< May 30 June 1 >

May 31

Category:Radio stations in the South Okanagan

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; contents moved to Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary intermediate level of categorization; Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan is sufficient and does not require "central/north/south" regional splitouts of this type. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2013 (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.

Category:Radio stations in the Central Okanagan

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; only content is Category:Radio stations in Kelowna, which can go in Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary level of intermediate categorization between Category:Radio stations in Kelowna and Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2013 (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.

Category:Radio stations in the North Okanagan

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; there is no content to merge following the close of the discussion immediately below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary level of intermediate categorization between Category:Radio stations in Vernon, British Columbia (itself up for deletion as WP:OC#SMALL) and Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan (which is also of uncertain value as a regional rather than market-based radio stations category, but that's a question for another time); furthermore, the Vernon category is its only entry, meaning that if and when it's deleted this will be empty. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There will be nothing to merge, as its only contents are a single subcategory that's up for discussion immediately below. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2013 (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.

Category:Radio stations in Vernon, British Columbia

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 as nominated; contents merged as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Small radio markets are not generally permitted their own distinct "Radio stations in City" categories when they have only two radio stations to categorize as such; generally, the expected minimum is at least four or five entries. For the record, Vernon does not have additional radio stations which haven't been written or categorized yet; these two are all there are, meaning that there's no prospect of expansion unless and until the CRTC hypothetically licenses new stations in the future (and if that ever happens, we can always create a new category for them when that time comes.) Entries should be upmerged to Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only distinction between a "merge" rationale and a "delete" one in this instance would be keeping Category:Radio stations in Vernon, British Columbia in place as a ((categoryredirect)) to the target — but we don't need that and I don't want to propose it. The stations should be refiled in the target category, yes, but the outgoing category should just be canned rather than redirected. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2013 (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.

Category:South Indian-language films

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, without prejudice to the creation of a Category:Dravidian-language films, which had some convincing support, though perhaps not quite enough for me to do a straight rename here.
Nominator's rationale: Unwanted category. A film is categorized by its country and language, then why this needless category? Separating films by regions should be the last thing! Johannes003 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is terrible. a mish-mash of already existing articles, but that's a different topic. Point is, we don't categorize films by regions. We just don't do that! Johannes003 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category is there for films made in more than one South Indian language, that's what we call "South Indian films" instead of Tamil, Telugu etc. Why should this cat be deleted then? It's an easy way to find all these films! -- Dravidian  Hero  13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. That exactly has been done, the articles have been categorized by both languages. Fellow editor Dravidian is hellbent on making "South India" a separate country, at least in Wikipedia, that's all. Johannes003 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for displaying your real Anti-South Indian/Dravidian bias. This explains all your edits-- Dravidian  Hero  13:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, same applies to you dude. I really don't know what makes you think so. My edits are at least reasonable, since South India is neither a language nor a country. Wake up man! Johannes003 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha yourself racist. http://southscope.in/ http://www.siima.in/ http://www.galatta.com/galattacinema/ -- Dravidian  Hero  13:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category is discieving, the category is called South Indian-language films, but there is no South Indian language. It's like in the US you could have a category for Southern States films, but you couldn't have a category for Southern State-language films as it's not a language nor is there a regional one. It's been mentioned already that there is no single language of the South India region, but multiples. Canterbury Tail talk 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is useful - there are many many films, say in Europe, that have multiple languages, and of course many Indian films are in Hindi + english or other languages. I don't think this is defining. As a container category, though, it could work (as I've explained above).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really?! Show me a single European film made originally in more than 1 language.-- Dravidian  Hero  19:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once Upon a Time in America in English, Italian, and Yiddish. And plenty of others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once Upon a Time in America is ONE film, Eega are TWO films in 2 separate languages! Is it so difficult to understand what I write? Show me a MULTIPLE European film.-- Dravidian  Hero  23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "multiple" film? Every film is just one film! Eega is one film, it's a Telugu film. Naan E is one film, it's a Tamil film. As simple as that! And would you please avoid excessive emphasis? Johannes003 (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't notice: There is only one article for both films: Eega for the simple that almost everything is same but different Dravidian languages. We have discussed the matter at Talk:Naan Ee for months and reached to the present solution. Now a totally uninvolved guy like you comes here and destroys everything because of a fanatic proselytizing agenda.-- Dravidian  Hero  11:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In July 2012: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Archive 4#Bilingual films. I wrote about this long back, because I knew this will create trouble in future. Naan E has been merged into Eega because both have the same content, the same director and the same cast and crew. It is equal to a dubbed film (parts of the film possibly are even dubbed only!) If at all categorize it as a bilingual film but not South Indian because that's irrelevant here. And I'm warning you, stop calling me names and/or making false allegations, for heaven's sake! Is that your way for arguing? Cheap! Johannes003 (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ignore the part, where you expose your low personality again.
  • 2 Original films are not same as 1 Original and 1 dubbed films. It costs more (double) money and labour work. What a stupid statement.
  • "Bilingual" or "multilingual" is an ambigous term, which could mean 1 film in multiple languages like Life of Pi (English+Tamil song+French).
  • South Indian film is appropriate. South Indian film industry is an established industry cluster in reliable sources. It makes it obvious, that the article discusses more than 1 original film as opposed to Tamil film or Telugu film.
  • A category to find these South Indian films at once comes very handy for those who are interested in the South film industry.-- Dravidian  Hero  12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In which case lets rename the category to 'South Indian films' rather than 'South Indian-language films'. Canterbury Tail talk 18:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like there needs to be a different discussion, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, about classification of films that are released in two separate languages. I'm personally not convinced such a category needs to exist - a list would be much better to capture these, etc List of films released in more than one language - for films that are truly shot, not just dubbed, in multiple languages.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that. But since this is about the language the films are made in, classifying by a language grouping would make more sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, otherwise an English-language film shot in South India would be inappropriately included. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2013 (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.

Category:Open methodologies

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 to Category:Open source. No objection to a new name if a better target name is suggested. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Open methodologies to Category:Openness
Nominator's rationale: Alternate proposal: Rename to Category:Open source Per main articles. Are all of these even methodologies? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 31 May 2013 (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.

Category:Simon & Garfunkel tribute albums

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:Tribute albums. I'll leave it to article-specific discussions as to whether an article belongs in Category:Simon & Garfunkel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Simon & Garfunkel tribute albums to Category:Both parents
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, upmerge to Category:Simon & Garfunkel and Category:Tribute albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 31 May 2013 (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.

Category:Sex scandals

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: No consensus other then to cleanup and purge of items that are not scandals. Once cleanup is done, a renomination for some action would be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Sex scandals to article [[[Using this as a substitute for a 'discuss' template; see below.]]]
Nominator's rationale: The "sex scandals" in this category are almost entirely rape and child abuse scandals. I don't think that's an appropriate use of the category; those incidents are "scandalous" because they are criminal. I would expect content of the category to be along the lines of Lewinsky scandal or Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair, not cases of child molestation and gang rape. Content of the category is also inconsistent with content of the article. I recommend removing abuse/assault events from this category, creating a new category to house them if necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 31 May 2013 (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.
More