The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Into Category:Norwegian royalty, which matches all the other subcategories of Category:European royalty. Piccadilly 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete (empty: no merging to do). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Empty duplicate of proper plural category. Usgnus 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename and redirect all except four Scottish demonyms which MaisOui! struck through as late nominations, and which could (should?) be re-nominated. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following are demonym categories for places outside of North America. They should be renamed to the 'People from X' format for consistency throughout the encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 14 for previous archived discussion regarding this type of demonym renaming, that discussion resulted in for example Category:People from Chicago, Category:People from Boston, etc. Please note that no redirects are proposed here. If you think a redirect is a good idea, such as perhaps for Category:Londoners, then please simply create it following the conclusion of this cfru proposal, if it passes, or instead note in your vote below that you are in favour of both the renamings and having redirects. Please also note that the national or sub-national entity a city is in has only been included in the following proposed renamings if the name of that city's self-category includes this detail. For example, Category:Nelson, New Zealand.
--Kurieeto 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was cat redirect (other demonym discussions have suggested redirect as a good way of discouraging their recreation). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category, and has a duplicate scope of Category:People from Charlotte, North Carolina. Kurieeto 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus (btw, if you're going to say reverse merge, it might be a good idea to make sure both categories are tagged for merging) --Kbdank71 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was relist here, Category:Cognitive intelligence was not tagged for the reverse merge. --Kbdank71 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This previously had military intelligence mixed in. I moved those things out, and now it seems to be redundant with Category:Cognitive intelligence, into which I think it should be merged to avoid future ambiguity. -- Beland 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two category pages have been created for Educational institutions founded in a given year (Category:Educational institutions founded in 1867 and Category:Educational institutions founded in 1848). These are redundant as there are already categories for this purpose, eg Category:Educational institutions established in 1867. Both "founded" categories contain no pages and the "established" categories fit into the wider establishments categories. Greenshed 21:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, "Films" and "1970s" per naming convention, "set in" as more accurate. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete/empty --Kbdank71 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, Accepted naming convention for Vermont state routes is "Vermont Route X". Per category guidelines, Route has been de-capitalized and pluralized, resulting in a category name of "Vermont routes". TMF T - C 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was category (soft) redirect; hard redirects don't work with categories --Kbdank71 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no objections, so convert to redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Defunct companies" is a wikistandard, as in Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom. It is necessary to include the word "company" because in many perhaps most cases, the company was taken over or got out of brewing to concentrate on other interests, but the brewery was sold on to another company. Carina22 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was already a category redirect --Kbdank71 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, The existing name is imprecise. Calsicol 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, acronym. Peta 10:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- *Keep for the articles listed by Mike Selinker Tim! 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename to Category:Organisations with royal patronage: changing "z" for "s", and "r" for "R" does not a separate category make! And have separate UK, Canada, Martian etc subcats with the correct "based in foo" naming convention for organisations. - done. (Explanatory note: the "z" cat was originally all Canadian orgs, and then someone came along a created the "s" cat with all UK orgs, but failed to put this new UK cat into any categories, leaving it in Wikipedia no-man's land.) Mais oui! 08:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, "instant messenger" is an AOL registered trademark, and other articles using this term are being renamed, so let's also get all the categories renamed to the preferred, neutral term of "instant messaging client" -/- Warren 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. No objections expressed; I think the implication is that the community trusts Petaholmes on this one :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 08:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Fabaceae should be merged into Category:Legumes. Much like the grasses that are in Category:Grasses the family fabaceae is most commonly known as the legumes and the duplication of content by common and scientific names is not useful; fabaceae also has some taxonomy problems as it is officially known as both the fabaceae and leguminoseae, Category:Legumes avoids this problem.--Peta 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, This is what the category is for. There are other forms of football, and one of them is many times more popular than American football on a global basis. Chicheley 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]