< September 9	September 11 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cinema Insomnia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus what I believe are improperly categorized image files this is a small category unlikely to expand. Articles are interlinked through text. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree with the nominator's rationale "unlikely to expand" since production on the show has not halted and Cinema Insomnia's presence on Wikipedia is fairly recent (barring the Mr. Lobo article) with a lot of information yet to be added (i.e. Cinema Insomnia characters as Mr. Lobo's co-host Miss Mittens and several others). Re: improperly categorized image files, I made it modeled after Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 which displays similar aspects. Should it be more like Category:Doctor Who book covers where there is no gallery?--DrWho42 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, there's nothing wrong with small categories either. I highly doubt Category:Novels by J. D. Salinger will ever expand but it's still noteworthy and useful.--DrWho42 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::Of course, "Novels by author" is a widely-accepted scheme and therefore an exception to the small categories guideline. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I have serous doubts that individual characters from this series would pass notability guidelines so possible articles based on them should br strongly questioned in regards to the existence of this category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with DrWho42. The category is not likely to expand -- it's guaranteed to. There is still much to ad to the article, other opportunities for expanding and including photos are the ever increasing number of Live Cinema Insomnia events and special edition episodes and a section based on celebrities who have been interviewed on Cinema Insomnia has yet to be included. DixieDellamorto (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that DixieDellamorto works for Cinema Insomnia and thus has a conflict of interest. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note -- I've read the conflict of interest page and I am not in violation of anything in that regard. I "work" as an archivist for Cinema Insomnia as a hobby. I've had to defend posts I've made based on the fact that I am in contact with the creators of the show but that doesn't mean my vote is any less valid. I'd like to point out that nothing here is promotional by any means. Do you honestly think that Cinema Insomnia is gaining anything by having this category? Also I'd like to point out that I didn't make the category in question. The Category only benefits those who are interested in the show and all of the articles and photos connected to it. These articles and photos are all properly categorized. Also Note that Are You The Cow Of Pain? has tried to squash other Cinema Insomnia related information on wikipedia and has been a general wrench in the works on the progress of this subject -- which makes the nomination for deletion a conflict of interest as it is obvious that he, for whatever reason, has something against the show.DixieDellamorto (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::* Actually I'd never heard of this show before stumbling across a category named after it in the course of looking at something else. Thanks for the baseless accusation of bad faith, though. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - I've used this category in the past and was shocked to see that it was up for deletion. Shocked enough to create an account so that my vote could be counted here. I use wikipedia almost daily and because of this I will make an effort to contribute to better articles here where I can. Barf-O-Rama (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 25#Category:Wikipedia images available as SVG. — ξ^xplicit 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia images available as SVG to Category:Images made obsolete by a SVG version

Nominator's rationale: Per the subcat.s at Category:Obsolete images as well as Wikimedia's preference for SVG; these aren't just available as SVG, but SVG is preferred. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose pending correction of assumption. As I understand it, while many Wikipedians, maybe even a majority of Wikipedians, consider SVG images to be the preferable format, there has not yet been formal consensus on this. (Is that assumption correct?) To change the name at this time would be to presuppose that consensus, and would be advocating a particular POV on that issue. --Bejnar (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response The relevant guideline is here: Wikipedia:IUP#FORMAT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So as I read the guideline and the instructions on this page, there may be files listed on this page that are not obsoleted by their SVG counterpart. Therefore, I still oppose the name change. --Bejnar (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've seen many an SVG being deleted because it was a handtracing of a raster graphics image, and therefore inaccurate. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 20. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a semi-protected page to Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests

Nominator's rationale: We shouldn't have such a kind of category. Putting requests in two different categories means that one has to check more categories in order to help folks. I see no problem in simply putting "misplaced requests" into the common Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Anyone who checks this category can just as easily verify the request and act accordingly, no matter where it's placed. If it's within the article for some reason, they can either do it or not. However, as it currently stands, it can quite easily happen that a good faith request might go unnoticed for some time. Furthermore, from my experience at Commons (yes, I know it's not exactly the same, but still think it's comparable here), I've hardly ever seen any edit request on a non-talk page. Thus, I propose to put all non-talk page requests into Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. The Evil IP address (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with age disputes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - commonplace amongst certain professions (acting, recording) but doesn't strike me as rising to the level of being a defining characteristic. Certainly something that should be noted in a biographical article and there's a representative list in Age fabrication. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – these are hardly controversies so the sole parent is bizarre. (The subcat Category:Longevity claims has a better parent.) Occuli (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Countries with varying regional drinking ages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization at best. I removed the category from India because a) the topic itself is undue in the article, b) there are many important aspects to categorize such articles on, and this isn't one of them. I don't think any country articles should be categorized at this level. Delete. —SpacemanSpiff 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creators rationale: i'm generally a believer that if a category has more than a couple pages in it, it's fine. For the benefit of anyone reading this, there are 5 countries that i know of that fit this description (India, Indonesia, Spain, Austria and Canada). I won't freak out if this page gets deleted, but i think it should stay Keep Kill me when i die (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's a small category with unlikely growth potential. The topic is also too complicated for simple categorization. It's already covered in its complexity at Legal drinking age and sub-articles. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – this is certainly WP:OCAT. Occuli (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Given that there are a small number of likely members, and that this is a very minor feature of each, this should be a list at best (probably as part of legal drinking age), but certainly not a category. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about money (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overly loose criterion for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems fine to me - about half have "money" in the title. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - vague and arbitrary inclusion criteria. "9 to 5" is about going to work "to make a living" so it's about money? "No Scrubs" is about refusing to date poor men so it's about money? Having money in the title doesn't tell us that the song is "about" money. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So as I understand the complaint is not with the category but with either the existing criteria for the category, or the way in which those criteria are being misapplied. How about suggestions that would make this category work properly? --Bejnar (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category is unworkable as it is, and trying to draw a line anywhere would just lead to an arbitrary inclusion criteria. We're better off without this. — ξ^xplicit 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vague and arbitrary inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World billionaires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Meaningless. Possibly suitable for an upmerge to Category:Billionaires, but most of them were already in a subcategory, so a mechanical upmerge would be a mistake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Change "most" to "all" (in a category of Category:Billionaires by nationality); there had been two that weren't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify this comment?

