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 9 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Unused categories; user test. --Tabor 2 July 2005 23:45 (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 9 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Delete. The category Category:Medical colleges in India created as a replacement after receiving a mail from doctorbruno with the following: Please note that in India it is Medical Colleges and it is NEVER referred to as "School". Please see a similar category for Pakistan Medical Colleges. So created new category and moved content. Speedy? - Nigosh 2 July 2005 23:29 (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 16:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to spell out the series names (voyager, enterprise, the next generation) rather than using a TLA. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:30 (UTC)

• If you're going to remove the Star Trek TLAs from article titles then you have a few more to go and I assume you'll follow through with them? Cburnett July 3, 2005 00:00 (UTC)
• I agree with spelling them out in full, and the pedant in me wants to point out that they're abbreviations, not acronyms. Grutness...wha? 3 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)
• Rename, either to the fully spelled-out names, or to ST:V images, ST:E images, etc. (although the latter suggestions would be very cryptic to non-Trekkies, I guess...). --Wernher 3 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
• Rename to fully spelled out names. --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 18:15 (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 16:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed, as the category's present name is quite simply a misnomer; in reality, all computers, like the one you're sitting at right now, are individual. "Unique" shares the same problem, as is easily verified by a simple google search. The suggested new name is Category:One-of-a-kind computers, which accurately denotes the intended machines (see the category's intro text). Contrary to the other suggestions, "one-of-a-kind" has a generally high recognition rate, judging from documents all around the 'net. --Wernher 2 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)

• Sounds good. How about 'unique computers'? Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:30 (UTC)
  • Please read the above text again. Thank you. :-) --Wernher 3 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

• Comment I was actually thinking of "unique" also, until I read the text. Would it be safer to say "Prototype computers"? This would indicate not only that they are most likely one of a kind, but experimental as well. <>Who?¿? 3 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested, comments by nominator below, cleared up my questions. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
• Yes, make the change. I'm in favor of making the name change. I don't think "prototype" would be the right description because a prototype is usually the first of what is to be many. I also thought of "unique" because one meaning is "one and only one", however, "unique" is also used to mean distinctive in some way (which isn't what the category is about).Bubba73 3 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Also consider one-of-a-kind supercomputers, of which many are not prototypes at all but rather extremely complex and costly production machines, sold to, say, a single government institution---after which installation the supercomputer's designers makes an even (slightly or significantly) faster/better-in-some-other-way machine for the next customer. --Wernher 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

• Rename to "one-off computers", "singular computers" or "solitary computers". I prefer one-off, although it is possibly a bit colloquial - Nigosh 3 July 2005 15:52 (UTC) One-of-a-kind computers. This does appear in the wild (along with one-off) to describe the kind of machine in this category - Nigosh 3 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, a couple of straightforward google searches indicate that none of your potentially good suggestions give a good recognition value/precision as to the definition in question. The suggested names are all mostly associated with, say, single PCs and other single computers, i.e. not the one-of-a-kind machines we're talking about here. Believe me, there was quite some research put into this before the o-o-a-k suggestion reached the voting stage. Regarding that: I admit I absolutely should have listed the tried-but-not-working alternatives in the introduction to this vote. --Wernher 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:One-of-a-kind computers. IMHO, this is obviously the correct name. Unique is too loose in its meaning (my laptop here is unique), "one off" is too vernacular, "singular" sounds like you can't invert it, and "solitary" sounds very lonely. -Splash July 3, 2005 21:55 (UTC)

• Comment---not specifically related to vote. One more thing to consider - what about categories "commercial computers" and "non-commercial computers"? I'm not sure about later one-of-a-kind supercomputers, but he early one-of-a-kind computers were non-commercial computers, i.e. done on a contract and not for general sale as a product. Just an idea. Bubba73 July 8, 2005 02:05 (UTC)
  • Hmm, there are some border cases, such as LEO and Z4. Depends on the definition of 'commercial', of course. Perhaps the best would be leave it with the o-o-a-k c. category for now; (almost) no chance of misunderstanding there. --Wernher 9 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
    • That's fine with me. I thought that perhaps non-commercial could be used instead of one-of-a-kind, but one-of-a-kind is OK with me. There are some borderline cases with that too, though - ILLIAC I and ORDVAC - different names but otherwise twins (as far as I can tell). (From what I read, different copies of UNIVAC I probably differed more than ILLIAC I and ORDVAC.) Bubba73 July 9, 2005 01:02 (UTC)
      • The ILLIAC I and ORDVAC, as you know, is part of the IAS architecture machines, which present us with kind of a problem as regards classifying them as o-o-a-k or not. I've been pondering this for some time now. --Wernher 23:11, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but none of them were compatible with each other except the ILLIAC and ORDVAC. The MUSISANO-1 used a superset of the same instructions as the IILIAC/ORDVAC, but I'm not sure how similar the machine is. I'd have to go back and look at the characteristics of all of the IAS family, but I don't think any of the others were duplicates. Bubba73 23:35, July 9, 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 16:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. Representin'. Gamaliel 2 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless and unencyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
• Delete Tim Ivorson 4 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
• Delete --Jamieli 7 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
• Delete Axon 7 July 2005 11:25 (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 16:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a quality notable enough for its own category. If kept, it should be something like "U.S. TV channels with British versions." tregoweth July 2, 2005 19:48 (UTC)

