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 -- Kbdank71 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitionless. I'm pretty sure some of the 11 people listed shouldn't be in there, but I could never back up my reasoning for removing them because there is no definition to check the people against. Linus Torvalds, is an a-political software project leader. Do all such people belong there? Marcelo Tosatti is a contributer to Linux, should all Linux contibutors be there? Esther Dyson is a tech journalist, should all such be there? Should all tech company CEOs be there? All prominent figures of the the free software movement? etc. etc. What is/was/will be the Digital Revolution anyway? Would most people really agree that it is what's in the Digital Revolution article? Whether Yes or No, can anyone define the criteria for being a Digital Revolution person? This category is not useful to the wikipedia browser and is just clutter to the articles contained by it. Gronky 22:04, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete, too fuzzy (and putting Torvalds in makes it rather joke). Better category Computer Scientists exists. Pavel Vozenilek 19:08, 17 Jun 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 keep -- Kbdank71 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same reasons as Category:Forgotten Realms creatures below, although this one is much more sensible in what it includes. - Sean Curtin 21:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - it's a useful browsing aid, like any other decent category. ··gracefool | ☺ 07:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unlike most campaign settings Dragonlance has a wide range of creatures not found any place else. Even their minotaurs are different. R adiant _>|< 10:06, Jun 19, 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 -- Kbdank71 13:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate of Category:Hardcore punk groups (nominated by User:Paul foord) -- Kbdank71 18:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE -- AI 00:26, 23 Jun 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 (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The idea's not bad, but the name is rather strange. Any ideas for a better name? -- SPUI ( talk) 13:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be tempted to delete it, as this requires a rather lengthy description and it would be better if that description were copy/pasted into each of the (presently five) highways that it applies to. R adiant _>|< 14:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are a good number more - he just added the five he knew. -- SPUI ( talk) 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak rename. How about the name: "State highways with US highway numbers"? — Sebastian (talk) 07:09, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• "State highways patterned after U.S. highways"? I honestly can't see the use in such a category, however. Any idea how rare it is for this? If it's the general rule, or even only one of a handful of ways that state highways were planned, it's really not all that interesting a category. Postdlf 00:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE I agree with Poastdlf. -- AI 00:26, 23 Jun 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 -- Kbdank71 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Cosmic Era Battleships (or Category:Cosmic Era Battleship) so it can include the articles about ground- and sea-based battleships, which are now floating around in various categories. -- IgorTrieste 12:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Make that Category:Cosmic Era battleships, please. Names should be plural, but also properly capitalized. R adiant _>|< 12:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT current contents include things that are not battleships. Why not just do Category:Cosmic Era vehicles? 132.205.95.65 16:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. - Sean Curtin 21:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, I don't see many of the category's articles being called "battleships", although many of them are warships, not all of them are warships either, so renaming it would orphan some articles. If it were just renamed, then the majority of the articles would reside in the wrong category. 132.205.45.148 16:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • that should be Category:Cosmic Era battleships... for correct capitalisation and puralisation. 132.205.45.148 16:25, 18 Jun 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 -- Kbdank71 13:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessarily confrontative, and redundant to Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite and Category:Pages needing attention. As this is populated by Template:Crap, please discuss this at WP:TFD, not here. -- Cryptic (talk) 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Name is too easy to abuse (and categories do not seem to be the best tool to classify /quality/ of an article - a complex and misuse-prone content labeling system would be better). Pavel Vozenilek 19:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 07:10, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Delete Not an encyclopedic label, uneducated, unprofessional.-- AI 00:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- TFD discussion was to delete it, too. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005. R adiant _>|< 08:58, Jun 23, 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 -- Kbdank71 14:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Dragonlance deities (etc), for consistency. R adiant _>|< 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. ··gracefool | ☺ 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename - I always thought that style of wording was odd. - Erolos 12:48, 16 Jun 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 -- Kbdank71 14:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical items (and -characters), for consistency. R adiant _>|< 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (I originally created the category as Category:Dungeons & Dragons magical items). ··gracefool | ☺ 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

rename - again, there should be conventions for how these are worded. - Erolos 12:49, 16 Jun 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 (keep) -- Kbdank71 14:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, there is a good Category:Characters of Dungeons & Dragons and there's no point to subclassify them by character class. R adiant _>|< 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Um, there are 13 articles here. Seems enough to warrant a category to me. Keep ··gracefool | ☺ 10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, but only three in the main 'characters' article, nor are there categories for fighters (say, Caramon). Apparently most of the 'cool' characters are wizards. Hence my suggestion for merging. R adiant _>|< 10:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, there's no category for fighters because there aren't very many of them. Merging is unnecessary and preemptive. Keep / Rename ··gracefool | ☺ 10:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep - this is relevent as a subcategory of both Fictional wizards and Characters of Dungeons & Dragons. - Erolos 12:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Dungeons & Dragons wizards. - Sean Curtin 05:36, Jun 17, 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 inner, no consensus on other two -- Kbdank71 14:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overcategorization; too small to be useful; redundant with Category:Dungeons & Dragons planes of existence. Merge/delete. R adiant _>|< 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've marked Category:Prime Material Plane for speedy deletion; however the others are likely to expand. ··gracefool | ☺ 10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• How, exactly? Outer planes I can understand. But there's only one astral plane to begin with, and all inner planes are elemental, para-elemental, pseudo-elemental or positive/negative; and there's not much to write about most of those. R adiant _>|< 10:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm happy with deleting Category:Inner Planes. Keep Category:Outer Planes and Category:Astral plane. ··gracefool | ☺ 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Category:Outer Planes, delete the other two after merging into the parent category. - Sean Curtin 21:23, Jun 16, 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 (keep) -- Kbdank71 14:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too small to be useful; redundant with Category:Dungeons & Dragons extraplanar creatures. Merge/delete. R adiant _>|< 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

They will expand in future. Keep ··gracefool | ☺ 10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly, but why the overcategorization? There aren't that many extraplanar creatures. The monstrous manual doesn't even make this distinction. R adiant _>|< 10:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

There are many extraplanar creatures. Most aren't in the monstrous manual, because they are almost never found in the prime material plane. ··gracefool | ☺ 10:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the fiends category, as it's also a subcategory of Category:Fictional demons. Delete the others. - Sean Curtin 21:23, Jun 16, 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 (keep) -- Kbdank71 14:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contains no creatures not part of the more generic Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures. Since FR is presently the core setting for D&D, any standard D&D critter is also a FR critter. Thus, delete as redundant. R adiant _>|< 10:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong - Araumycos, Drider, Rothé and Yochlol are Forgotten Realms specific. They're not in my Monstrous Manual. Beholder and Dragon belong in the category because they have FR-specific sections. Keep ··gracefool | ☺ 10:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - They are not part of generic D&D. And even if they were - they are categorized under FR creatures because they have information RELEVENT TO FORGOTTEN REALMS ONLY in them. The whole point of categories is to group connected information and for easy navigation. I'm starting to get really fed up of categories that have relevence being voted for deletion by outsiders. - Erolos 12:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been playing D&D and various variants and other RPGs for about twelve years now. What about you? R adiant _>|< 12:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Of the four examples cited above, driders and yochlol are not necessarily FR-specific (both may have originated in FR products, but were later published in materials for core D&D or in supplements for other settings). - Sean Curtin 21:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yochlol also has an FR-specific section. ··gracefool | ☺ 05:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when do articles get categorized on the basis of the current contents of the article rather than the subject of the article? Every article in Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures could feasibly have a section describing that creature's usage in the Realms. - Sean Curtin 05:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Point taken. However, I still think the category serves a useful purpose. ··gracefool | ☺ 07:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If it duplicates another category, it doesn't. If the contents were only Realms-specific, it would be a completely different issue. - Sean Curtin 02:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • If you want to browse Category:Forgotten Realms, Category:Forgotten Realms creatures is useful for finding FR-specific info, whether or not the articles are only FR-specific. It's not a duplicate of Dungeons & Dragons creatures. It would only be redundant if every article in Dungeons & Dragons creatures did have FR-specific material. ··gracefool | ☺ 02:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Kbdank71 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Many articles contain specific sections that are only relevant to the Forgotten Realms. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Detailed game information is not encyclopedic. Wikibooks? -- AI 00:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not just game information; it's also from novels and famous authors such as R.A. Salvatore. ‡ Jarlaxle 03:04, Jun 23, 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 into Flautists -- Kbdank71 14:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Flutist" and "Flautist" are synonymous, and Category:Flutists already has many more articles than Flautist does. I'm therefore proposing that Flautists be merged into Flutists. Bryan 05:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Concur. R adiant _>|< 08:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• This is a BE/AE issue (obviously), and the histories of flautist vs. flutist show that the former was created in June 2004, as opposed to November 2004 for flutist. Perhaps we should do it the other way around? James F. (talk) 10:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. As mentioned at Flautist, "flautist" is the standard English term while "flutist" is only used in the US. ··gracefool | ☺ 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I have no position on the BE/AE issue, but I figured that since way more articles have been added to flutist than flautist it might mean that flutist was the more "obvious" choice for someone adding a category tag. I'm fine either way, though. Bryan 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you learn something new every day. I'd assumed that "flutist" was a misspelling due to ignorance, and have been correcting it wherever I've found it. I didn't realise it was a valid (if wince-inducing) alternative - sorry! Grutness... wha? 01:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I don't care about the BE/AE issue on this either. If we need to delete one, I'd say Flutist, as Flautist has been around longer. -- Kbdank71 16:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Whichever way it goes, I think this is a case where a soft redirect via {{ Categoryredirect}} is warranted. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:16, Jun 16, 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 -- Kbdank71 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is merely a category of people with some connection to California who happen to be actors.

