The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the previous CFD nomination were that the mass media-related categories needed to be tidied up, but not necessarily deleted. After doing the cleanup, there are only 6 subcategories and 1 article in this category. Should we merge Category:Journalism here? The last nomination asserted that there are people in the news media who are not journalists and who do not do journalism (technicians, etc.). -- Beland 22:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge. "News media" is a category for newspapers, newsmagazines, news web sites, etc., and to dfferentiate broadcast journalism from print journalism, for example.This deserves its own category. As a compromise, if you want to take it out of "Mass media," I could go along with that. Maurreen (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Category has six populated subcategories; Category:Journalism has (and should have) multiple parents. siafu 18:32, 6 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reason: POV title, and too narrow, too. Eg., Aleksandr Khanzhonkov is hardly a mogul. mikka (t) 21:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Film production company owners. -Sean Curtin 00:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Moguls" is slanguage; like having the opposite as Category:Movie schlepps. Also, far from being too narrow, is rather broad but subjective, in the sense of Category:Notable film producers. Furthermore, "company owners" is simplistic at best, inaccurate at worst as most "moguls", like Zanuck, didn't own 20th-Fox at all but was rather the appointed president who amassed power, and William Fox started out owning Fox Films but sold stock, became president by the consent of the board of directors, and finally was tossed in a hostile takeover in 1930. Need to stick with occupation-based categories "Film producers", "Film directors", "Film company executives", etc., unless you can come up with a better rename. I can't think of one. 12.73.194.58 02:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of these people belong here. I don't think there is a better term for what they are. This is what they are commonly called. If you can come up with a better name than Category:Movie moguls and Category:Film company owners, I'll be in favor of it. If it is POV, require citations for inclusion in the category. If "Aleksandr Khanzhonkov is hardly a mogul", remove him. If you can determine that he isn't a mogul, you must have a pretty good idea of what a mogul is and who belongs in the Category. -- Samuel Wantman 08:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per NPOV. siafu 18:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note No consensus; ren 2/5; ren 1/5; keep 1/5; del 1/5; If an article does not belong in a cat, then simply re-cat it. ∞Who?¿? 00:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Remove Aleksandr Khanzhonkov. --stefanomione 17.49 September 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reason: POV title, and too narrow, too. mikka (t) 21:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Television company owners. -Sean Curtin 00:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Owners of cable television providers; category is not about manufacturers of televisions. siafu 18:36, 6 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This category details items of news and methods of journalism." This is redundant with Category:Current events and Category:Journalism, respectively. -- Beland 21:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "Current events" is just for current events, "News" is for items of news over the years. There are a large number of subcategories too. Underused, but useful. violet/riga (t) 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But every item of information in the entire encyclopedia was an item of news when it was first discovered or occurred. Anyway, it looks like older articles from Category:Current events are being or should be filed under e.g. Category:2004. -- Beland 22:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "News over the years" is better served by the various history categories that exist. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant. -Sean Curtin 00:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "News over the years" is nonsensical; if it's notable it can be categorized some better way, and articles notable mostly for being new should be merged on wikipedia or transwiki'ed to wikinews. However, this category serves as a parent for Category:News Agencies (improperly capitalized) and Category:Television news (there should probably also be something like Category:Radio news) and should be kept for that reason. siafu 18:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. -- Reinyday, 02:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental creation. I searched for it and couldn't find what I was pretty sure already existed...then found it later. This is an unnecessary duplication of the already extant Category:Transportation in Wisconsin. Marked speedy. Tomer ^TALK 21:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Similar categories. (U.S. state) is the category already categorized and heavily populated.

• Merge (see the reason I listed above). Win777 20:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge as a recreation. We had this already — it clearly needs to be given a {{categoryredirect}}. -Splash 21:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and disambiguate. -Sean Curtin 00:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename nominated only. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We shouln't expect readers to be familiar with acromynms unless they are the most commonly used term for the subject matter (like NASDAQ). To me "LSE" mainly refers to the London School of Economics, and a google search suggests I am not alone in perceiving it that way. It also stands for many other things in various countries, and this category will sound odd to people if it reads "Companies quoted on the Institution for Medical Research" or whatever in their native country. Rename category:Companies traded on the London Stotck Exchange. CalJW 20:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. There's already a strong presumption against abbreviations in both article and category titles. In this particular case, the acronym is also shared by two high-profile institutions. -Splash 21:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I doubt if anyone familiar with the London School of Economics will that that stocks are traded there. However, rather than tackling this one alone, we should consider doing a systematic rename of all of the sub-categories of Category:Companies by stock exchange to a single standard. At present we have the following categories:

