The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - Undefined category which serves no conceivable purpose. Otto4711 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It's been subcategorised by nationality, which makes the whole system useless and uninformative of bisexual actors as a whole and also incompatible with its contemporary categories, such as Category:Gay actors. We have categories like Category:LGBT actors from the United States, which is far more useful for identifying LGBT by nationality. All the various subcategories of bisexual actors (e.g. Category:Bisexual American actors, Category:Bisexual Slovak actors) should be upmerged into bisexual actors!~ Zythe Talk to me! 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Unsure about upmerge suggestion. Please provide category link and detail merge from and merge to categories. TonyTheTiger 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete as nom. Category seems to be for actors in films based on Marvel Comics properties. Poorly titled, ambiguous description in the category itself. Seems to be another one of the many lame "comic book actor" categories created this year. Wish I could prove they're all by the same di- person.. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, Delete as Category:Sportspeople by religion was deleted. Baka man 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I created the category, please explain why irrelevant. King of Anonymity 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was split/rename per revised nom. Can someone in the know perform the split? Timrollpickering 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Rename per nom. Can those in the know prune them down? Timrollpickering 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
These presently contain every actor that has appeared in a single episode. That's quite a lot, and not a defining characteristic. Per the standards, we should rename those categories to "cast members", and prune the excess. >Radiant< 11:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was listify. Timrollpickering 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Over categorization. Maybe as a list. Also it is more of an article rather then a category. Vegaswikian 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Computer and video game covers to match naming conventions. - Sean Curtin 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Computer and video game mascots to match naming conventions. - Sean Curtin 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Computer and video game design to match naming conventions. - Sean Curtin 06:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Poland syndrome is a rare congenital defect. There is only one entry in this category, and I see no growth potential beyond that. szyslak ( t, c, e) 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Rename per nom.. Timrollpickering 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep and rename as Category:African American hockey players for consistency. TonyTheTiger 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Probably the longest discussion I've yet closed but there are more keeps than deletes so keep. Timrollpickering 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Actively unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree - it is the most reasonable thing to do, especially since they recur all the time. Tuviya 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was listify and delete. Timrollpickering 01:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. Category is not specific enough and requires much POV invocation. You might also listify because a list can be properly annotated with external links sourcing when each character was identified as a misanthrope. When a category includes everything from the Cylons' determination to wipe out the human race to Moe's surly attitude on The Simpsons, the category is excessively broad. Doczilla 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - Undefined category which serves no conceivable purpose. Otto4711 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It's been subcategorised by nationality, which makes the whole system useless and uninformative of bisexual actors as a whole and also incompatible with its contemporary categories, such as Category:Gay actors. We have categories like Category:LGBT actors from the United States, which is far more useful for identifying LGBT by nationality. All the various subcategories of bisexual actors (e.g. Category:Bisexual American actors, Category:Bisexual Slovak actors) should be upmerged into bisexual actors!~ Zythe Talk to me! 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Unsure about upmerge suggestion. Please provide category link and detail merge from and merge to categories. TonyTheTiger 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete as nom. Category seems to be for actors in films based on Marvel Comics properties. Poorly titled, ambiguous description in the category itself. Seems to be another one of the many lame "comic book actor" categories created this year. Wish I could prove they're all by the same di- person.. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, Delete as Category:Sportspeople by religion was deleted. Baka man 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I created the category, please explain why irrelevant. King of Anonymity 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was split/rename per revised nom. Can someone in the know perform the split? Timrollpickering 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Rename per nom. Can those in the know prune them down? Timrollpickering 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
These presently contain every actor that has appeared in a single episode. That's quite a lot, and not a defining characteristic. Per the standards, we should rename those categories to "cast members", and prune the excess. >Radiant< 11:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was listify. Timrollpickering 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Over categorization. Maybe as a list. Also it is more of an article rather then a category. Vegaswikian 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Computer and video game covers to match naming conventions. - Sean Curtin 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Computer and video game mascots to match naming conventions. - Sean Curtin 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Computer and video game design to match naming conventions. - Sean Curtin 06:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Poland syndrome is a rare congenital defect. There is only one entry in this category, and I see no growth potential beyond that. szyslak ( t, c, e) 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Rename per nom.. Timrollpickering 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep and rename as Category:African American hockey players for consistency. TonyTheTiger 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Probably the longest discussion I've yet closed but there are more keeps than deletes so keep. Timrollpickering 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Actively unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree - it is the most reasonable thing to do, especially since they recur all the time. Tuviya 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was listify and delete. Timrollpickering 01:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. Category is not specific enough and requires much POV invocation. You might also listify because a list can be properly annotated with external links sourcing when each character was identified as a misanthrope. When a category includes everything from the Cylons' determination to wipe out the human race to Moe's surly attitude on The Simpsons, the category is excessively broad. Doczilla 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply