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:speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted category. BencherliteTalk 09:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic, overcategorization by feature of name. The inclusion of people who don't actually have duplicated names (Chris Christie's first name is Christopher, not Christie) or whose names are homonyms and not duplicated (Llewelyn Lewellin for instance) indicates the vague and untenable nature of the category. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted page. Neutralitytalk 00:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless, arbitrary and inconsistent entries in this category.Curb Chain (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale re American tragedy films:Delete. Whatever could the criteria of this category be? I suppose it's possible this could be limited to films about actual events considered tragedies, but that's not what it's being used for; how could La Bamba, The Howling, Easy Rider, and Gladiator be categorized as "tragedy films" other than they have sad endings? --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many films fall on the border. (In otherwords, it would be hard to categorize films into this category with accuracy.)Curb Chain (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nomination changed to include head category Category:Tragedy films as the criteria for the head category need to be defined. The American sub-category shouldn't be considered on its own. - Fayenatic(talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Sealand" is also an amusement park, so ambiguous. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Big WP:OCAT. Nothing distinct about being both Hungarian-American and a film director. This category also opens up the floodgate for a boatload more X-American film director cats. Bulldog123 04:29, 31 May 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The contents can be dealt with in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 article. Also, there is more than one country that uses the term "Class A" with respect to drug classification so unless the category had a country qualifier it leads to confusion for readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per nom's reasoning. There are too many countries with various categorizations of illicit drugs to have every country be added as a category on the bottom of an article. And considering "A" is used by several countries for classification of drugs, that's just too confusing. The list article should be unambiguously named as well. Like List of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Class A drugs65.94.44.141 (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We shouldn't categorize drugs in this UK-centric fashion. See a similar discussion I have started here. (I have also added Category:Class B drugs to this nomination since the same considerations apply.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Every country has its own classification scheme and maintaining categories for each system would lead to an extreme case of category clutter. Pichpich (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make similar classifications for other countries. These are relevant groups for a large segment of the world. Similarly on the other example also. Just as we include the information, we can include the category. No reason not to have a category and a list both. It's not as if classifying them in a US-centric fashion we prevented them from being classified in other fashions also. Not being paper, we can put things in as many categories as apply. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a big fan of categories but even I won't consider the topics to have categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - presumably every country that restricts a particular drug is going to have its own scheme for doing so. It's not helpful to have a mass of categories at the end of a drug article for every class, schedule, list, or whatever local terminology to which a drug has been assigned. A list of the drugs and a list of restrictions with appropriate linkage between them in the drug article would better serve the reader. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (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.
