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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We have the article on Whoniverse because it meets the notability requirements, but that's no reason to name a category after it. The proposed title is far clearer. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mhiji (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2010 (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, empty. Kbdank71 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's sufficient to have them there. Chemical images such as structural formulae in an acceptable quality should be moved to Commons and categorized there. The Commons category tree is much more branched. --Leyo 07:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC) PS. The category discussed here has never been used much.[reply]
Wikipedia is not Commons, as long as the image is on Wikipedia, why not categorize it? 76.66.194.212 (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it not used practically and per Leyo. In addition, one cannot gather much info from the category, with those thousends of images given. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it would give a better sorting than that which is currently in place. And following what you say, it would seem that additional categories would be needed rather than reducing the already very few categories that currently exist. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If time is invested, then files should be transferred to Commons. --Leyo 08:44, 29 November 2010 (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, empty. Kbdank71 19:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same reply as above: It's sufficient to have them there. Chemical images in an acceptable quality should be moved to Commons and categorized there. The Commons category tree is much more branched. --Leyo 07:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC) PS. The category discussed here has never been used much.[reply]
Wikipedia is not Commons, as long as the image is on Wikipedia, why not categorize it? 76.66.194.212 (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it not used practically and per Leyo. In addition, one cannot gather much info from the category, with those thousends of chemical reactions images given.
Comment it would give a better sorting than that which is currently in place. And following what you say, it would seem that additional categories would be needed rather than reducing the already very few categories that currently exist. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If time is invested, then files should be transferred to Commons. --Leyo 08:44, 29 November 2010 (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: Empty category. Not needed anymore. Leyo 18:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. If we haven't used it for so a long time, we can get rid of it easily. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2010 (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:keep; no consensus to rename, but a fresh nomination to consider only a rename may result in a clearer result on this issue.Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:Overcategorisation, articles in question covered by at least four other categories. WP:SMALLCAT, narrow category unlikely to be used by readers to look for articles. Creates an unwanted precedent for future categories covering hundreds of small lines. Has been raised here on the relevant project page where consensus was reached in favour of deletion. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not overcategorisation as 3 of the other categories are rather obscure without prior knowledge of the subject. A line category is much easier to navigate by as that is usually what is generally known by someone about the station. In fact the company category is rather useless as it defines the line at a point in time and you would need to add other company categories for the line throughout its history, this category could be considered a company category as it started life as the Hull and Hornsea railway. Keith D (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Improper use of CFD as the proposer has already denuded this and several other categories related to it of all of their entries before bringing this one as a test case to CFD, making a balanced view more difficult. Scillystuff (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – as there were 13 articles until recently it was certainly not small. If we look at Skirlaugh railway station it is obvious that Hull and Hornsea Railway is a defining characteristic of the station, which is the condition for categories to exist. The nominator should return the other articles to the category forthwith (apart from the user page). I would not object to a rename to Category:Stations on the Hull and Hornsea Railway. Occuli (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it may just be stations but there are other features that would be appropriate to such a category such as tunnels, cuttings etc, so I would not rename it. Keith D (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put most back so it can be discussed properly. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category, but rename as per Occuli, as the intention appears to be that it is intended as a category of stations. --RFBailey (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT says "will never have more than a few members" - a bit vague (but that's what's there), but I don't consider 11 to be anywhere near "a few" Ronhjones (Talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not rename either. The Hull and Hornsea Railway was a notable line, with an article covering it. We have a number of articles related to this line. It is entirely appropriate to categorize these articles according to their line, as we already do in many other similar cases. We should not rename this to merely Category:Stations on the Hull and Hornsea Railway, as that would be needlessly inconsistent with other lines. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- WP:SMALLCAT also states unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. As mentioned by others, I can see benefit in this kind of category, and per that quote, that would permit similar cats to be created allowing further useful categorisation, even for the minimum cases (two entries -- one station at either end of a line!), for example, 'railway lines in Berkshire'. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question when referring to line, is the meaning route or company? if this category is about a company who built a line between the two aforsaid locations, then it's a perfectly justifiable category. If it's about a route running between the two locations then this example is ok but I'd hate to see a proliferation of categories on routes that had only one or two stations e.g. Category:Kerry Branch which to my mind makes seach by category extremely frustrating as I hate having to drill down through endless layers of sub-categories. NtheP (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is usually a problem of applying the rules too strictly. Preventing a page from existing in a category when it also fits inside a grand-child cat is all very well, but removes the visibility at the higher level. These new cats should be in addition to existing cats. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletionWP:SMALLCAT says "a few members", I contend that eleven is significantly more than "a few". I further contend that the keeping of this category does not set a precedent for other categories. Each should be decided on their own merits. Mjroots (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. Fifteen members, as the cat now has, is enough to make it useful, and should be within WP:SMALLCAT. Don't create cats for really small lines of course. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (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 from the County of West Midlands[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.
Support sensible to match the parent category. Keith D (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to make sense given how the other cats work. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2010 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; no reason to use (semi-)acronym. Warofdreamstalk 10:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, kind of miffed I wasn't given notice as the creator of the cat. I supposed if its the usual practice not to use acronyms (or whatever "NATLFED" is) to change it.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2010 (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:self-close; discussion became moot as category creator performed the rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Home Movies (TV series). Home Movies redirects to the general meaning Home movies. There are also disambiguation pages at Home movie and Home movies (disambiguation). Clearly, some of the article-space duplication needs to be cleaned up, but one way or the other, the current name of this category is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). Creator appears to have performed the move already. I'll close this and delete the old category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:37, 26 November 2010 (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: Vague and subjective. How does one objectively determine famousness? Where is the line drawn as to how much fame is needed for a place to merit membership in this category? How do we non-arbitrarily draw that line? Further, the arbitrary US-centrism in the description violates geopolitical NPOV. Cybercobra(talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No clear inclusion criteria. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its new and I will add new pages to it--Gertie1999 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Gertie1999[reply]
And how will that fix the basic problems about what is included? Fame is fleeting and hence not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – and add to 'Notorious categories'. A hopeless case. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What does "famous" mean? Any criteria will be entirely arbitrary, so this is not an appropriate means of categorisation. --RFBailey (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every place is famous! Lugnuts (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Leyo 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no meaningful guidelines that could separate the famous places from the non-famous (or infamous). With the potential to include thousands upon thousands of articles for all such articles that might meet a criteria, this category would not serve as an effective navigation tool. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was useful it would have to be broken down geogrsaphically (country/state/city?) and the most useful additional category for famous places eg streets would be "Visitor attractions" eg Category:Visitor attractions in New York City (which is further broken down by borough) Hugo999 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - category makes no sense. Simply south (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was glad to see that this was already at CFD when I came across this category. Completely subjective. Ucucha 01:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, subjective. Roscelese (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2010 (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.
