes be apposite but as a categtory it is too vague to be useful, - Kleinzach 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]