< July 17	July 19 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently renamed category, but with missing "the" – at least, I'm not aware of more than one Knesset. Not a speedy, so far as I can tell; perhaps missing articles should qualify...? David Kernow 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. --Cswrye 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete/empty --Kbdank71 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Ships' is empty, 'Vessels' better accomodates the various craft associated with amphibious warfare, some of which may be considered other than ships. Josh 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category is currently empty, as of this timestamp: David Kernow 22:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom. Nathcer 21:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates other existing, more specific categories. Would have several hundred entries if fully populated, and all those entries are already well categorized down below Category:Television characters by genre, Category:Animated characters, etc. IMHO there's no need for a single, very broad, category to lump every TV series sub-category into. - TexasAndroid 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep it's true that this could get very big, but I think it might be useful, in much the same way that Category:Albums by artist is. You can find a band's album there even if you can't remember if its called death metal or black metal. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I use this category all the time. It's very useful, just (as mentioned above) like albums by artist is.--Mike Selinker 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I've found the category useful as well. --musicpvm 07:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it is gonna be kept, would someone please then take the time to actually populate it? It has only around 20 members. If you look down the subcats of Category:Television characters by genre, Category:Animated characters, etc, you will find hundreds of subcats that then should be in it. If you want to keep it, please turn it into the populated category that it should be. As it is, barely populated, I just cannot see how it would be useful. - TexasAndroid 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very useful category. If the complaint is underpopulation, that can be easily fixed. There are numerous subcategories already existing that can be easily slotted into it.Raymondluxuryacht 08:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Nonomy 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to have both. Category:Remix albums has the better name and is much more populated, so Category:Albums that have been remixed should be merged into it. --musicpvm 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They're not the same thing. Remix albums are albums that contain remixes. Albums that were remixed, by the category's current usage, are albums that have gone through the audio mixing process a second time upon reissue; no "remixes" in the conventional "rearrangement" sense are involved. The question is whether "albums that were remixed" is even needed at all (tracking albums by reissues?) or whether it should be covering a third, entirely different phenomenon: albums that had every track remixed and the subsequent tracks then released as a separate album. –Unint 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I would agree with delete for Category:Albums that have been remixed. -Unint 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge. If there is a distinction between them, I'm not sure if it needs to be made through categories. --Cswrye 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If a merge wouldn't work, I'd be fine with a deletion, but I definitely don't think this category should exist. --musicpvm 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Unint. They aren't the same thing so shouldn't be merged, but Category:Albums that have been remixed isn't a very useful category anyway. --Galaxiaad 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I didn't notice this was 8 days old. It doesn't seem to be closed yet so is it still OK for me to vote? --Galaxiaad 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

utterly POV, basically a category of stuff User:Quistnix finds interesting. There is nothing more remarkable about these categories than any other categories, aside from the fact that they are in 4/5 cases also pov cats... --tjstrf 19:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I tried to point out the fact those categories exist on en.wikipedia - most without being nominated for deletion. It is something amusing to people that have a sense of humor - Quistnix 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Actually, I'm nominating several of those other cats for deletion as well. They aren't remarkable in any way, and if you wanted to list them someplace, you have Userspace for that. --tjstrf 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Good that you are nominating several of the other cats. At #wikipedia-nl, the cats I placed in this category were given as examples of ridiculous categories. Unfortunately, those who reply here don't share our sense of humor - Quistnix 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not a humour site. It is not a place for humour, good or bad, any more than it is a place for original research or ballet notation. ReeseM 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong: Humour is encyclopedic ;-) - 62.45.218.21 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Humour is, private jokes aren't. If you felt these cats were stupid or ridiculous, then nominate them here! Don't make another ridiculous category to include them! --tjstrf 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not Quistnix's personal website. Cloachland 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This category has no encyclopedic purpose. --Cswrye 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Hmrox 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another category based on a marginal piece of trivial that is cluttering up the articles of prominent people. The category system should not repeat every piece of information to be found in articles. Chicheley 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Chicheley 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (already listified). --RobertG ♬ talk 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People should not be categorised by guest appearance. Leading musicians have more than enough categories already.Chicheley 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Chicheley 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A perfectly fine candidate for a list. -- Samuel Wantman 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. The SNL appearance is rarely all that special, but it would be useful to have a list of who has graced SNL. --M@rēino 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify is fine by me. It's perhaps notable enough to mention in Wikipedia but a list makes more sense than a category.TheGrappler 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, it has already been listified: List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests. --musicpvm 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was found renamed --Kbdank71 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at [1] was to rename Category:English & British princesses to Category:English & British princesses. However, Clydebot is renaming them to Category:Princesses