< November 25	November 27 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabic language writers to Category:Arabic-language writers

Category:Bengali language writers to Category:Bengali-language writers

Category:French language writers to Category:French-language writers

Category:German language writers to Category:German-language writers

Category:Hebrew writers to Category:Hebrew-language writers

Category:Hindi writers to Category:Hindi-language writers

Category:Kurdish writers to Category:Kurdish-language writers

Category:Occitan writers to Category:Occitan-language writers

Category:Riksmål writers to Category:Riksmål-language writers

Category:Sami writers to Category:Sami-language writers

Category:Sindhi writers to Category:Sindhi-language writers

Category:Spanish language writers to Category:Spanish-language writers

Category:Swedish language writers to Category:Swedish-language writers

Category:Tagalog language writers to Category:Tagalog-language writers

Category:Tamil writers to Category:Tamil-language writers

Category:Urdu writers to Category:Urdu-language writers

Category:Yiddish writers to Category:Yiddish-language writers

• Rename. All of these category should be renamed to follow the same naming convention. They should all be "fooish-language writers". Without the dash, it might mean that they are language writers who are fooish instead of writers in the fooish language. I am not nominating the categories where "fooish" could mean either a language or a nationality. That is a bigger problem. Samuel Wantman 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I do not believe Yiddish is a nationality but instead an ethnicity. The controvercy can get bigger if you look at it that way. --Cat out 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Choalbaton 14:19, 27 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Howard Hughes Medical Investigators, no need to divide current / former members. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Hoylake 18:18, 26 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a category created as advertising for www.aarsha.com. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hoylake 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It no longer advertises aarsha.com, but it has nothing to do with handmade wedding stationery either. There are currently only three members of the category - wedding invitation, wedding stationery (which probably ought to be merged with wedding invitation) and cardmaking, the first two don't really mention making by hand, and the latter doesn't mention wedding stationery. I don't see and encyclopedic value to this category with our current articles (and I'm having a hard time thinking how it could be useful even if our articles were different). --Siobhan Hansa 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SiobhanHansa, useless. Herostratus 01:50, 27 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename to Category:Introduced species.

This category currently contains 2 articles and 1 sub-category. I'd like its scope expanded to cover "species" instead of just "animals", this would allow for Introduced plants to be included in this new category. There isn't currently a volume of specific introduced animal-articles to warrant a seperate category for them, as per the current contents of this category. Moreover, the primary article of this category is introduced species. Kurieeto 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, as being an animal is entirely unimportant. It's being introduced that is what matters. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --- RockMFR 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 01:47, 28 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or create Category:Video games by easter egg, yet another categorization by trivia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 12:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Combination 17:48, 2 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2008 by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Is there a custom of creating this sort of category several years in advance? There are similar categories for 2009, 2010 and 2011, either with no articles or articles consisting of single sentence articles along the lines of 2008 in India which in its entirety reads "The Mumbai Urban Transport Project is expected to be completed." If this cat is deleted then the '09, '10 and '11 cats along with probably all of the articles contained within them should go as well but I didn't want to nominate all of them if this sort of future cat is standard. Otto4711 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since large events are often scheduled years in advance. See for example 2008 Republican National Convention, 2010 Winter Olympics. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ProveIt Hoylake 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Provelt. Tim! 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a policy somewhere that states that articles about future events may be kept if there is verifiable information about that particular staging, eg the 2010 Winter Olympic article can be kept because lots of info exists about the seletion process, venues etc, but the 2030 Winter Olympic article should not be because nothing can be said about it except that it will happen if the current four-yearly cycle is maintained. Choalbaton 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's nothing wrong with having articles about future planned events provided the information is verifiable. And it makes sense to categorize such articles using future dated categories. Dugwiki 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussion above. As long as these forward-looking categories are not used for speculation, they seem useful, though some of the articles may deserve review as the nomninator suggests. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:32, 29 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Songs by 3 Doors Down to Category:3 Doors Down songs
  
