The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Luminous blue variable stars since variable stars is a grandparent category. Vegaswikian 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original uses an unnecessarily opaque abbreviation, and the proposed renaming follows that of the associated article. -- Ketil Trout 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category has been superceded by Category:Lists by country. I've already made sure that all the lists in the former category are also included in the latter category. JeffW 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with Category:13 year old wikipedians. SCHZMO ✍ 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant, Category:School districts in Iowa already exists for this purpose. Private schools do not have school districts, so it would be simpler to categorize all the school district articles under Category:School districts in Iowa. --Ted 22:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No Consensus. 13K, 7D, 5Listify. Vegaswikian 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose deleting Category:Entertainers by age upon death and its subcategories: Category:Entertainers who died before age 20, Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 50s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 70s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 80s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 90s, Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s. This is a union category of age of death with entertainers, which provides very little added value. Should we have this per every occupation? That way leads to madness. I have gone over Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization of people and neither explicitly covers this case, but it does seem to fall under Wikipedia:Trivia (though that is a guideline and not a policy). In addition, these categories group individuals in a way that is not meaningful. A vaudeville star that dies in 1911 at 55 has absolutely nothing of value in common with an actress that dies tomorrow at 59. I wasn't able to find any past CFDs on these categories, but I can't believe that someone else hasn't proposed deletion by now... JRP 18:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
QuizQuick 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates (NHL) players. Vegaswikian 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus (3R 2K). Syrthiss 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for discussion. Some people have proposed that some of the subcategories to this category, such as Category:Automobile manufacturers of the United Kingdom, be renamed to "Motors manufacturers" in accordance with local language usage. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actors aren't categorized by film, are they? Conscious 17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 18:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category has been replaced by the rugby union and rugby league categories Bob 16:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Will use as a supercategory for rugby union and league logos. --Bob 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Conscious 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty. The broader Category:Trincomalee District contains 3 entries. Conscious 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These two sockpuppet categories are unused. Conscious 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename both, please bring the deletion discussion if you feel the need. Syrthiss 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be merged to the better named category serving the same purpose. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was rename both, please bring the deletion discussion if you feel the need. Syrthiss 21:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the category text, ((User:UBX/The Apprentice)) uses no category. So it's empty. Conscious 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 06:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty - and duplicates category:Natives of Belfast Saga City 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The country is called Papua New Guinea. Papua was just part of the country as the Australian Territory of Papua. Bduke 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, everything was moved to Category:Mathematical templates. Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 19:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only contains the article with the same name. Rename to Category:Lists of documentaries or delete entirely. Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused (contains links to two articles though, possibly it was an effort to categorize them). Conscious 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde Weys 16:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Only one user used it.--FlareNUKE 06:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:United States-themed superheroes to match the actual category contents. -Sean Curtin 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a primary classifier for animals. This category can serve no purpose unless the categorization hierarchy is going to include infraphylums. Delete. Outriggr 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless category that simply repeats the text from the main page, as well as relisting (manually) the pages that can more easily be found from this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Help%3AJapanese. The template is useful but there is no need for this category. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename per William Allen Simpson. Syrthiss 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two categories for same area. This one only has two sub cats, the suggested merge target has all of the articles. Leaving a cat redirect might be needed if the merge is approved. Vegaswikian 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to merge. Conscious 19:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is redundant, as Category:Independent Agencies of the United States Government already exists for the exact same purpose. Paul 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus (2K, 3M). Conscious 19:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Better accurate name. —Markles 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Cat redirect. Vegaswikian 19:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Relevant articles are at the correct Category:Esterházy. Olessi 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No conensus. Vote was 34K, 25D and 3L so 31K for the cat and 28 to delete the cat. Vegaswikian 19:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been mentioned on its talk page, this category is subjective and can be used as an attack category. Putting someone in this category is a stark outright condemnation, with no room for the subtleties that can be expressed in an article. There is such a difference between the pre- and post-Holocaust eras that it seems to me to be improper to put anyone from the pre-Holocaust era in a category which will automatically equate them with gas chamber operators in the minds of many readers. At present this category is protected, so I cannot tag it. I think this use of protection to prevent amendment to an obviously controversial category is improper and have asked for the protection to be removed. Hawkestone 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--kelovy 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]