1. Category:Companies traded on AMEX
2. Category:Companies traded on BSE
3. Category:Companies traded on NASDAQ
4. Category:Companies traded on the ASX
5. Category:Companies lised on the Euronext exchanges (even with out standardizing, this one needs a correction for the typo)
6. Category:Companies traded on HKSE
7. Category:Companies traded on the Irish Stock Exchange
8. Category:Companies traded on KOSDAQ
9. Category:Companies traded on the Korea Stock Exchange
10. Category:Companies traded on the LSE
11. Category:Companies traded on NYSE
12. Category:Companies traded on the PSE
13. Category:Companies traded on the SGX
14. Category:Companies listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange
15. Category:Companies traded on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange
16. Category:Companies traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange
17. Category:Companies traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange
18. Category:Companies listed on Xetra

The standard of the proposed change here would suit me fine, but having a single clear standard is more important than what that standard is. Caerwine 21:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Abbreviations should be avoided. siafu 00:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all except NASDAQ That's a familiar everyday word (I'm not American), many people probably don't even realise it is an acronym, and as it is so long I doubt it is an acromym for anything other than - whatever it is an acronym for. Spelling it out would increase the obscurity. CalJW 00:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Companies listed on (exchange), <ins>except Companies listed on NASDAQ</ins>. At least in the U.S. financial sector (of which I do not claim comprehensive knowledge), it is common to speak of "listings" and "listed companies" but not "traded companies," unless in the form "publicly traded" which would be redundant here. Besides, a company may have several listed securities, on more than one exchange, all tradeable, but not necessarily traded. - choster 15:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but not NASDAQ, which is often written Nasdaq. The full version would be horrible and confusing. The same applies to Kosdaq, and SWX Swiss Exchange is long enough and clear enough already. But change the others. No preference on listed/traded. Carina22 22:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, but the all-caps NASDAQ is more correct to refer to the exchange; Nasdaq is often an abbreviation for the NASDAQ Composite Index or to the parent company, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.- choster 21:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone might want to mark these for deletion or nothing is going to happen with them. --Kbdank71 18:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest relisting the rest of the categories mentioned, as they were not marked, so they will not be changed. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a cultural category, and shouldn't think that anyone will have a problem with it being organised on state boundary lines. It is already in category:Categories by country. Rename category:Health by country. CalJW 19:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Health, like Universities and colleges below, doesn't have a nationality, however we name the cats beneath it. -Splash 21:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename! -- Reinyday, 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:16, 6 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-placed nomination moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to here. Uncle G 18:29:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

• Delete Non standard form. CalJW 19:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty. Porn starts appear to be cat'd by country rather than vague geographic region. -Splash 21:21, 5 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-placed nomination moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to here. Uncle G 18:29:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

• Delete. Empty, parentless. siafu 18:48, 6 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was No change, not a valid Cfd. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete "Employee" section. The Infobox for this article already contains the relevant bio info. #7. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. Wikipedia is not a company website. This information can easily be found on either the company website or in Adobe’s annual report. Mopupcrew 17:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure what you're after here. Categories don't have sections, and there don't appear to be any employees in it. Have you already removed them? -Splash 21:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, no I didn't remove, but I wasn't quite sure how to place the link, instead of mucking it up worse perhaps you can just tell me if I'm way off base by taking a gander mid way down this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems Thanks, Mopupcrew 00:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the article, not the category. You can discuss this at the article's talk page, and if nobody complains about it, you can do it yourself. --Kbdank71 15:41, 6 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty duplicate of Category:Fatally crashed racecar drivers. No debate. --Quuxplusone 17:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete empty duplicate. - choster 23:21, 5 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed and comprehensive list already exists.

• Win777 17:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. There are many such awards. Bhoeble 17:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I know there are many such awards, but it is only one of 3 in Category:Baseball awards and trophies that has its own subcategory. Category:Rookies of the Year only lists those who have won the Rookie of the Year Award. It is less populated and less detailed than MLB Rookie of the Year Award, which already explains the award and lists winners. -- Win777 17:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rookie of the Year awards aren't unique to baseball. A category's name should make it clear what it covers, and this one doesn't. This name would only be correct for the parent category of a number of specific rookie of the year categories across all sports. Rename CalJW 19:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list. siafu 18:50, 6 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not rooted in category tree, this category was born out of pure nationalism with the intention to replace the existing Category:Natives of Gdańsk. Duplicate, confusing category.
• delete - redundant, inflammatory name. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant, but rename Category:Natives of Gdańsk to Category:Natives of Gdańsk/Danzig since the vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote allows for both names of the city depending on the era in question. People in this category will have been born in both the Danzig era (1308-1945) and the Gdańsk era (before 1308 and since 1945). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, that would be the best solution. We should have a macro that would automatically translate into Gdańsk/Danzig that would help us avoiding all these fights :-(
• Rename to Category:Historic natives of Danzig and make it a subcategory of Category:Natives of Gdańsk, which will house contemporary people. -- Reinyday, 02:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • While this may seem tempting, this could induce potential conflicts over particular biographic articles, as the name of the city over different historic periods is continuously disputed, as a matter of POV. The disputes often result in intense revert-wars, as for certain persons it may be not obvious whether Gdańsk or Danzig should be used. Therefore it might save future unproductive conflicts to have the in a single, neutrally named category instead. --Lysy ^(talk) 08:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: please see the related vote to rename Category:Natives of Gdańsk. -- Reinyday, 02:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Angr. Tomer ^TALK 07:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV split. In a spirit of linguistic compromise, rename existing category to "Natives of Gdańsk (Danzig)". Alai 12:31, 9 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follwing the capitalisation of Bowling for Soup main article.