of England and Britain. Likewise for princes Bluap 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename as per incorrectly implemented prior result, ie. Category:English and British princes and Category:English and British princesses. The current names are not what was asked for and are historically ignorant. Chicheley 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename and close per Chicheley. Cloachland 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename and close per Chicheley. Hawkestone 12:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Category:French monarchist parties. Intangible 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nominator is the creator. Hawkestone 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been depopulated and repopulated into Category:Hawaii judges to coincide with the subcategorization of Category:American judges into Category:(state name) judges. Zsinj^Talk 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Calsicol 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tim4christ17 02:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People should be categorised by the criteria that make them article-worthy, not by hobbies, interests, attitudes and poses. Biographical articles suffer from category clutter. Chicheley 11:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Chicheley 11:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Brian G 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also, who decides what makes somebody a "notable baseball fan"? It's POV. --musicpvm 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean. The only problem with this category is that a lot of people are ignoring the notice and adding notable people whose baseball habit is trivial. There are people, however, like Steve Bartman and Jeffrey Maier who are instantly recognizable to baseball fans purely for being fans -- in the case of those two, for affecting the outcome of important playoff games. Then, there are people like political columnist George Will who are famous for injecting their baseball habit into unexpected places; George Will likes to use baseball as a giant allegory for American society. --M@rēino 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's entirely subjective and arbitrary whether a habit is trivial or not. There needs to be an objective way of making a binary decision here. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic of category members. TheGrappler 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kingjeff 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a trivial category and highly likely to be misused. Athenaeum 14:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia doesn't have the mechanisms to make sure that such a category is permanently kept in check and it is so trivial that it isn't even worth the effort in any case. Nathcer 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the same reasons that Category:Notable ice hockey fans was deleted. --Skeezix1000 12:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Sports lore --Kbdank71 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rename, merge, anything... but please let's get rid of that horribly POV and subjective word "memorable". See also: Category:Sport and politics for example. (I apologise for not being more specific in my proposal, but as this page is now "for discussion" I feel that we may be a bit more open to ideas. I am not familiar with all the sports cats, but I really have seen some stinkers out there - how is this for naming a cat: Category:Women's National Team!?!) Mais oui! 08:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd be okay with category:Sports lore to match some of the other categories. I'm not convinced the category needs to exist, but I'd want to make sure that every sport had an equivalent of category:Notable college football games if it went away. (As I side note, I remember trying to delete Women's National Team a while back and failing. I'd at least like to see it become category:Women's national teams of the United States or something, as I've never met anyone who knows this term exists as a collective proper noun for multiple women's teams in the US. And I've been going to WNBA games for years, so I think I might have heard it.)--Mike Selinker 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Category:Events in sports history.--M@rēino 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Memorable or not is subjective. If the category is meant to be for our (rare) articles about individual incidents or plays within a match-up, that's fine by me, but renaming to Category:Incidents in sports would be better at indicating that whole games shouldn't be categorized in this way: whether a whole game is "memorable" or "part of sports history" is basically subjective. TheGrappler 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with "Incidents in sports", but I don't understand why "part of sports history" is subjective. Either something historically occurred, or it did not occur. "Historical" doesn't mean "imporant". --M@rēino 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I took a big part in populating this category, because I see it as healthy cross-pollenisation between different sports. I think it's very interesting to see what are considered the most historically important/memorable events across all sports, not simply within a single sport. I am strongly in favour of keeping the category rather than deleting it, but do not mind if it is renamed to improve NPOV. -dmmaus 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category doesn't represent any such thing in a meaningful way as the content depends on the interests of whoever happens to populate it. Cloachland 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classification by sport is adequate. Cloachland 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Landolitan 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename. While it could use a better name, the umbrella category is nice to have because it aids in navigation. - EurekaLott 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename – Useful as parent for sport/league-specific cats. Category:Sports lore or Category:Incidents in sports aren't great, but they'd be an improvement. ×Meegs 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If not deleted keep current name, which is clearer than the alternatives which have been put forward. Sumahoy 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is ambiguous. It should also be consistent with Category:Debut albums. --musicpvm 08:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested.--Mike Selinker 11:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Joltman 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is intended to test opinion for renaming all subcategories in Category: Indian people where "of" is currently the common usage. (The West Bengal cat also says it is for "indigenous" people.) I think the guidelines Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_residence should apply consistently. And I'm not going to mention demonyms here :) --Mereda 08:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Consistency should be achieved. Kurieeto 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Athenaeum 14:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories attempt to divide characters by an age range that encompasses so many different individuals as to be indiscriminate. They are impossible to upkeep accurately, and would contain every fictional human if properly filled out.

• Category:Fictional adults
• Category:Fictional children
• Category:Fictional teenagers

Delete all as nominator. --tjstrf 07:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, too broad and not useful. --musicpvm 07:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as above. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Chicheley 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Fictional adults is a disaster and should go. Fictional children, though, might be the only home in the "Fictional X" scheme for some of these folks. It's the parallel of category:Murdered children, which exists because the children hadn't had a chance to distinguish themselves beyond being children. And with fictional characters often being frozen in time, it might be all they qualify for, and they should qualify for something.--Mike Selinker 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Fictional children as per Mike Selinker. No opinion at this time on the others. - TexasAndroid 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all If a character isn't notable enough to be in another more specific category related to their medium then they probably aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place.CovenantD 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if these are deleted, then Category:Fictional characters by age should be deleted also. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You are correct, as it would only contain 2 subcats. Immortals and cenetarians were purposefully not nominated, as they were precise and rare enough to not be ridiculous. What about Category:Fictional schoolgirls though? I was thinking of nominating it seperately as another overly large and vague category, since it can contain all school aged females. --tjstrf 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories all group fictional characters by a character or personality trait which is subjective, POV, vague, unencyclopedic, and otherwise useless for effective classification.

• Category:Hyperactive fictional characters
• Category:Promiscuous fictional characters
• Category:Cheap fictional characters
• Category:Monotonous fictional characters
• Category:Fictional perverts
• Category:Fictional cowards
• Category:Fictional eccentrics
• Category:Poor fictional characters

Categories which were already under CfD scrutiny were not included in this list. I recommend deletion for all of them. --tjstrf 06:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Chicheley 11:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As above, these are often these characters only home in the "fictional X" categories. Where else would Merv the Perv go but in category:Fictional perverts?--Mike Selinker 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply the number of characters who are definable only by one of these traits is small, and if it were limited to just them, would have little impact on the organization system. Additionally, if you look at the fictional perverts category, you will find that the grounds being used for inclusion as a "pervert" are anything but consistent.

For example, Hatake Kakashi and Jiraiya (Naruto) are both listed as perverts. Jiraiya could probably be considered a pervert by fair listing, but Kakashi is no more a pervert than almost every other male manga character, which is to say, has been called that by another character as the subject of a joke.

If having been identified as a "pervert" within the series in question was the grounds for inclusion, then this category would contain nearly every male manga character. If the grounds for inclusion is not whether they were called a pervert within the series, then it is subjective and POV. -- tjstrf 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Mike Selinker - TexasAndroid 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per tjstrf Honbicot 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as POV. CovenantD 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can't we just make the defining characteristic whether the author of the character has defined the character as such? I don't think there's anyone who doubts that Glenn Quagmire is a pervert, for example. I see very few questionable entries in those cats as they stand right now. --M@rēino 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I sympathise with "Can't we just make the defining characteristic whether the author of the character has defined the character as such?" the answer is probably no; that information may not be available and the author's view probably can't be regarded as authoritative. As a general rule, if there is a need to appeal to some outside arbiter to decide whether a subject actually does exhibit a characteristic, then it's likely that characteristic is a bad criterion to categorize by. I have got a degree of sympathy for the "fictional cowards" but even there I can't suggest a sensible and objective way to make this kind of binary decision. TheGrappler 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Open to abuse and not worth the effort of maintaining. Hawkestone 12:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categories such as that are prone to POV entries. