The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Military aircraft are categorized by 3 different attributes: decade, country, and use (bomber, fighter, patrol, and so on). This is a good idea. The problem is, that all three attributes are combined to form categories like Category:French military reconnaissance aircraft 1920-1929. This does not work. In most of the (sub-)sub-sub-sub-categories (by nation-(nation)-(type)-decade) is only one plane. Many don't even exist, because there has never been a plane of that use in that decade in that country. Or worse, a plane like the Breguet 19 is in four different because it was used in four different ways. This is madness. We should delete the last category level so that there are only the following: Military aircraft by nation by use, military aircraft by use by decade, military aircraft by nation by decade. In the few cases where these sub-categories will be too full, there can be created new subcategories, but this should be decided individually. -- Mkill 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
By the way: Why is there no Category:Military aircraft by maker and Category:Military aircraft by war? That's where I would start searching for a specific plane. Mhh. -- Mkill 00:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Next question: What about Category:Military helicopters? Who looks for helicopters in Category:Military utility aircraft (that's where they are)? -- mkill
-- Mkill 22:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Rename to "Wikipedia related projects". R adiant _>|< 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This category has a smaller scope than the recently created Category:Project for the New American Century. Category:PNAC member contains one article, Category:Project for the New American Century contains 37. It is proposed that the sole article in Category:PNAC member be moved to Category:Project for the New American Century, and then that Category:PNAC member be deleted. Kurieeto 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 20:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - only one article in category. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 23:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Too vague; overlaps with Category:Teachers and Category:Academia. If Category:Professors was deleted...well, this is even less useful. The subcategories can stay. -- zenohockey 20:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Category was used to house a whole group of very short articles that have now been merged into the main article Broken News by consensus - leaving the category entirely empty
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Rename the following categories:
This will bring this category to be consistent with other Ships of Foo categories.
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 18:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
It looks to me that this category does not provide useful value. Or even if it does, its name seems to be confusing. Some comments at category talk:Categories seem to say the same thing. I would like to suggest that this category be deleted or otherwise renamed. Arguments for why this category is useful are very much appreciated. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
. -- Trovatore 18:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Some anon created this category as an article (and a duplicate one at that). The information can already be found here. Kross | Talk 17:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Category duplicates information in List of Protestantism by US State article. - EurekaLott 17:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 10:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
It's in the category "American people by occupation", and most of the others are "American...". Martin 14:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedian categories should have "Wikipedians" in their titles for clarity. -- BorgHunter (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Proposed for speedy renaming to Category:Commander Keen characters, by -- Dangerous-Boy 06:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary; we have the User namespace and Category:Wikipedians already. -- BorgHunter (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 20:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Pointless category, though some of its sub categories may be valid on their own but theres no need to group conjoined twins and celebrity duos under a parent category. Arniep 12:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 20:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
There is one article in this category (for which an anon. editor seems to have created it), and it's difficult to see that it could be much expanded, if at all. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply