The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 11:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This twisted "category" violates (1) WP:POINT; (2) WP:NOT; (3) Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman and (4) Wikipedia:Civility. Let NPOV editors associated with Category:Islam come up with a way to categorize these individuals and events and what really happened -- but Muhammad should NOT be "put on trial" here, since this is a very crass and controversial way of doing it. It is flaming and will lead to Wikipedia:Edit war and a tit-for-tat environment will emerge as has already happened with the creation of Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon (now rightfully up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon.) Muhammad is to Islam what Jesus is to Christianity, and Moses is to Judaism. If one digs into history and the texts of those religions one will find people killed for this or that reason by order of this or that person. Perhaps an article, such as Muhammad and controversy or Islam in war and peace could be a better, more diplomatic way, of encompassing the scope of what this category purports to do. IZAK 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete/merge (by Xaosflux). ×Meegs 00:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 11:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category contains only four articles that also exist in the parent/ancestor category:Cricket terminology. There is no point in having a separate child category, especially given that the parent is well-developed and in regular use by the project. --GeorgeWilliams 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically for the same reason as the Syracusians and Denverites categories were renamed. User:Arual| 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Consistency is valuable, and doesn't create discrepancies which can lead to confusion and/or unintended amusement. Badbilltucker 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A duplicate of the conventional category.
The result of the debate was already merged - TexasAndroid 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate categories, main category is "Jammu and Kashmir" with an and, not a &. NawlinWiki 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 11:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Right (Europe) and Category:New Right (United States)
The result of the debate was keep and repopulate. Conscious 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We may as well get into the heart of the issue here. So here goes:
In the interest of keeping notes short on this page. I have listed a fairly complete enumeration of the arguments for "Catholic Church" over "Roman" CC here: CC v. RCC --Vaquero100 23:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested…Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called "A Deliberat Answere", printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). Catholic Encyclopedia article: Roman Catholic
It is clear that "Roman Catholic" does not come from some mutual peaceful agreement.
Also, as said on the CC v. RCC page, diplomatic documents of ecumenical discourse are polite in nature and do not carry doctrinal authority as do Encyclicals and other classifications of Vatican documents. These are the lowest ranking of Vatican documents, not intended as doctrinal sources.
Lastly, this is not a question of RCC being ambiguous. It is incorrect. And, it is problematic. --Vaquero100 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget NO FURTHER EDITS TO BE MADE TO THIS PAGE!!!
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete, all empty, the latter a re-creation. And I mentioned the problems on the Talk, but as these were the only contributions, my guess is a juvenile. --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Out of process deletion --kingboyk 12:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 09:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Category:WPAM is used for article talk pages, and is populated by a template. Category:WikiProject Armenia contains the WikiProject page itself and WPAM. I suggest merging the less obvious name into the more standard one. If this goes through, there are a few others in Category:WikiProjects which I might nominate.
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Categories of the type people killed by some-politician-you-don't-like have little use besides demonizing and attacking someone. Weregerbil 12:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep. Some of the people who are in favor of deleting this category voted to create Category:People killed by order of Muhammad; you be the judge of their actions. --Inahet 03:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category has been present for two years and contains a whopping one article: the main article about Filmi. Delete unless someone can actually put articles about filmi musicians, filmi songs, or movies with filmi in it. JIP | Talk 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Photographs. Conscious 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on Category talk:Memorable photographs, there are no objective, verifiable, criteria for determining what makes a photograph memorable. I think Category:Pulitzer Prize winning photographs would be a good partial substitute. —D-Rock 09:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll understand if you don't want to indulge me on this one, but it is a Latin word (originally Greek) and I think it deserves a Latin plural. Plus isthmi is a cool word. —Keenan Pepper 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 11:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Businesspeople is used both in the main cat and in all of the national subcats except:
Delete the space between "business" and "people" in all six. (If it weren't for the fact that a Google turned up twenty times more hits for "businesspeople" over "businesspersons" I'd be asking for a rename of all the businesspeople categories as well, but usage trumps logic unfortunately.) Caerwine Caerwhine 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviations are discouraged on category titles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the Privy Council describes, there are Privy councils in a number of countries - this category name is ambigious.--Peta 01:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category includes events and people associated with the Australian Seven Sport. The category is problematic as is sets a precedent for every tv station in the world to categorise the broadcast of sporting events (which are also subject to change - so would articles also be categoriesed by historic broadcast rights?) - which is hardly encyclopedic information. All items in the category are already in the article. The Category:NBC Sports works ok for this kind of thing, but has been largely kept in the category namespace.--Peta 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nearly a consensus to keep. Conscious 11:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naming an organization as a cult is highly subjective and I propose changing the name to Category:Alleged Cults. I don't see a great deal of instructions on the formal process to do this...I plan make these changes and refer people to this page and the Category Talk page which contains related discussion. If this type of refactoring requires admin approval or clear consensus, a message would be a appreciated. Antonrojo 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]