Before my edits, two of the people in this category were not in any other "Billionaires" category. I fixed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Do not merge per nomination. There are no non-world billionaires. --Bejnar (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Australian artists. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian male artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is a longstanding tradition of not categorizing artists by sex (with a few very specific exceptions). Pichpich (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Australian artists, surprisingly many of whom seem to be neither male nor in Category:Australian women artists. Occuli (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Australian artists Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is a longstanding tradition of not categorizing artists by sex (with a few very specific exceptions). Pichpich (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing to upmerge, assuming the single subcat is upmerged. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but use only as a parent category. Dew Kane (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Club de Futbol Pachuca to Category:C.F. Pachuca

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article C.F. Pachuca and subcats. Tassedethe (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Magallanes footballers to Category:C.D. Magallanes footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article C.D. Magallanes. Tassedethe (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FAS footballers to Category:C.D. FAS footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the article C.D. FAS. Tassedethe (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 19#Category:Business schools in the United States insular areas. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Business schools in the United States insular areas to Category:Business schools in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Extra layer of categorization not need for single category Category:Business schools in Puerto Rico. (If kept it needs renaming to Category:Business schools in United States insular areas). Tassedethe (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Buses in Winchester to Category:Transport in Hampshire

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent cat which already contains bus routes for other towns and cities in Hampshire. Category not required for single article.. Tassedethe (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge - it's not even a bus (I went there expecting to find an article about a notable bus in Winchester - a cruel disappointment). [Not transportation, then?] Occuli (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge since there is only one article in the category. Dew Kane (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ^xplicit 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television related controversies to Category:Television controversies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. None of the other subcategories of Category:Controversies has "related" in its name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No time to evaluate this right now, I just want to note that nearly all the sub-cats of Category:Religious controversies use "-related" in their names, and I'm pretty sure there are some others. Cgingold (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like just the religious sub-subcategories of Category:Controversies follow this format. Everything else just uses the noun in front of "controversies."--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Genetically modified organisms to Category:Artificial mutant

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A euphemism; weak wording here begs definition. 216.234.170.88 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming - This is a ridiculous proposal. "Genetically modified organism" is a widely used term; as far as I am aware it is the standard term -- and hardly a "euphemism". Whereas the term proposed to replace it, "Artificial mutant", strikes me as a neologism at best. I've never come across it anywhere. Did you invent this term yourself?? (Category creator notified using ((cfd-notify)).) Cgingold (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If anybody is interested in the background to this proposal, I've now discovered that the issue had been discussed at length on the talk page for Genetically modified organism. Cgingold (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Cginold and everyone else at the GMO talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - GMO is hardly a euphemism, its a precise and accurate descriptor. In contrast, Artificial mutant has all sorts of ambiguities. Rockpocket 09:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the suggested rename sounds like a character from science fiction. 'Dr Who and the artificial mutants'. Occuli (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn, too funny!! I think you nailed it, Occuli. Cgingold (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - term "artificial mutant" not in use by scientific community. Settlet (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honorary doctorates of the University of Calcutta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We have several genres categories for Category:action films already and I can not find any sources describing "action drama" in google books or online. Several of these films I can not even found described as dramas themself so I would nominate this cat which is being populate by only one user for deletion per WP:OR and over categorization. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page because I think are enough action dramas, for example, Spider-Man 2/3 aren't just action movies, they have lots of drama in them, I'd say more than action so. Chigurgh (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My deal is, I've never heard the films prominently described as dramas. Google shows nothing, and by that standard, you might as well call it a romance because there's a romance involved. I don't think this genre is prominent enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"keep" I have never heard Inglourious Basterds prominently descibred as adventure, except when it is accompanied by "wer" in "war adventure". The question is, remove Spider-Man but keep Leon and Heat, as there are sources refering to them as action dramas. Chigurgh (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is adventure drama, I think there should be action dramas too. Chigurgh (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, that's another story. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Noticed this flaring up my watchlist, seems to be a good-faith effort at filling out the level of subcategorisation alongside Category:American action thriller films. Recommend it be deleted as an unneeded and unverified intersection of quite satisfactory categories/genres. Skomorokh 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I have given the poor thing 2 parents. I would say there is a case for merging Category:Drama films and Category:Thriller films but then I am no film buff. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose Category:Action drama films would be the intersection of Category:Action films and Category:Drama films. I'm not sure that this involves OR (or that it is useful). Occuli (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others; appears to be a neologism that mashes up genres without precedent. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The category creator's own example, that the Spiderman films 2 and 3 belong here, because they have a distinctive amount of drama in them, but not Spiderman 1, in his view, only serves to illustrate how hopelessly subjective such a category would be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: already nominated on September 9. Non-admin close. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ancient Old Jade to Category:Jade

Nominator's rationale: Merge. It's a good idea. 13:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionwebmuseum (talk • contribs)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.