The result of the debate was Delete, but the other categories mentioned need their own debate. --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (6k:4d) --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous, redundant and POV / OR classifications. Political parties can and should only be classified by their ideology, not by vacuous terms. Move articles up in categorization, or into the ideological categories. Intangible 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (* added later)[reply]
If terms like "left-wing", "right-wing", "far right", etc., aren't classifying political parties by their ideology, then I can't even begin to theorize what else they're doing. Keep, at least until the nominator can come up with a more coherent reason why they should be classified any differently than this. Bearcat 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was relist. Conscious 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to Category:Super Smash Bros., Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters, and so on. After all, the official name of the series is Super Smash Bros. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Overwhelming Keep --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are exactly seven albums by the Finnish metal band Amorphis, all of whicha re listed in the main article. This category is superfluous. Just zis Guy you know? 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct categorization. The former cat can just be deleted now. Intangible 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Members of Knesset are Israeli by virtue of being MKs. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete, article deleted --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category will become redundant when the article about Opendisc is deleted (see AfD). Ezeu 13:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with the 50 other "Fauna of State" categories. Circeus 13:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus to merge or rename --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Topical overlap; usage of term varies. Cwolfsheep 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Out of process deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club. Warning, not emptied before deleting. --William Allen Simpson 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was replace ampersand. Conscious 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another unpleasant ampersand Tim! 10:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was replace ampersand. Conscious 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as for princes below (or should the two be merged?) Tim! 10:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was replace ampersand. Conscious 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged back in March, not sure if this was discussed before or never listed. Seems like a reasonable rename to remove ampersand. Tim! 10:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is how similar categories are named. Olborne 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States media was recently nominated for renaming to Category:American media (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 24#Category:United States media to Category:American media). These two should also be renamed to be similar with other American categories and for correct grammar. --musicpvm 07:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN Uninformative, serves no purpose. Could include everyone from Uday Hussein to Angelina Jolie. Not notable. Maybe I could understand "children of actors", "children of dictators", "children of alcoholics", something like that. But "children of famous people"? Kasreyn 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Academy Award/Oscar categories are inconsistent and out of line with Wikipedia's usual naming style:
The result of the debate was Delete with prejudice (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is inappropriate because Jews don't become "former" Jews any more than Arabs become former Arabs. It is different than, say, "former Catholics" because Jews who don't follow the religion Judaism are still ethnic Jews who follow a religion (or no religion) other than Judaism. The people (formerly) placed in this category do not identify nor are they identified as "former Jews", it is original research to label them as such. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not different from former Catholics, because when a Catholic is baptised they are consider Catholic for the rest of their life. The people in the Former Jews category were all people that converted to another religion or idealogy. 75.3.49.50 05:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no Neanderthals editing Wikipedia. Even if I weren't vaguely aware this relates to some kind of POV about Asperger's syndrome, I'd still think of it as pure silliness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category is quite senseless, as a "Guttural R" is quite a common phoneme and we don't seem to have any categories for other phonemes either. Language examples should (and are) instead be listed at the appropriate phoneme's article. — N-true 00:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]