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: This is simply not a viable category. While it sets inclusion criteria, this makes it so utterly broad as to include 1000s of articles. It thereby loses its discriminatory power. I think it should be removed, with optional creation of subcategories that are more helpful. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but create subcategories: the category is currently defined as being for diseases "found in fewer than 5 people per every 10,000 people", but the article at rare disease points out that there are several different definitions. That of NORD at http://www.rarediseases.org/info/about.html is "affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.", and the article says there's a similar Japanese definition etc. Perhaps there need to be subcategories: "Rare diseases by NORD criterion", "Rare diseases by ...". PamD (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the concept is indeed used, and the subcategories will help DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm leaning towards a "delete" here, because the consensus appears to be that this category is workable only as a {{container category}} for sub-cats based on specific definitions of rare disease. The article rare disease lists specific definitions used by authorities in Japan, the USA, and the EU, and also notes a wide range of definitions used in the medical literature. That suggests that there would be at least five sub-categories, with some diseases appearing all of them, which is a recipe for horrendous category clutter. The fact that a concept is used is an insufficient basis for a workable category, and this looks like one of the cases where the concept is too diffuse to be usefully categorisable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many diseases are recognised as "rare diseases". Where reliably so referred, they should be included. That there are gray zones doesn't elimated the usefulness of the category. Suggest emptying the category of articles in favour of subcategories per JFW's valid points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Categories with subjective or multiple definitions create instability and conflict amongst good faith editors who are making valid but wildly different judgements. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but neither the guideline nor this case is clear cut. Almost everything is at least a little subjective. This category is not entirely subjective. I think restricting the membership to better defined subcategories is a good solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The definition of rare diseases (or orphan diseases) is clear enough. I can see how some readers might find it useful to have such a category, particularly with respect to the degree of research into new treatments. I support the recommendation of sub-categories. The category itself would benefit from clean-up. A "congenital" sub-category would be helpful. Axl¤[Talk] 10:35, 25 March 2011 (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.
Oppose – there is also Rai, from which it is difficult to support RAI. I would suggest Radiotelevisione Italiana as a suitable name for both article and category. Occuli (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; the organization is universally known as RAI, with the full name being much less familiar. Compare at BBC, EMI, MTV.- choster (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD March 15 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the broadcaster is known in English as RAI or Rai, just as we have NHK not Nippon Hoso Kyokai.- choster (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And NHK is not close to as ambiguous as RAI either. Look at NHK (disambiguation) where all the uses are about the Japanese station or derivative usage, except a Dutch (hence non-English) usage, and a protein. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that alternative. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2011 (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:River navigations in the United Kingdom[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:Keep & trim main; upmerge sub categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose changingCategory:River navigations in the United Kingdom to Navigable rivers in the United Kingdom. Also change the minor categories River navigations in England, River navigations in Scotland and River navigations in Wales in the same way.
Nominator's rationale:navigation is a historical term associated with legislation and isn't much relevant today and many of the rivers in the category are not technically navigations. This has been agreed with WikiProject_UK_Waterways. Chris55 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because I think that the discussion at WikiProject_UK_Waterways reached a bad conclusion by not examining this more closely. A navigation is reasonably clearly defined as a river, or sections of a river, which has been rendered navigable by the use of weirs and locks. In the UK, a "navigation" was a term applied by legislation to a particular stretch of improvements, and if the category is restricted to those waterways which were legally labelled navigations, it has a clear purpose. However, the notion of a "navigable river" is horribly fuzzy. As the article navigability puts it: Navigability depends on context: A small river may be navigable by smaller craft, such as a motor boat or a kayak, but unnavigable by a cruise ship. I see no useful purpose in creating a category which would include everything both rivers navigable by ocean-going ships (e.g. the lower reaches of the River Thames) to small rocky streams which are navigable only by an expertly-paddled kayak. Note that there are no other categories for navigable rivers: see this search for "navigable", which throws up only Category:Navigable aqueducts and its subcats. If my proposal to restrict the category to legally-defined navigations is considered to be unworkable, then the category should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main category, delete subcats Most articles here are on navigable rivers; all of the Welsh and Scottish articles are such, and more than half of the English articles are. What's left is a pretty small set of articles which can all live in the parent UK category; the other categories are unnecessary and incorrectly populated. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support Mangoe's proposal to upmerge (not deleted) the sub-categories. Once we only have actual navigations, then the sub-cats are too small. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 31 March 2011 (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 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.
Comment should the nom's !vote be transferred to the existing section? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