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I wish I found these myself; I definitely would have placed them all in Category:Remarkable categories as examples of non-encyclopedic categories - Quistnix 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some of those like like hyperactive fivtional characters needs to be deleted because I don't really see the purpose of it.But keep montonus fictional characters.Hmrox 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there's disagreement over who belongs in a category and who doesn't, pages can always be removed on an article-by-article basis. A few questionable inclusions doesn't mean the category is invalid.Raymondluxuryacht 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Comment for the fictional perverts section for instance there is always a good chance of writing what would be valid for the Category's summary for instance it would only be qualified for a character who attempts to commit a lecherous act and not for people who happen to read porno magazines like Naruto's Hatake Kakashi or Fullmetal Alchemist's Roy Mustang who mentions that if he becomes Fuher that all female employies shoule wear miniskirtits -Adv193 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may be clearcut that some comic book characters belong to one of these categories, but that largely does not apply to serious fiction. Nathcer 21:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless. --(trogga) 22:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, too subjective. Crumbsucker 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, including an article in any of these categories inherently involves a POV judgement call. Dylan 11:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Postdlf 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems to be POV and unencyclopedic. It also contradicts the standard naming policy for other categories in this class, and uses a vague definition for greed. If this category is not a proper candidate for deletion, I would like to instead suggest that it be split into the categories "Fictional gluttons" and "Fictional misers", so as to be specific and match the standard naming policy. tjstrf 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CovenantD 06:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 11:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nom can reorganise if he or she wishes. Honbicot 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for same reasons as the above categories. --M@rēino 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is an obvious choice to get rid of, for the reasons explained in the nom. TheGrappler 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could mean two very different things. Hawkestone 12:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Categorizing by such traits is oversimplification and likely POV OR. Unless the only fiction you read is Mr. Men books... Postdlf 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of clearout of superfluous opera genre categories. - Kleinzach 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera Fireplace 02:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of clearout of superfluous opera genre categories. - Kleinzach 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera Fireplace 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not-NPOV, lack of specific definition of who qualifies MrDolomite | Talk 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV, too broad, and not useful. --musicpvm 07:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Chicheley 11:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for at least five reasons! (POV, lack of definition, broadness, lack of utility, non-defining characteristic) TheGrappler 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irrelevant and inappropriate. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Where is Category:Underweight people? or Category:People who weigh between three and four hundred pounds? A reader may be interested in the topic of obesity, but surely the articles in Category:Obesity will prove far more useful than some small (more like perpetually incomplete) index of fat people. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Obese people. // Liftarn 10:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hard to define, trivial and needlessly insulting. Hawkestone 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not-NPOV, lack of specific definition of who qualifies, lack of ease of verification -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) and 15:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, The obese page that is linked to from the category page provides plenty of definition. I added some of it to the category page. --Kalmia 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unless we can provide BMIs or measurements for all persons included in the category. -Sean Curtin 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Still a Delete - The addition of the definition of obese was a great improvement, Kalmia, thanks! But to Sean Curtin's comment above, it is not practical to verify. Seems like it is going to be more trouble than it is worth with the debates over who does/does not qualify. "He looks fat....show me the BMI....oh, come on....measurement?....etc" -- MrDolomite | Talk 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a defining characteristic (and an impolite way to categorise living people). Chicheley 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obese is, and long has been, medically defined. Unlike "overweight", we can effectively gate-keep because this one requires a diagnosis. It's just as scientific as a "People with Cancer" category. --M@rēino
• Delete How do we know all these people's body mass indexes? --musicpvm 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Chichely is correct that this would be inappropriate even if we did know BMIs (which we don't)... not a useful way to classify people. TheGrappler 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the following reasons:

• Verifiability. It seems likely that some biographical articles could provide verifiable information on whether the subject of the article is or was obese. The comments to the effect the "we" need to provide a BMI seem to suggest that we (a wikipedian?) need to go and measure the subject's BMI. As obesity is scientifically defined, it would be sufficient to quote a reputable source which indicated that the subject was obese.
• Usefulness. This category might be useful to a reader who wanted to find out about notable people who were obese. There could be several reasons for wanting to do this.
• Politeness. An encyclopedia should not aim to be polite or impolite. It should be factual (see my comments on verifiability above).
