Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 3

< May 2	May 4 >

May 3

Category:Pretenders to the Egyptian throne

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category created recently and filled Fuad II of Egypt (incorrect, he was the king for some time). History of Egypt is too complicated for this kind of simplistic categories (the whole dynasty Muhammad Ali dynasty has been considered pretenders by Osmans, for example). Being pretender is also usually non-defining and better to be covered in the text. Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 3 May 2007 (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:Primates of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely redundant with the existing Category:Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch, which is a better name and contains all the articles in this category (so no need to merge). Anyone who would be described by the invented term 'Primates of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East' would presumably be a (Syrian Orthodox) Patriarch of Antioch. Mairi 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The categories are redundant, and the shorter title is sufficient. Dr. Submillimeter 08:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This Primate cat matches and makes easy comparison between other Primate cats (of other Christian churches, such as Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). The Patriarch cats should also provide for easy comparison for those cats. But to also call them Primates is not redundant. Rather, it is appropriate and helpful. Pastorwayne 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Calling people "Primates" when the term is usually not applied to them is not really helpful, especially when other terms (such as "Bishop", "Archbishop", or "Patriarch") are much more commonly used. This is more likely to confuse readers rather than help them see assocaitions between the various branches of Christianity. Dr. Submillimeter 15:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply But they DO use this term! Please see the primary article for this cat: Syriac Orthodox Church (noting the box on the right). Pastorwayne 17:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The title held by the person in this specific position is "Patriarch". See, for example, this page on the Patriarchate of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. I found several other Syrian Orthodox web sites that use "Partiarch" and not "Primate". I really think that the phrase used by the Syrian Orthodox Church for their leader should be used in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the name is not the one normally used, the patriarch category can be made a sub-cat of the "Primates" one, as I think we did with Canterbury recently. So Rename per nom. Johnbod 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a redundant copy of the existing Category:Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 8 May 2007 (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:Referendums

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: withdrawn. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME: Category:Initiatives and referendums Nomination retracted per discuussion. -Pete 09:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles and categories within this category concern not only referendums, but initiatives as well. In the USA, these two topics are intimately connected; I don't know how true that is internationally, but I don't see any harm in making the parent category more inclusive. Please see related discussion at the CfD for Category:Referenda in the United States. -Pete 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but strong oppose renaming. The use of the word "initiative" to describe a particular form of referendum is specific to the United States (I'm not aware of it being used elsewhere). Other countries use or have used other terms such as "plebiscite", and the United States also uses "ballot measures": if we were to rename this category to include all the terms in use everywhere, we'd need to call it something like Category:Referendums, plebiscites, ballot measures, and initiatives, which is simply clumsy. "Referendum" is the widely-understood satisfactory generic term, and it is much better to just put some explanatory text in the category to clarify that the category includes votes using all these terms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Haddiscoe 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did not realize "Referendum" had this overarching meaning. The Wiktionary entry seems to support BrownHairedGirl's analysis. I'm interested to see if anyone else comments, but open to retracting my nomination on this basis... -Pete 18:32, 4 May 2007 (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:///seizethemoment.

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very limited application. Little to no room for expansion. Not very useful. Vassyana 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single article. No need for the category. Otto4711 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eponymous category created for Seizethemoment. (yes, the article name included the dot), which is a post-hardcore/screamo band from Chicago. Speedy deleted as non-notable, so we can delete the category for being empty as well as eponymous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ~I'm anonymous

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:-Class television articles

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate name and usage. Vassyana 20:59, 3 May 2007 (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:$1

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: speedied. >Radiant< 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate name and usage. Vassyana 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - for all intents and purposes, an empty category. ALl that's in here is a user subpage. Otto4711 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a nonsense category. The user subpage in this category, which is the only page in this category, contains some script that may have accidentially added it to the category. The "category" link could have been left alone; it appears that Vassyana created the category by creating this nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 08:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty (per Otto) and as nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 4 May 2007 (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:","

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate name and usage. Vassyana 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt - if not this, then another punctuation category was deleted a couple weeks ago. These sorts of categories are never useful or appropriate. Otto4711 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt - The one article in this category is a script at User:Down10/monobook.js that contains a line that produces the false category. This category will not go away unless the code is rewritten. I have contacted User:Down10 and asked him to revise his code or at least to comment here. (Also note that the category page itself was created by Vassyana when he/she added the cfd template.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per Dr Submillimeter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per nom. ~I'm anonymous
Speedy ⌦ per Dr._Submillimeter. Sorry about that error, it was a copy-paste of someone else's rather cruddy JS enhancements to the text insert pallette. —Down10 ^TACO 07:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as {{db-owner}}, per above comments by Down 10 and Vassyana. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:44, 8 May 2007 (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:People of Grenadian origin

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of Grenadian origin to Category:People of Grenadian descent

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, standard of Category:People by ethnic or national descent. jwillbur^talk 20:01, 3 May 2007 (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:Tough Enough

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category with no potential for growth. Unneeded for navigation as it contains only the main article and one sub-cat which is already in the reality show participants tree. Otto4711 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not useful. No room for expansion. Vassyana 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Precisely, per Vassyana Sleep On It 21:36, 6 May 2007 (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:Cable television stations in Belize

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cable television stations in Belize to Category:Television stations in Belize

Merge, dividing television stations by means of transmission is overcategorization. jwillbur^talk 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This seems to be a case of excessive categorization, as mentioned above. Vassyana 21:05, 3 May 2007 (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:People who have declined a British honour

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the same logic that leads to the conclusion that categorization by award is usually overcategorization also leads to the conclusion that categorizing on the basis of declining an award is also overcategorization. There is a list article which can be annotated with the circumstances under which the award was refused and this category leads to clutter (see the mass of categories on Winston Churchill, including this one). Otto4711 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just a strange way to categorize people anyway. Categorization by awards in general is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization). However, this is categorization by the way recipients responded to the awards, which seems more complicated than necessary. The category should therefore be deleted. (Winston Churchill was probably so busy winning awards that he did not have the time to accept another British honour anyway.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a useful category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Many people decline honours, but most do so quietly and privately in response to a strictly confidential letter saying that Her Majesty is inclined to offer an honour, and asking whether such an award would be acceptable if made. The only entries in this category are, by definition, those who have made a public show of their refusal, so it can never be anywhere near complete. It makes an interesting list, though, where the limitations can be properly explained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful. Overcategorization. Vassyana 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify somewhere. Johnbod 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Winston Churchill article begs for much stricter rules for using categories. Baidu Wiki has limit of 5 categories per article, for example.) Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify - over cat, but useful information could be added to a list as to why they turned it down. Rgds, --Trident13 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't even listify Sleep On It 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Do not list. Doczilla 08:39, 8 May 2007 (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:Fathers of the House

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, no objection to a list. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete - This is an unofficial honorific bestowed on the Member of Parliament with the longest continuous service. It is overcategorization by award or honor and leads to category clutter (check out Winston Churchill's mass of categories, including this one). A list, either in the article Father of the House or standalone, is the superior way of presenting this information. Otto4711 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To some degree, this is just a superfluous honour given to people who stay in politics for a very long time. It should be deleted. Note that Father of the House already contains a list. Dr. Submillimeter 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete As long as these persons have some Member of Parliament of category in their aritcle, this category is superfluous. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not just an honorofic; the Father of the House is the person who presides over the election of the speaker. The British House of Commons relies heavily on the concept of seniority, with the longest-serving members being called first to speak, and as such the "Father of the House" title also describes the members' seniority. It is somewhat unusual for the FoH to be an otherwise prominent MP such as Churchill, so category clutter is a rare problem: out of the most recent twenty FoHs, 4 have also been Prime Minister, and most of the rest have not held cabinet office. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need an entire category for people who perform one duty under an unofficial title when a list already exists? Otto4711 16:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BHG, the problems with the Winston Churchill article lie in the article itself rather than the categories. Tim! 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcategorization. More appropriate for a list. List already exists. Vassyana 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed if there is a list. "longest-serving members being called first to speak" only applies at certain times, by informal convention. Johnbod 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply not entirely true, in my experience. Other things being equal, a more senior MP will usually be called in debate before a newer recruit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The connection between these people is coincidental and trivial. Brandon97 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brandon Sleep On It 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brandon and Dr. S. Doczilla 08:40, 8 May 2007 (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:Chitranshi

