Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 21
August 21
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 20:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be consistent with all the other categories in Category:Volcanoes of the United States. —Mike 17:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename for consistency. Add "soft redirect" afterwards. Pavel Vozenilek 19:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are all Hawaiian volcanoes within the State of Hawai‘i? (The Midway Atoll, which is part of the Hawaiian Islands, is not part of the State of Hawai‘i.) — Instantnood 20:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Approve rename. Let the experts using the category decide what meets the requirements. (SEWilco 07:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename ∞Who?¿? 20:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To rename as follows:
category:Central and Western District of Hong Kong → category:Central and Western District, Hong Kong
category:Eastern District of Hong Kong → category:Eastern District, Hong Kong
category:North District of Hong Kong → category:North District, Hong Kong
category:Southern District of Hong Kong → category:Southern District, Hong Kong
— Instantnood 08:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Question: Wasn't this just changed? What is the reasoning for the new rename? --Kbdank71 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These are place names. See also the old discussion at your user talk page. :-) — Instantnood 17:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. Totally forgot I said that. I must be getting old. :) --Kbdank71 18:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles to Category:Billboard Hot 100 number one singles
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 20:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure if I'm doing this exactly right, and this doesn't exactly fall under the traditional usage of the Cfd I think , but we need like some opinions to get a consensus on a matter here. The category was originally known as Category:Billboard Hot 100 No. 1 singles, but then apparently entries were removed and moved to Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles for consistency. But for the sake of true consistency, articles were moved from there to Category:Billboard Hot 100 number one singles, as the parent category, Category:Number one singles does not have a hyphen.
Other charts under Category:Number one singles like Category:Japanese number one singles also do not support the usage of the hyphen. I believe the parent category Category:Number one singles (which was originally known as Category:Number One singles), was even proposed to include a hyphen when it went to Cfd, but this did not come to pass. With that in mind, I believe this this new category, Category:Billboard Hot 100 number one singles should remain as is, but without any hyphens. OmegaWikipedia 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from his other persistent reverting of my attempts to bring correct Wikilinking and MoS style to articles (replacing links like "N/A"), OmegaWikipedia has now made a mess of a number of categories. He originally created a number of categories containing the incorrectly capitalised and abbreviated "No. 1"; I speedily renamed them to "number-one", and he recreated his categories, switching the articles, and leaving the new, correct categories unpopulated. I then corrected them again, and I've just found that he's yet again switched the categories, this time merely removing the hyphen. I've blocked him for twenty-four hours for this, and I'n trying to clear up the mess that he's made. If the decision here is to remove the (grammatically correct and required) hyphen, then OK — and I'll do the work to transfer all the articles. Until it is properly discussed and decided, though, OmegaWikipedia needs to learn that he mustn't simply insist on getting his own way in defiance of all Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and conventions.
- This is his final warning; if on his return he continues to behave in the same way, my next step is an RfC. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.