• NPOV. Whether you love or hate obese people, consider obesity to a good or bad thing or hold any other view on obesity, someone who is obese is still obese. Therefore the category is, at least in principle, NPOV. Greenshed 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Where is Category:Underweight people? or Category:People who weigh between three and four hundred pounds? A reader may be interested in the topic of obesity, but surely the articles in Category:Obesity will prove far more useful than some small (more like perpetually incomplete) index of fat people. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and it seems Category:Underweight people does exist). // Liftarn
  • It didn't at the time of posting. So much for WP:BEANS... ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As inappropriate a category scheme as I have seen. Hawkestone 12:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This has no place in an encyclopedia that wants to be respected. Athenaeum 13:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Athenaeum Calsicol 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's really not that necessary, and does not provide any encyclopedic value. --Nehrams2020 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and: this, and Category:Underweight people (created by the same person, within days of each other) seem more like someone's idea of a joke than real encyclopedic content. -Crenner 03:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The medical and popular definitions of "obese" are far apart. There are far too many people who meet the medical definition for this to be a viable category - and it would be too trivial even if that wasn't the case. Nathcer 21:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – body mass index is a terribly stupid thing anyway, for example if someone is small boned, the BMI will say she's anorexic... – Alensha 寫 词 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would make a much better list than a category. I don't think it is a good idea that every broadway musical have their own category like this. -- Samuel Wantman 04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Listifying makes sense to me, but there are a lot of film/book/musicals and I wonder if editors can see any handy guidance to help consistency.--Mereda 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actors aren't classified by film and nor should they be by musical. Honbicot 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm okay with a list, but I'm not even sure if it's necessary. Every Broadway show does not need a directory. --Cswrye 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No list is needed, just a sensible balanced article about the show. Hawkestone 12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Honbicot. Sumahoy 23:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This eponymous category only has three entries. This is much better handled by having the three articles cross-linked in their articles (which they are!). -- Samuel Wantman 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Mereda 10:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Quiddity 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All cats that follow the mold of "Women ___". "Women" is not an adjective, and should be changed to "female". For example, "Category:Women scientists" should be changed to "Category:Female scientists" in order to comply with sanity. This was removed from WP:CFDS because an admin believed it was too large a move and required discussion. Well, I'm not sure what we can discuss other than if Wikipedia acknowledges grammar common sense, but I'll list it here anyway. I apologize in advance for the admin that has to do this. AdamBiswanger1 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think this is quite sensible. The categories will have to be tagged, tho.--Mike Selinker 04:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Women's National Basketball Association and others like it shouldn't be changed, so you can't just let a bot loose to tag them all and then change them all. --JeffW 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It'll be a pain to do, but it does seems necessary. --tjstrf 06:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong oppose It certainly won't do to let loose a bot on the selection linked to by the nominator, which included many which should not be renamed. Nominate them individually or in smaller groups. Chicheley 11:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. It's a good principle, but let's hit them one by one.--Mike Selinker 11:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunetly I have no better way of linking to the said categories-- I realize that some should not be changed, and I noted that in my nomination. I am not at all familiar with CfD, so I was actually hoping that someone could change them manually. What is the general procedure for something like this? AdamBiswanger1 12:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose--Sjharte 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename only the following:
• Category:Women architects
• Category:Women botanists
• Category:Women chemists
• Category:Women computer scientists
• Category:Women leaders of China
• Category:Women neuroscientists
• Category:Women physicists
• Category:Women rulers
• Category:Women sportspeople
• Category:Women zoologists
• Category:Women anthropologists
• Category:Women astronomers
• Category:Women comics artists
• Category:Women cricketers
• Category:Women mathematicians
• Category:Women paleontologists
• Category:Women poets
• Category:Women scientists
• Category:Women sportspeople by sport
• Category:Women archaeologists
• Category:Women biologists
• Category:Women composers
• Category:Women geologists
• Category:Women lawyers
• Category:Women physicians
• Category:Women psychologists
• Category:Women sports announcers
• Category:Women writers

Replacing "women" with "female" in each case. A majority of the other categories are related to women's sports or political and activist issues. I should think there would be some support for deletion of some of the above, but let's leave that for another time and just deal with the one issue to stop the debate becoming muddled. I have changed the name of this section to "Women" so I can use cfru to link each category to this debate. Sumahoy 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if its just these above, as I agree with others that it should be done in small pieces. H0n0r 16:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename only those listed by Sumahoy Honbicot 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all listed above per nom. --musicpvm 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in the name of the English language! Woman is a noun adjunct as used here and is totally grammatically correct. More importantly, it's definitionally correct. Women are female humans. Changing "Women" to "Female" literally dehumanizes the subjects. --M@rēino 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think so. I believe noun adjuncts are invariably singular, and following that logic we could have a category called "men firefigheters". Also, to the non-veteranarian, female carries absolutely no dehumanizing connotations, and it is the only realistic word choice available carrying the required brevity. AdamBiswanger1 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an additional note, according to our articles on feminism, "Woman" is far more insulting than female ever could hope to be, since it supposedly implies that they are a sub-class of man. --tjstrf 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a citation to that. I have read articles by and talked to womyn who think that "wo-man" is a bad word because it's linguistically derivative of "man", but I don't know of any womyn who would refuse to apply the same linguistic argument to "fe-male"/"male". In any event, the whole "womyn" term is a still-unpopular type of political correctness that Wikipedia shouldn't follow, regardless of its sociological merits, because we have to follow the most common usage. And in common usage, I call women women and not females. --M@rēino 22:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"don't know of any womyn who would refuse to apply the same linguistic argument to "fe-male"/"male"" – actually female comes from femelle, which is from Latin femina, and has nothing to do with the word male. Just an interesting linguistical tidbit :) – Alensha 寫 词 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the categories listed above. I am not a grammarian, but I find --M@rēino's assertions unconvincing. Cloachland 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mareino. —Blotwell 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mareino. "All noun adjuncts are similar"? In that case, can we nominate all those categories starting with the word "Sports", like "Sports teams", "Sports technology" etc? "Female" is seen as demeaning in many cases and dehumanising too - it really won't do for those reasons. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just a silly PC gesture. It seems that PC people designate terms as unacceptable for no reason other than to create opportunities to denounce people for using them. If we had categories for the other gender, they would certainly be called "Male X". Hawkestone 12:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sumahoy's list, per nom and AdamBiswanger1's response to Mareino (we don't use "Men lawyers"). Also, see style guide here. Fireplace 10:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from that link, "female/woman Female can be an adjective or a noun; woman is a noun only. For clarity, careful writers use female as an adjective only and woman as a noun only."

