The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 9 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
Unused categories; user test. -- Tabor 2 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 9 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
Delete. The category Category:Medical colleges in India created as a replacement after receiving a mail from doctorbruno with the following: Please note that in India it is Medical Colleges and it is NEVER referred to as "School". Please see a similar category for Pakistan Medical Colleges. So created new category and moved content. Speedy? - Nigosh 2 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 16:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Rename to spell out the series names (voyager, enterprise, the next generation) rather than using a TLA. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:30 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 16:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Should be renamed, as the category's present name is quite simply a misnomer; in reality, all computers, like the one you're sitting at right now, are individual. "Unique" shares the same problem, as is easily verified by a simple google search. The suggested new name is Category:One-of-a-kind computers, which accurately denotes the intended machines (see the category's intro text). Contrary to the other suggestions, "one-of-a-kind" has a generally high recognition rate, judging from documents all around the 'net. -- Wernher 2 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Yo. Representin'. Gamaliel 2 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 16:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not really a quality notable enough for its own category. If kept, it should be something like "U.S. TV channels with British versions." tregoweth July 2, 2005 19:48 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 16:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Better as a list? Needs a better name? Belongs in the Jim Steinman article? I don't really think it's tenable to create categories for all the different combinations of collaborations in entertainment. -- Tabor 2 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirect -- Kbdank71 16:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Category:Physicians. -- Tabor 2 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge -- Kbdank71 16:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Category:Physicians_by_nationality. -- Tabor 2 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 9 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
I cannot remember if I have seen this on here before. There is a current Cfd below on Category:Sydow, submitter suggests WP:NOT a geanology db. Not sure if that is accurate, dont recall seeing it there. However, there are very few sub-cats here, one of which Category:Bakay, only contains one article, a voice actor. Do not see this as that important of a figure to deserve a surname category. I assume there see some of the others are similary empty. Also, most of them have nothing else in common, accept their surname, which does not imply relation. I say it should be deleted. <>Who ?¿? 2 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 9 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
Unused categories; user test. -- Tabor 2 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 9 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
Delete. The category Category:Medical colleges in India created as a replacement after receiving a mail from doctorbruno with the following: Please note that in India it is Medical Colleges and it is NEVER referred to as "School". Please see a similar category for Pakistan Medical Colleges. So created new category and moved content. Speedy? - Nigosh 2 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 16:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Rename to spell out the series names (voyager, enterprise, the next generation) rather than using a TLA. R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 22:30 (UTC)
The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 16:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Should be renamed, as the category's present name is quite simply a misnomer; in reality, all computers, like the one you're sitting at right now, are individual. "Unique" shares the same problem, as is easily verified by a simple google search. The suggested new name is Category:One-of-a-kind computers, which accurately denotes the intended machines (see the category's intro text). Contrary to the other suggestions, "one-of-a-kind" has a generally high recognition rate, judging from documents all around the 'net. -- Wernher 2 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Yo. Representin'. Gamaliel 2 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 16:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not really a quality notable enough for its own category. If kept, it should be something like "U.S. TV channels with British versions." tregoweth July 2, 2005 19:48 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 16:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Better as a list? Needs a better name? Belongs in the Jim Steinman article? I don't really think it's tenable to create categories for all the different combinations of collaborations in entertainment. -- Tabor 2 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirect -- Kbdank71 16:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Category:Physicians. -- Tabor 2 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge -- Kbdank71 16:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Category:Physicians_by_nationality. -- Tabor 2 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 9 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
I cannot remember if I have seen this on here before. There is a current Cfd below on Category:Sydow, submitter suggests WP:NOT a geanology db. Not sure if that is accurate, dont recall seeing it there. However, there are very few sub-cats here, one of which Category:Bakay, only contains one article, a voice actor. Do not see this as that important of a figure to deserve a surname category. I assume there see some of the others are similary empty. Also, most of them have nothing else in common, accept their surname, which does not imply relation. I say it should be deleted. <>Who ?¿? 2 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)