Generally speaking, there isn't even any clear criteria as to who goes in which people-from-state subcategory (simply being born there? living there for a number of years? or only acheiving notability there?). Furthermore, what relationship does someone's state of residence even have to their occupation? If they've held political office, the relationship is pretty clear—they were a state governor, member of the state legislature, etc—so state politician subcategories make perfect sense. But an actor? It's simply not a profession that has a strong nexus to a specific state of practice.

This was created by the author to subdivide Category:American actors, not to exist as a parallel organizational structure. Even if Category:American actors could be considered overpopulated, any subdivision has to be a sensible one that eases navigation, rather than hindering it, and the resulting classification has to be appropriate. I've thought of creating Category:American television actors and Category:American cinema actors, because it's natural to separate actors by what medium they have acted in. I just can't say the same for someone's state affiliation. Postdlf 22:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are over 200 articles in Category:American actors listed under "B". Expand that out to 26 letters, and there are thousands of articles in the category. The category is too large to be useful. As far as which occupation by geographic location category an article belongs in, that is easy enough for the editors of the page to decide. Right now, the only articles going into the category are those listed under Category:People from California (which is also to large, in my opinion), so the previous editors have already established the connection to the location. Needless to say, I don't favor deletion. Gentgeen 01:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Postdlf. Dividing between movie and TV sounds like a sensible start, doing it by state does not. Delete. R adiant _>|< 08:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would note there is a precident for occupation by US state categories, for example Category:California writers, Category:Texas writers, Category:Industrialists of Hawaii, Category:Massachusetts musicians, etc. Gentgeen 16:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those are problematic as well because of the lack of clear criteria for inclusion in a particular state. But note that those at least haven't been used (or at least shouldn't be used) to absolutely replace the national categories, merely to supplement them, though in cases of individuals primarily notable just within one state, it makes sense to only apply the state category.