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ - This nomination was added to this page without any explanation. I looked at the pages and found TEMPLATE:PROD warnings on them, which was inappropriate. These two categories contain some information on Hinduism with pictures and Hindi script, some warnings, and messages stating that it is people's duty to place articles in these categories. The categories apparently group articles on people according to either caste or lineage. I am confused enough about what is going on that I want to wait before making any recommendations on these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 15:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Given that WP:INB has decided not to categorize people by caste, these categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as eponymous category and precedent. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if for no other reason than the categories appear to be largely articles in category space. Otto4711 03:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The text could be transferred into articles, but I do not know if that is even appropriate. It also does look like these categories are attempting to function partially like real categories. Dr. Submillimeter 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also love the fact that both categories contain themselves. I guess delete unless someone comes along who can explain why these should exist. Lesnail 15:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kayastha seems to be main article, containing some of the same info as the category page, but generally much better, and then most of the other articles are on individuals who come from this caste group. Obviously needs a big clean-up but I would think clearly capable of being salvaged. ~~So Keep for now - look again in 3 months.~~ Change to Delete in view of INB policy below. Johnbod 15:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was decided on WT:INB to not categorize people by caste.Baka man 00:13, 5 May 2007 (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:Unicode script

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and Subcategories:

Category:Unicode ancient script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Unicode roadmap ancient script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Unicode roadmap script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Besides the incorrect singular name, this category promises to become almost entirely redundant to the Category:Writing systems. If at all, then it would probably be more useful to categorize the few exceptions that still aren't in unicode. Latebird 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep,

I don't think the singular name should be germane to whether these categories are necessary or not. If they are kept, the name can be changed. As for the charge that they will be redundant with the wiring system category, there are several problems with that. First writing systems are not considered on or off the Unicode roadmap as members of the writing system category. Also these categories separate the ancient from the modern ones according to Unicode conventions which the writing system category does not do. In addition, a Unicode script is not the same thing as a writing system. The English alphabet is a writing system. However, the Unicode scripts are more abstract than that. For articles on writing systems that follow a different naming convention than Unicode's I expected to see a referring article added to this category that help math those together with Unicode script names. Finally, any articles that talk are on the topic of Unicode scripts would not appear in the writing system. category. I would agree that if years from now when Unicode has completed the task of encoding every script it can think of, then the issue of whether a separate categories for Unicode scripts and writing systems should be revisited. Perhaps then, the names of Wikipedia articles on writing systems will completely match the naming conventions for Unicode scripts. Incidentally, I just created these a few hours ago and I have stopped work on them as the deletion nominator suggested (so they are in an incomplete state). Indexheavy 12:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* comment I would like to add that I don't see what harm these categories would cause. They simply appear at the bottom of the categorized articles and help contribute to the web of knowledge that Wikipedia embodies. I think the virtually absent costs to these categories should be considered before voiccing in favor of deletion. Indexheavy 12:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. a category for scripts in the "Supplementary Multilingual Plane" would be another matter. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep renominate for either renaming or merging. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral note: As this is "Categories for Discussion", rather than just deletion, you can propose renaming/merging in this nomination if you wish to. - jc37 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be honest, I'm still not entirely sure what the inclusion criteria are supposed to be. As Indexheavy has explained, what Unicode considers a "script" is much more abstract than the real-world scripts we usually write articles about. That might make any attempts of renaming or mergin somewhat difficult. --Latebird 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, (not that much related) suggestion from dab endorsed. --Pjacobi 09:35, 4 May 2007 (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 Korean Drama on Philippine TV

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. >Radiant< 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is no point for this category to exist. A show merely being aired or replayed in another country is certainly not category criteria. Otherwise, so many shows would be in this category because of the amount of entertainment exporting there currently is.SKS2K6 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Honbicot 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. Per nom, not a defining characteristic of these Korean shows that they are aired in the Philippines, but the info would be interesting as a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ざくら木 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Benten 16:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it may make an interesting list, the nomination is spot on. Vassyana 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or else we'll have to contend with the creation Category:Gambian Drama on Nunavut TV and similar stupid cats. --Howard the Duck 07:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this category is maintained, we'll also have to create similar categories for other kinds of shows per country, etc. It would be an interesting list, though, as others have mentioned.Fluffybun 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly Sleep On It 20:39, 6 May 2007 (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.