• Category:Songs by Biffy Clyro to Category:Biffy Clyro songs
  

Per other subcategories of category:Songs by artist.--Mike Selinker 15:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I speedied the first one as non-controversial (I was the creator). utcursch | talk 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per June 9th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:15, 26 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was deleted by RobertG. Whispering 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned by November 17th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hoylake 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom and per points raised by fathers dicussion. I would also suggest mothers, comic book mothers and grandmothers be nominated for deletion. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Category:Fictional parents and all of its children (heh) are already nominated. Otto4711 20:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no tag on Category:Fictional mothers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete excessively inclusive category per precedents. Doczilla 07:26, 27 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Movies and Shows based on Marvel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, We have a Marvel films category, and we have a Marvel shows/Made-for-TV template and list. We do NOT need some crazy, mis-filled hybrid. ThuranX 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hoylake 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, empty duplicate. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated, poorly named, inaccurately capitalized category. Doczilla 07:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Unnecessary category, and there's already a better Marvel category.--SUIT 05:10, 29 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Rename to Category:Wicked actors, create Category:Stage actors by play. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, Rename to Category:Wicked (musical) actors to match article Wicked (musical) and to prevent people from thinking it's a category for actors who aren't very nice. Otto4711 15:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categorising musical theatre actors by each musical they have been in is a waste of time. Just list the musicals in each actor's article, as it done for film actors. Hoylake 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename, as I did think of the ambiguity of the title when I was creating it. With this particular category, the Wicked article can be shortened greatly, removing all of the "Replacement Histories." --Conor 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This came up in previous CFDs where it was decided not not have any category of stage actors by play. This is similar to the decsion about not categorizing actors by film. This information can be presented in lists, which would not clutter up articles with categories. Actors have dozens or even hundreds of roles that they perform in. Please see Wikipedia:Overcategorization for a proposal to define examples of overcategorizations such as this one. -- Samuel Wantman 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and break the cast lists out into a separate article if desired per cat creator. In fact, I'll just be bold and do that now. Otto4711 20:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wicked (musical) cast lists. Otto4711 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Although there are many other TV show actor categories. Why delete stage categories and keep TV categories? Stage shows do not have ONE cast if they've been running for a long time...shows like Phantom of the Opera, Rent, and one with a large amount of satellite productions like Wicked. I say we delete the Wicked category, but keep ones that do not have the casting history defined in the article. --Conor 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First, that TV cast categories exist is not a justification for creating Broadway cast categories. Second, the actor by series categories are being rethought even as we speak. Finally, you've indicated you created the category with the goal of shortening the Wicked article by getting the cast information out of it. The way to accomplish that is to edit the article to remove the information, not create a category. There is now an article for the casts and the article is shortened by some 20% as a result. Otto4711 22:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as an unwelcome precedent. The TV categories could go as well. Choalbaton 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just like the categories on actors-by-film. (Radiant) 12:24, 28 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. David Kernow (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Top-importance computer and video game articles to Category:Top-priority computer and video game articles
• Category:High-importance computer and video game articles to Category:High-priority computer and video game articles
• Category:Mid-importance computer and video game articles to Category:Mid-priority computer and video game articles
• Category:Low-importance computer and video game articles to Category:Low-priority computer and video game articles
• Category:No-importance computer and video game articles to Category:No-priority computer and video game articles
• Category:Unknown-importance computer and video game articles to Category:Unknown-priority computer and video game articles
• Rename, Per the WP biography change, the ((cvgproj)) header now states "###-priority" instead of "###-importance." In accordence, the categories should also be renamed as well. Hbdragon88 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename all - jc37 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename All --PresN 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per above. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why are we categorising articles by a subjective measure such as "importance" or "priority"? These categories may be useful for those involved in WP:CVG, but I don't like terms such as "important" or "priority" creeping into category names in mainspace. ---BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The priority bit is for Wikipedia:1.0. These categories only exist in talk pages, so the namespace is not being infected with such POV categories. Hbdragon88 23:15, 29 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus (although (1) perhaps better as a list; (2) "ancient" seems superfluous). David Kernow (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biblical women in ancient warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category contains a mere three people, and is unlikely to expand, as there are only three women directly involved in warfare in the bible. Asarelah 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete underpopulated category. Doczilla 08:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: despite being permanently underpopulated, these would seem to provide some browsing value as part of the Category:Women in ancient warfare tree. -- Visviva 11:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as well as some value as a sub-cat of Category:Old Testament people - military women are an interesting (though perhaps minor) theme within the Old Testament. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:35, 28 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete, after moving articles per T. Anthony. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary British women in ancient warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Contains only two women, and there are no other British women involved in ancient warfare in the legendary history of Britain. Asarelah 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete underpopulated category. Doczilla 08:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two members is not sufficient for a category. Herostratus 01:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If deleted I hope these will be placed in Category:Women in ancient warfare.--T. Anthony 08:41, 4 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Re recategorisation, the two articles it contained already seem well-categorized. David Kernow (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in ancient Japanese warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Contains only one person, and is unlikely to expand as I have found no other Japanese women in ancient warfare in my research. Asarelah 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete underpopulated category. Doczilla 08:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If deleted I hope these will be placed in Category:Women in ancient warfare.--T. Anthony 08:41, 4 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Perhaps someone might create Category:Footballers who died before retiring? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers who died tragically young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
NPOV, unencyclopedic 69.209.113.141 04:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename As the creator of the original category, I feel that it has a relevance and should be retained. The only POV is the use of the word tragically so perhaps the category should be renamed to Category:Footballers who died under 40.Daemonic Kangaroo 05:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I for one believe that Duncan Edwards could have been one of the greatest players of all time, I agree that this category is a bad idea. No category should have a name containing the word "tragically", to start with. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's necessary in the case of Category:The Tragically Hip albums. But yeah, I know what you meant. Bearcat 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :) Grutness...wha? 07:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's POV as it is, and any renaming to under a certain age makes it an arbitrary grouping. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Tragically" invokes POV. "Young" is inappropriately defined and also invokes POV. (Exactly what proportion of footballers are over 40, eh?) Doczilla 08:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think both your objections are covered by my proposal to rename the article. By the age of 40 most football (soccer if you prefer) players have retired, so any age limit over 40 would be inappropriate. What I was trying to achieve was a category for footballers who died before their playing career was over.Daemonic Kangaroo 09:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete not only POV but unnecessarily mawkish. I see little point in renaming to renaming it to an arbitrary "under 40" limit either. Qwghlm 12:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The current title is thoroughly POV, but Daemonic Kangaroo's proposal to rename it to Category:Footballers who died under 40 is arbitrary, and I suggest not a very noteworthy attribute, since most will have retired by then. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• Delete POV category. Hoylake 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - though I still favour deletion, one possible way around the POV issues would be "... who died during their playing careers". Grutness...wha? 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, that does get round the POV and arbitrariness issues. Is there a precedent for this sort of thing? For example, there is a Category:Politicians who committed suicide, but no Category:Politicians who died in office. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of enciclopedicity, and tragically young sounds a bit inappropriate --Angelo 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the implicit POV and arbitrary parameters already stated. Suggestion: Something along the lines of "Footballers who died while active" might be useful. --ChaChaFut 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per ChaChaFut ChrisTheDude 14:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The idea of a category for players who died during their active careers strikes me as a better one than some arbitrary POV criterion. What constitutes "tragically young"? 21? 30? 40? 45? Bearcat 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The words "tragically young" are subjective. I suggest changing it to "Footballers who died during their playing careers". Chanheigeorge 23:39, 1 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
For a Native American to be a woman is not the sort of remarkable achievement that merits breaching the policy against categorizing by gender, indeed more than half of Native Americans accomplish it. This should go the same way as Category:American women. There is already a list. Sumahoy 02:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaaaargh! There is NO policy against categorizing by sex! It is a guideline, not a policy. Not meaning to be all uncivil and junk, and not meaning to make you take the brunt of this except you happen to be the one who nominated this cat, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) is a series of guidelines, not a policy. Wikipedia:Categorization of people is a guideline, not a policy. I really wish that you and every other editor who nominates sex-based categories by referencing the "policy" against it would figure out the difference between a policy and a guideline.

