Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

July 16[edit]

Category:Motorcycling websites[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant and empty cat. There are no independent websites as such that are notable on their own and merit a website. Usually they are related to manufacturers or clubs, which get their own articles and cats. MSJapan 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete when was this category depopulated? How can someone tell if it has been empty for 4 days or not? My research seems to suggest that it never was populated, but I could be wrong. Anyway, delete per nom, possibly speedy.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:31, 18 July 2007 (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 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:WAMC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, contents are interlinked, doesn't seem necessary to have a category. Otto4711 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing people by specific affiliates does not work in the long term, as people may work for multiple affiliates (or for major national networks) during their careers. When such a system has been used, the resulting category clutter in individual articles make the category system difficult to use for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people move from station to station, programs also move, so this is not defining. Carlossuarez46 16:51, 17 July 2007 (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 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:WGY-AM[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - absent the improper performer by performance category all that's left is the station's article. Category not warranted. Otto4711 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing people by specific affiliates does not work in the long term, as people may work for multiple affiliates (or for major national networks) during their careers. When such a system has been used, the resulting category clutter in individual articles make the category system difficult to use for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people move from station to station, so this is not defining. Carlossuarez46 16:50, 17 July 2007 (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 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:WKTU[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is capturing personalities, music formats and the like, none of which warrants a category. Otto4711 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing people by specific affiliates does not work in the long term, as people may work for multiple affiliates (or for major national networks) during their careers. When such a system has been used, the resulting category clutter in individual articles make the category system difficult to use for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people move from station to station, stations change formats, just not defining. Carlossuarez46 16:50, 17 July 2007 (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 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:WKTU Radio Personalities[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - performer by performance overcategorization per many, many precedents. Otto4711 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorizing people by specific affiliates does not work in the long term, as people may work for multiple affiliates (or for major national networks) during their careers. When such a system has been used, the resulting category clutter in individual articles make the category system difficult to use for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people move from station to station, so this is not defining. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 17 July 2007 (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 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:Wikipedia requested photographs in West Midlands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy merge. It has been listed for 48 hours and met the requirements for speedy merge. Andrew c ^[talk] 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in West Midlands to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the West Midlands

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplication of maintenance only category, keeps photo requests together for area. Keith D 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Could this be a speedy? Carom 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge after the 48 hours, if there are no opposing comments, I'll go ahead with the merge.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:32, 18 July 2007 (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 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:Deaths by computer[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Poorly named category. Implies that the computer killed the indvidual directly, and possible over-cat too Lugnuts 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly named; how one dies is appropriate, but it looks like one guy died of a heart attack and the other by suicide and into those categories they should be placed, leaving this empty. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have thought this category would have contained the Airbus A320 crash victims (ie. autopilot into ground), or the Theratech radiation overdose by mis-set dosage, ... 70.55.88.166 04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category is too subjective. It basically attempts to categorize people who died because of circumstances somehow related to computers. It should just be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 07:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - maybe change "computer" to "computer use"?--75.37.15.195 08:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, death causes are a poor category inclusion criteria, try a list. -- Cat ^chi? 08:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to reply, note that Category:Deaths by cause is a currently accepted categorization scheme. So categorizing by cause of death is already done. That being said, this particular category isn't a valid cause of death. Dugwiki 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Category:Deaths by cause is a legitimate categorization scheme, this particular subcategory isn't valid. The people in it didn't "die by computer use". They died from exhaustion or a heart attack or suicide, etc. Merge the articles into the other more appropriate cause of death subcategories and delete this one. Dugwiki 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named category. Wryspy 00:45, 19 July 2007 (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 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:Robert Graves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization of a single article. Otto4711 15:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete eponymous overcat; only article is the bio. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wryspy 00:45, 19 July 2007 (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 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:Saudi Arabian Directors and Actors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, badly named, only current member (a director) is already in Category:Saudi Arabian film directors. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriately blended category. An actors category can be recreated if one is needed. Otto4711 15:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are separate for every other nationality, Saudi Arabian is no different. Carlossuarez46 20:01, 16 July 2007 (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 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:Recipients of the Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal[edit]

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 Category:Recipients of the Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal to Category:Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medallists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal to Category:Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medallists

Nominator's rationale: Rename, proposed name is more brief and much more encyclopaedic in tone. emerson7

Delete as overcategorization by award, otherwise rename per nom. Otto4711 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep per nom; this is probably the oldest and most distinguished such award in classical music - only 90 recipients in 135 years. Johnbod 12:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep per nom, notable award. DuncanHill 23:53, 17 July 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:New Hampshire turnpikes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Hampshire turnpikes to Category:Toll roads in New Hampshire

Nominator's rationale: This will replace a New Hampshire-centric category name with a name that is in line with toll road categories for other states in the United States. Ken Gallager 12:49, 16 July 2007 (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 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:English English[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English English to Category:English language in England

Nominator's rationale: Rename, English English sounds silly and is likely a neologism. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On looking at the article English English it appears that there is claim that this term has been used since 1984 and is now "generally recognised" in academic writing. I however cannot see any citations for this. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Oliver Han 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Chicaneo 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Rename; the term "English English" is used all the time by world famous British dialectologist and sociolinguist Peter Trudgill; see e.g. Trudgill and Hannah, International English, Arnold. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This term was used by George Bernard Shaw: I must, however, most vehemently disclaim any intention of suggesting that English pronunciation is authoritative and correct. My own tongue is neither American English nor English English, but Irish English... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Even if George Bernard Shaw used the term "English English", it would still be preferable to use a term that seems less silly. (Besides, Shaw wrote satire. Would you trust him to be a serious authority on what term should be used?) Dr. Submillimeter 10:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would, definitely! But what about Trudgill? Trudgill was the first linguist to use the term on a regular basis, but what the hey---Wikipedia is full of articles whose titles are either neologisms or sheer original research, and this is clearly not the case. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:07, 19 July 2007 (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 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 Universal Motown / Univeral Republic Group[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy rename, listed for 48 hours and meets speedy criteria. Andrew c ^[talk] 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Universal Motown / Univeral Republic Group to Category:The Universal Motown/Universal Republic Group

Nominator's rationale: Rename, current category name is a misspelling FMAFan1990 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename for spelling and removing spaces around "/" to match lead article The Universal Motown/Universal Republic Group. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Lugnuts 20:01, 16 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.