• secfan 14:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• ? Hopefully, this is in context somewhere as the title by itself makes no sense whatsoever. 12.73.195.155 19:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per the speedy rules. -Splash 21:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. -- Reinyday, 21:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was: Delete category and direct subcategories.

The votes so far have not provided the requested clarity. Please specify what you think should be done with the subcategories, and whether or not you think some or all images should be merged into Category:Nudity. -- Beland 21:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note: I am neither supporting nor opposing the deletion of this category. -- Beland 04:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

This category has been nominated for deletion several times. (The last discussion is here.) Before having Pearle strip it of its contents, as was requested after the previous discussion was closed as "delete", I need to have some clarity on what's to be done with subcategories. Also, there were not many votes for such a controversial subject which has been up for deletion several times and survived so far. Participants on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship seem to have been unaware of it, so I've left notes there for anyone on either side of the decency/censorship debate who might be interested. I guess this should get the usual amount of time as if it were a new nomination. -- Beland 04:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• NB All keep/rename/delete decision at Wikipedia are based on a handful of votes at best. Out of a supposed 13,000 contributors, one is doing well to find ten weighing in on any topic. And most of those are regular denizens of this category, and often "admins" to boot (who should be neutral). I don't care whether it's kept or not - it seems rather spurious to me, but so does a lot of the stuff here - but it got as fair a shake as anything can at Wikipedia. Which is, admittedly, not saying much. 12.73.195.155 14:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It would be silly to make a censorship issue out of this, the category itself has no apparent use, and in any case is already covered by Category:Nudity. --Lomedae 15:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Question If it's covered by Nudity, you want all those images recatigorized to Nudity rather than images containing?Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - useless category. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the subcategories? -- Beland 21:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category serves neither editors nor readers. -Splash 21:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the subcategories? -- Beland 21:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do apologise. I think delete all subcats too is only consistent. The Category:Images of sexual acts contains a single image, and a single image does not a category make. They could be weakly merged into Category:Nudity I suppose, but that's optional. -Splash 00:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category and all of the subcategories. Attempt at censorship. Should I create a category, Images containing women's faces to help Muslim readers who don't want to see such things? Zoe 22:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't been following the discussion, but my first assumption was the exact opposite of Zoe's — I figured the category was created by people who wanted to conveniently have a single meta-page on which to find their wiki-hosted porn. (no, really. i'm not kidding.) In any event, I'd say delete both the category and subcategory without recategorizing. Nandesuka 23:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the main category, and three of the four subcategories. The "...containing nudity" categories serve no purpose whatsoever other than prurience. As a Wikipedian, an arts reviewer, artist and - occasionally - nude model, I find the whole idea of these categories insulting. The whole concept's a little mad anyway, with images of the sistine chapel ceiling alongside medical file photos and soft porn - items which have virtually no connection with each other. Category:Images of sexual acts strikes me as a separate issue from the other three, and wasn't an automatic subcategory of this one anyway, since you don't have to get completely nekkid to do da thang. As such, it should be debated separately. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. -Sean Curtin 00:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Aloha from Berlin MutterErde 06:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. --Kbdank71 15:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Caution !!! see [1]

MutterErde 08:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • What caution? This is a discussion about what to do with this category. What's the point of informing us that Commons has more stuff about nudity and sex? --Kbdank71 18:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT MERGE into Category:Nudity, whatever happens, when images are merged into article categories, they become horribly overloaded and slow (like Image categories), and not useful for navigation purposes. 132.205.45.110 19:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Purposeless. --Ngb ^?!? 21:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (cat and all subcategories). I had originally voted delete, but the subcategories cross the threshhold to genuinely useful (especially paintings and sexual acts). Maybe subcategorize a bit more finely either, though I don't have specific subcats in mind. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 21:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Fictional hybrids, and only contains one article. -Sean Curtin 03:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• comment if it contained only ancient Geek stuff... 67.68.65.49 04:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: "Chimera" is singular, so even if the name in general is kept, it should be changed to either Category:Fictional chimeras or Category:Fictional chimerae Grutness...wha? 10:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (an ancient geek)[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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 01:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmakers by nationality categories don't seem to be the done thing, and I agree with that policy. I have moved the two articles this contained to Category:Bangladeshi film directors. Delete CalJW 00:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bhoeble 17:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the merge is already done. siafu 18:52, 6 September 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete previously speedy deleted. ∞Who?¿? 01:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error, Category:Districts of Kerala already exists. No reason for soft redirect.

• Punkmorten 00:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bhoeble 17:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as a simple speeling mistake. -Splash 21:21, 5 September 2005 (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 page.