The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just way too broad and possibly hard to define. I can think of like, 50 Buffy episodes and a million Simpsons/South Park/Drawn Together/Family Guy/American Dad! ones. Not really useful for LGBT studies, either. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 10:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 10:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 10:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the failure of the previous nomination to standardize the naming of these categories, WP:MILHIST has come up with a new proposed naming scheme—"X involving Y"—that resolves the three major issues:
Hence, we propose that all the sub-categories classifying military conflicts and operations by country be renamed to this new form. Kirill Lokshin 05:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 11:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. As much as I applaud the creation of this category, I believe the distinction between bi and gay is not always possible to be clear. Of the three articles in the category at present, Marissa Cooper and Alex Kelly are indisputable - but perhaps some may see Stewie Griffin as something other than bisexual. Even with confirmation, the line is blurred, shifts, and is hard to objectively define beyond the LGB(T) parent. This is why I think this category should be upmerged as an unnecessary subcategory. If the consensus is that this category is kept, then someone should also create "fictional lesbians" and "fictional gay men" as subcategories. Perhaps "Bisexuality in fiction" or "List of fictional bisexuals" would suit this better. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]