Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Small radio markets are not generally permitted their own distinct "Radio stations in City" categories when they have only two radio stations to categorize as such; generally, the expected minimum is at least four or five entries. For the record, Vernon does not have additional radio stations which haven't been written or categorized yet; these two are all there are, meaning that there's no prospect of expansion unless and until the CRTC hypothetically licenses new stations in the future. Entries should be upmerged to Category:Radio stations in the Okanagan. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unwanted category. A film is categorized by its country and language, then why this needless category? Separating films by regions should be the last thing! Johannes003 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is terrible. a mish-mash of already existing articles, but that's a different topic. Point is, we don't categorize films by regions. We just don't do that! Johannes003 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split accoring to language used (or primarily used). I assume that each film is in one language. If it is really in two, it can be categorised by both languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category is there for films made in more than one South Indian language, that's what we call "South Indian films" instead of Tamil, Telugu etc. Why should this cat be deleted then? It's an easy way to find all these films! --Dravidian Hero 13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. That exactly has been done, the articles have been categorized by both languages. Fellow editor Dravidian is hellbent on making "South India" a separate country, at least in Wikipedia, that's all. Johannes003 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, same applies to you dude. I really don't know what makes you think so. My edits are at least reasonable, since South India is neither a language nor a country. Wake up man! Johannes003 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No such language as South Indian, therefore the category is not of any use. We're not talking about geography with this category, but language. If it was called South Indian films then that would be fine, but South Indian language films isn't. Canterbury Tailtalk14:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category is discieving, the category is called South Indian-language films, but there is no South Indian language. It's like in the US you could have a category for Southern States films, but you couldn't have a category for Southern State-language films as it's not a language nor is there a regional one. It's been mentioned already that there is no single language of the South India region, but multiples. Canterbury Tailtalk18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Dravidian-language films If we are going to subcategorize indian language films, we should do so based on existing schemes, and in this case, Dravidian languages is a well-known language family. One could presumably do other language-family divides for other sections of Indian cinema. Given the differentiation between South indian cinema and mainstream indian cinema, to me this divide makes sense, but only as a non-diffusing *container* category - it should not include any films directly. As such, I have not reverted the removal of this category from films by the Johannes003. However, I have added it back into relevant categories - Johannes003 should be aware that removing items from a category or removing it from valid parent categories when the same cat is up for deletion is not allowed. That said, I would ask that User talk:Dravidianhero cease adding individual films to this category, as if it remains it won't make sense as such (and there would thousands of films to add with no discernible benefit to the reader), but it would make sense to add any other south-indian/dravidian languages that I've missed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The point of this category was to create a container with films, which have been produced in multiple South Indian (Dravidian) languages. For instance Eega was made simultaneously in 2 languages of the South industry. This development of producing multiple language films is unique and very recent with only a handful 20 or so of such productions til date.--Dravidian Hero 18:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is useful - there are many many films, say in Europe, that have multiple languages, and of course many Indian films are in Hindi + english or other languages. I don't think this is defining. As a container category, though, it could work (as I've explained above).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per Obi-Wan Kenobi above; "Dravidian" is the proper basis of classification. We still have the nagging problem (of all films by language about how much of the language need be in the film for the film to be so categorized? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ConvertCategory:Sex scandals to article [[[Using this as a substitute for a 'discuss' template; see below.]]]
Nominator's rationale: The "sex scandals" in this category are almost entirely rape and child abuse scandals. I don't think that's an appropriate use of the category; those incidents are "scandalous" because they are criminal. I would expect content of the category to be along the lines of Lewinsky scandal or Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair, not cases of child molestation and gang rape. Content of the category is also inconsistent with content of the article. I recommend removing abuse/assault events from this category, creating a new category to house them if necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a child-sexual-abuse scandal would be a subcategory, I'd think, as would a rape scandal. So we can create subcategories for them (child-sexual-abuse would also be a subcategory of child-abuse in general.) Though "child" is a very problematic term, considering what is a "child" varies from place to place, and what is the threshold for statutory-rape also varies from place to place. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom has a point: crime and scandal overlap but not perfectly. Extramarital affairs can become scandalous for those involved, and notable with enough coverage, but only rarely criminal in the West. Mass media may generate notability for some criminal cases (that may fall apart later, like the LaCrosse and most of the pre-school cases; or may linger, like the Catholic sex scandal). The whole notion of "scandal" is loaded, but we do have Category:Scandals with the weaselly worded content: "A scandal is a widely publicized incident that involves allegations of wrongdoing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both. Inclusion in this category does not imply guilt, but rather that a scandal (whether justified or not) has taken place." So, while nearly everyone would concede that Watergate was a US scandal. Others may disagree on whether humanity allowing some of its less fortunate members die of starvation while others are obese from overeating is a scandal or not. Too subjective all-round IMHO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
