The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to propose a renaming of this category to Category:Dams in Georgia (U.S. state) to match the other category names and to match the use of Georgia (U.S. state) in Wikipedia. But with only one article in the category, and with not much growth expected, I propose that it be deleted and the one article moved up to Category:Dams in the United States. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant category. It is replaced by tagging ineractive games in production with ((Future game)) which automaticly places them in Category:Future games. This is in line with use of ((future product)) and ((future)) (for events). --The Merciful 13:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand someone thinking this category being useful, but in eight months it has gained three articles, one of them simply written in in text as though it was an article rather than a category. Of the articles in there, one should have a NPOV template and the other two are already in African stub categories (which would be a more logical place for people to look for African articles that need work). And the category is a bit shambolic, with a mis-spelt parent. It should either be completely revamped or put out of its misery. Grutness...wha? 12:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category by accident. The appropriate category, Category:Irish people stubs, as since been created. Ryan 11:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created in error - meant to create Beaches of Croatia.Saga City 08:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason the three articles in this category can't be in its parent Category:Homosexuality in Singapore. Besides, categorizing articles on the basis that the article itself is "minor" seems very odd. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was soft redirect --Kbdank71 14:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this category was great until I realised its purpose is already served quite well by the near-synonym Category:Computational models, which all of the relevent articles are already in. We could make it a soft redirect. See abstract machine, Turing machine, finite state machine in particular. Deco 05:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The overlap with Category:Communication is very problematic, since almost all forms of communication described involve humans. Perhaps there is a more useful way to divide up "communication". -- Beland 01:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The pages there are not random. Misleading and pointless. If you want random user pages, use Special:Randompage/User. Angela. 00:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an unintended duplication of Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary. Is there any reason for two distinct categories? Russ Blau (talk) 00:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
OK, if in fact those in charge of the Transwiki'ing actually intended for there to be two separate categories, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. (I've also got a 'bot running null updates on all the relevant pages so that the category will be populated.) Russ Blau (talk) 15:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Currently has three articles; unlikely to grow much larger. tregoweth 03:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)