| < October 17 | October 19 > |
|---|
The result of the debate was Added {{deletedcategory}}, since it's a recreation; a bot will depopulate it. >Radiant< 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dead fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a renamed version of the protected deleted Category:Deceased fictional characters, which was deleted twice already, (9 June 2006 and 6 September 2006) so this category should probably be deleted too. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric Light Orchestra singles to Category:Electric Light Orchestra songs
The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teen idols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subjective - just like the long deleted sex symbols category. Pink moon1287 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Rename all. (I will probably do the some moves with AWB, and hope that others can help out. Nishkid64 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per consensus at WP:MILHIST.There's a lot of these, so bear with me. I can only do so many at a time. All up now, thanks Kirill. Carom 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus (but seeing as not all hymns are christian, I'll make it a supercat) --Kbdank71 14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marvel Super Hero actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DC Superhero actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Less precise variations on a theme seen in Category:Superman actors and Category:Batman actors. All the same reasons apply for their deletion, most notably that it's not a defining characteristic for the actors, especially those with notable careers or in minor parts. CovenantD 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. David Kernow (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was mark with {{deletedcategory}} as recreation. David Kernow (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Plans for this category appear to have fallen through, with its last rename it lost all its worth by becoming too vague. Combined with the loss of the Green Lanterns category, it would simply transform itself into a "Green Lantern and Green Lantern pastiches" category with a view characters whose powers are ill defined (like Ling-Ling) and the odd magician. Maybe someone can create a force field category another time. Either way this one really should go. ~ZytheTalk to me! 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename. Nishkid64 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cemeteries in Georgia to Category:Cemeteries in Georgia (U.S. state)
The result of the debate was rename/merge arctic, keep antarctic --Kbdank71 14:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Exploration of Antarctica to Category:Antarctic exploration Category:Arctic exploration to Category:Exploration of the Arctic
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These categories fall under the same criteria as the recently deleted "DC Comics group members". Hence, these categories also fall under the same criteria for deletion, with a comprehensive list replacing it upon deletion.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Settlers of the National Capital Region of Canada to Category:Category:Settlers of the Ottawa Valley
Second, I'm not sure why you suggest that the National Capital Region is a recent term from the 1980s. Yes, the Mulroney government enacted a new National Capital Act in 1985, but a prior National Capital Act (which defined the National Capital Region) existed since 1958. And for decades before that, the Federal Commission Act governed the National Capital District, which is an almost identical term, although NCR was a term also in use at that time. In any event, all of this is completely irrelevant, because we should be looking to use the clearest term in use today.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, Ottawa Valley is an inadequate name for the category. Technically, the valley may extend on both sides of the river, but it is commonly used to refer to areas only on the Ontario side, and often used to refer to areas outside of urban Ottawa. The term is, therefore, inexact in use and is almost certain to mislead some users. For example, it would seem odd to see Philemon Wright, perhaps one of the most important settlers in the area, in an Ottawa Valley category, since Hull is rarely thought of as being in the Ottawa Valley.
Finally, Quebec City is often referred to as the Capitale-Nationale, but never as the National Capital of Canada, so it is puzzling as to where confusion might arise. As to the historic fact that Kingston and Quebec City briefly served as Canadian capital (not to mention Montreal), I doubt that they were referred to as the "national" capital at that time. In any event, no confusion would arise since a person from the 1850s is unlikely to be using Wikipedia. More to the point, a quick check of the Kingston, Ontario, Quebec City and National Capital Region (Canada) articles reveals no current confusion as to what is the National Capital of Canada, so a Wikipedia user today is extremely unlikely to believe that the category in question pertains to Kingston or Quebec City. Skeezix1000 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Panic! at the Disco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - There is no need for a PatD category There are so few articles, all of which are linked to both on the main article and the template (which I don't have a problem with). This is completely superfluous. -Porlob 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Athletes who have maliciously stepped on other athletes during competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Very silly category. Plus it could potentially violate NPOV. --Downwards 01:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Natural monuments of South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete This has been created, doubtless with good intentions, to contain a single article, but that article was already in Category:Valleys and I have transferred it to Category:Valleys of South Korea. Category:Natural monuments does not exist and given its vague nature I do not think that setting it up would enhance the category system. Hawkestone 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]