• Oppose Per Mareino and Grutness. Also for Women's Cricket (I'm not knowledgeable enough for he rest) is the official name for the sport of cricket. The official teams are known as X women's cricket team, hence calling them female will go against worldwide accepted term as an example. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No "Women's cricket" is perfectly acceptable, but to say that one is a "women cricket player" is unequivocally false. I hate to say it, but this is a bit like trying to prove that 2+2 is 4. I just hope consensus doesn't decide it's 5. AdamBiswanger1 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are 1.5M google hits for "women lawyers", but only 96k for "female lawyers". Similar numbers for other categories. Also, there are plenty of reputable organizations using "Women ____" as part of their name (just look at the women lawyers hits). Fireplace 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I suspect many uses are not in that context and also, as a reputable and trustable encyclopedia we are to uphold the decrees of grammar without falling victim to the prevalence of incorrect usages. Even if "yo" gets 30 million google hits, I certainly do not want it in an article. AdamBiswanger1 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the list If we had categories for the other gender, they would certainly be called "Male X". Hawkestone 12:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Female sounds better to me. Calsicol 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename them either way consistency is important for cats. Kotepho 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Language is what is used not what some book says it should be and it is not logical. And judging by the number of reputable organizations using Women Lawyers in their name I have to conclude that Women X is in standard usage. --JeffW 19:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mareino is right; the word, "Women" is correct English, as used in these titles, and maintains humanity of the subject. Perhaps we should consider renaming all "Female ___" cats and articles to "Women ____." Deebki 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename the items on the list to "Female X". The counter argument is absurd as no-one is going to think that the individuals aren't all human. Landolitan 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may think that argument is absurd, but it isn't the only counter argument presented above. --JeffW 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, don't use nouns as adjectives. (btw it would be better to delete all these categories – what does one's gender have to do with their accomplishments?) – Alensha 寫 词 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we'd all have to admit that female neuroscientists are alot less common than men male neuroscientists. AdamBiswanger1 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think left-handed neuroscientists are also a lot less common than right-handed neuroscientists, still we don't have a category for them :) – Alensha  ^talk 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not only that, but the left-handed are also a historically discriminated against minority. I guess the main reason we have categories for female or black professionals but not left-handed professionals is because it would be a lot harder to get verifiable sources for. Unless it got mentioned in their published biography, no one would ever find out. --tjstrf 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason would be that "left-handedness" is a matter of trivia and holds negligible importance in ones career choice, except for perhaps a baseball player or some other athlete. Women and other races/ethnicities, however, have had to overcome significant obstructions in order to achieve their current places in society, and that duly sets them apart from others. So, does this by extension require a category for "White neuroscientists", or "Male scientists"? Maybe, but only if someone really wants it. AdamBiswanger1 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amend to reflect the proper organization name. Chris 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rlevse 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --jergen 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My wife, a lifelong Girl Scout, has convinced me that the abbreviation "GSA" can never appear in a crossword puzzle again. :^) --Mike Selinker 12:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather than "Girl Scouts of the [USA Local Councils]", is this meant to identify Category:Local councils of the Girl Scouts of the USA...?  Curiously, the pages within are all "Scouting in X", suggesting the title Category:Scouting in the United States by state... Regards, David Kernow 02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amend to match its siblings in category:Visitor attractions by country. Olborne 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Olborne 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 11:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom AdamBiswanger1 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom – Alensha 寫 词 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.