That all being said, Delete because the cat does not satisfy the guideline regarding sex-based classifications. Otto4711 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, although it should be a policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality -- Samuel Wantman 07:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per guideline and many, many precedents. Doczilla 08:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hoylake 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The category is very useful for finding American Indian Women on Wikipedia. I think the category should be expanded. Acalamari 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because we don't seem to be dividing other ethnic groups by gender. Expanding coverage on American Indian women, I rarely hear "Native American" anymore but whatever, is a noble goal but not really one a category can do. Although in a bid of paradoxicality I would support keeping Category:Native American women in warfare for historical reasons. (Women warriors are traditionally seen in a different light than male warriors in most tribal nations)--T. Anthony 08:38, 4 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename both. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Impressionist entertainers to Category:Impressionists (entertainers)
Category:American impressionists to Category:American impressionists (entertainers)

• Rename, Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. Sumahoy 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category requires a name that disambiguates it from Category:Impressionist artists, but the present one makes me do a double take. The subcategory should then follow the parent. Sumahoy 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Impersonators and Category:American impersonators respectively. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Impersonators" is a broader and different word. Doczilla 08:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Impressionists" is the broader and I think the more used term. Hoylake 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest Category:Voice impressionists or Category:Vocal impressionists and Category:American voice impressionists or Category:American vocal impressionists as possible alternatives because I'm not a big fan of parentheticals in category titles, but I'm not feeling strongly either direction.
• I was gonna close this by smarting off to the effect of I probably wouldn't use the categories myself because if i needed to look up Fred Travalena I'd know where to find him, and was amazed to discover he has no article. Wow. Otto4711 05:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 01:47, 28 November 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 section.