To deal with the examples at hand, let me explain why I think writer and musician state-specific categories, if appropriately limited, are more logical than state-specific acting categories. Stephen King is properly included in Category:Maine writers, for example, because not only has he lived and worked there for pretty much his entire life, but if you've read any substantial number of his books, you'll see that many (if not most) of them actually take place in Maine, so not only King himself but more important to the occupation category, his writing, has a substantial nexus to the state of Maine. But because King is obviously nationally notable, it would be a mistake to limit him only to the state category. The same may be true of certain musicians, who are frequently known for their connection to a particular region because that's where they played most of their career, that's where the band formed, etc.—so long as the public identifies them with that state. States and cities furthermore have music scenes, so that the nature of the music itself will be tied to a very specific geographic locale, and not just the musicians. Once again, these should supplement, not replace the national categories, unless we're dealing with a musician who is only or primarily notable in one state. Regarding the industrialists, I haven't actually looked at that category, but the same thing may be true to a certain extent, if the industrialist is mainly known for their involvement with industry that is local to Hawaii.

I think the general rule should be, given the strong national identity and culture of the U.S., and given the frequency with which Americans move to state to state (particularly notable people), the presumption should be against a specific state being important to an individual, particularly to his career. For most careers, it would be pretty silly to make state-specific categories. Category:Minnesota biologists would be rather silly to make, as would Category:Connecticut astronomers; the creation of either would probably just be examples of local vanity—a resident of either of those states just trying to honor their hometown heroes. I've even seen people argue that national categories are irrelevant to certain professions—subdivisions of a nation must be doubly so.

So why should actors get a state-specific category? Postdlf 22:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree, there is no reason to break it down by state. -- Kbdank71 19:17, 17 Jun 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 -- Kbdank71 14:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Forgotten Realms creatures. - Sean Curtin 00:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I think it works better, and is more navigatible, than grouping creatures that are essentially humans (elves etc.) with monsters and animals, especially with it as a subcategory of Categegory:Forgotten Realms creatures, and the basis for seperation clearly defined. - Erolos 01:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: iff kept by Erolos reasoning, it should be renamed to Category:Forgotten Realms humanoids since that is the intent of the category. R adiant _>|< 10:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the distinction is arbitrary, since by 3.5 rules any creature is a playable race. Also this seems mostly redundant with Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures, I'll look into that some day. R adiant _>|< 08:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Even in previous editions, nearly every creature was playable in some product or other (dragons in Council of Wyrms; beholders and illithids, among others, in The Reverse Dungeon...) - Sean Curtin 21:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• If anything, it should be "Forgotten Realms humanoids"... but it includes naga, which isn't humanoid... delete ··gracefool | ☺ 09:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redundancy is irrelevant. Anyway, races don't have to be humanoid. They just have to be intelligent. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redundancy is perfectly relevant: if two categories serve essentially the same function, one of them will usually be deleted. - Sean Curtin 07:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, well, in this case they don't serve the same function. Category:Forgotten Realms races is for races in the Forgotten Realms. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:07, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • But every creature with Int 3+ is a playable race in 3.5 edition (and even then, there are ways to boost the Int, such as with awaken). - Sean Curtin 23:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cant this kind of stuff can be at wikibooks instead of wikipedia? -- AI 00:20, 23 Jun 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 keep -- Kbdank71 14:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, this category was marked for speedy deletion, but I don't see any reason why. It seems very notable and encyclopedic, with a lot of potential to be a helpful navigation tool. At the very least, it deserves to be voted on here. My vote is to keep. Blackcats 01:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe we should ask the nominator? I cannot see a good reason either. Or maybe it should be Category:Films from Albania? R adiant _>|< 08:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Reasonable category. Pavel Vozenilek 19:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The majority of Category:Films by country are in the Fooian films format. -- Kbdank71 19:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and remove notice ASAP. The category was marked for speedy deletion by user:Rich Wannen. He is a new user who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. When he marked the category for speedy delete, his comment with the delete tag was "Redundant with contents of Article Cinema of Albania and List of Albanian films". I've been trying to explain to him what categories and lists are (see his talk page. I don't think he understands them and how they are used. He also tried to redirect Category:Cinema to the article Film! He has taken offence to my suggestions and the suggestions of others. There's a huge conversation with him about this at Village pump. He is very knowledgeable and has alot to offer Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he seems to be taking little effort to find out how things work. -- Samuel Wantman 07:28, 18 Jun 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.