| Revision as of 17:04, 22 September 2006 editThryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators98,871 edits →[]: endorse closure← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:54, 6 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,029 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (302 intermediate revisions by 93 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
==== ] ==== |
|
|
:CFD: ] |
|
|
This is just one of the subcategories of ], which includes ], ], ], ], and ], which have not been nominated for deletion similarly. It is not correct to single out one profession and not others. |
|
|
It is true that being TG/TS generally doesn't have much influence on one's scientific |
|
|
or engineering work, but it does have a tremendous influence on one's life. Also note that TG/TS writers, musicians, etc., listed aren't just those that have written or sung about being TG/TS, but rather all of them, including those whose work hasn't been directly influenced by it. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:So what you're saying is if someone nominated the other TG/TS cats, you'd be ok with their deletion? --] 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Actually, I would ''vote'' against that on CFD, because I do think they are useful categories, giving interesting and encyclopedic information ... but if the consensus came up to delete the whole lot, I wouldn't bring that up on deletion review. :-). The deletion review page says it is for process, rather than content. While I do think the category is useful content-wise, that's not my main objection to this deletion here, this is more of a process objection - we have only one of several clearly parallel cats that have been deleted. Side note, I don't think I've ever added a page to any of these. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fair enough. Thank you for the response. I don't have an opinion on this drv. I'll stand by my closing decision at CFD, but only because consensus seemed to indicate the deletion. It wouldn't bother me if it was overturned. --] 16:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Endorse closure''', I too would have closed that as a delete. Several people commenting said that some professions were more relevant to categorisation, so I don't think that they would have been happy with a group nomination for all of them. ] 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|