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