• Keep The logic behind this category is that they are channels that broadcast in the UK, which are produced in the UK, but do not have their own pages on wikipedia due to very similar content to their foreign originator channels. ie MTV (UK), if it had it's own page would be in Category:British television channels, however as only MTV has a page, and it would be wrong to place that page in that category, we need an alternative. This is, in my view, it. Also Disagree with changing foreign to US, because that would necessitate a seperate category for any channels based on channels from other countries. If the word Foreign is too UK-centric maybe "Non-UK based" MrWeeble 3 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
• Delete Although this is the EN wiki, it is still global, so to begin with, "What channels?" on "What networks?" Are we strictly referring to US channels, or would it include Japanese channels with British versions? Then if kept, would have to make categories for every other network channel with alternate versions? Too broad, and not pratically useful. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
  • Change vote, see below. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)
• Delete, systemic bias since it assumes that content here is American unless explicitly declared otherwise. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  • Keep What? No it doesn't. I think that's a totally unjustified assumption with no evidence to back it up. The U.S. issue was irrelevant until the deletionists raised it. This is a perfectly valid category, useful for British people and irrelevant for Americans. It was created by a British user. If your vote is based on the assumption that it was created by an American, please consider withdrawing it. CalJW 5 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

Comment I'm not quite sure which user or nationality of user created it. That does not change the fact, that it leaves it open to interpretation, how is any user supposed to know which channels are converted into British format, and from which networks? It should be clearly named with no room for ambiguity. Then as far as deletion and not renaming, these channels can easily be placed directly in its parent Category:British television channels, or any other existing British network cat. Otherwise its a clear bias to British versions of U.S. channels , which excludes every other non-US network in assumption alone. <>Who?¿? 5 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

Comment It was me, I created it. A Briton. Firstly I think that there may be a language difference here, to us brits "TV Network" and "TV Channel" are synonyms, with "TV Channel" being the more prevalent term. I believe what I refered to as "a TV Channel" (such as MTV), an american would refer to as "a TV Network" whose programming is carried by a (local) "TV Channel" with a name like WXYZ or KABC or something or other (if I am wrong please feel free to correct me - My knowledge of things over the pond iw woefully inadequate). Over here, a TV Network's programming is carried on a single, nationally broadcast channel, therefore to us, they are the same.

Secondly the percieved American bias is actually a symptom of British Television in that due to a common language it is easy for an american corporation to retool their programming to a British ausdience with no dubbing costs etc. Should the french channel/network TV5 launch a British version of their TV Network (rather than just rebroadcasting it - that would go in Category:Foreign TV Channels broadcasting in the UK another category I created) with British presenters and continuity etc. then I would place that in this category. I strongly feel that categorising MTV as a British television channel would be totally wrong. As for how "any user [is] supposed to know which channels are converted into British format" - the same way we write any article on wikipedia - research. (Easily done for me since it just means picking up the remote for this topic). I would be happy with it being Renamed Non UK-based television channels with British versions (just worried that is way too long winded).MrWeeble 7 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

• Rename Thank you for the explanation on reasoning for the name, by MrWeeble. I can agree with many of the points. I would not oppose a rename to Category:United States TV channels with British versions (tv or television?) or grouping them into Category:Foreign TV Channels broadcasting in the UK . Otherwise, delete. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 23:26 (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 16:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better as a list? Needs a better name? Belongs in the Jim Steinman article? I don't really think it's tenable to create categories for all the different combinations of collaborations in entertainment. --Tabor 2 July 2005 03:25 (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 redirect --Kbdank71 16:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Category:Physicians. --Tabor 2 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

• Merge. I'm afraid categories can't be redirected. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
• This one might warrant a soft-redirect with {{categoryredirect}}. -- Rick Block (talk) July 2, 2005 15:21 (UTC)
• Support soft-redirect, on all the related CfDs. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:32 (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 --Kbdank71 16:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Category:Physicians_by_nationality. --Tabor 2 July 2005 03:37 (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 9 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

I cannot remember if I have seen this on here before. There is a current Cfd below on Category:Sydow, submitter suggests WP:NOT a geanology db. Not sure if that is accurate, dont recall seeing it there. However, there are very few sub-cats here, one of which Category:Bakay, only contains one article, a voice actor. Do not see this as that important of a figure to deserve a surname category. I assume there see some of the others are similary empty. Also, most of them have nothing else in common, accept their surname, which does not imply relation. I say it should be deleted. <>Who?¿? 2 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Additions to Cfd all sub-categories listed under Category:People by surname should be considered as candidates. Category:Anderson, Category:Bakay, Category:Banfield, Category:Bauer, Category:Boleyn, Category:Burgoyne, Category:Cashin, Category:Claman, Category:Cohn, Category:Cole, Category:Collins, Category:Cramer, Category:Dalton, Category:Faber, Category:Farmer, Category:Fischer, Category:Gumbel, Category:Hanke, Category:Johnstone, Category:Kelly, Category:Kudlow, Category:Li, Category:Liu, Category:Lynch, Category:Marino, Category:Michaels, Category:Milnes, Category:Moore, Category:Reagan, Category:Sanders, Category:Schmitt, Category:Scott, Category:Welch, Category:Whiston

With the exception of Category:Sobieski and Category:Howard, I labeled them as Cfr, as they are royal families. I do not know if they should be cat'd as such, but gave them consideration. <>Who?¿? 3 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

• Delete, pointless. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Names for a lengthy discussion on the subject, most people agree that we shouldn't categorize like this. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
• Delete. The discussion quoted by Radiant is pretty clear about this. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:31 (UTC)

With respect to the extended CfD from Who, I vote delete all the subcats, with the exception only of Category:Sobieski, on the proviso that the others are not nobility (which I presume Who has already checked). The Category:Howard family were/are not royalty — they are merely nobility and other noble families do not have categories e.g. this family is the only one in Category:Peerage by surname. There are various articles covering the Earldoms/Dukedoms the family has been associated with and the other Earldoms/Dukedoms are not subcats themselves — just articles. It seems from the articles in Category:Sobieski that they were Polish royalty and so they should stay, since other Royal families have Category:Royal families. -Splash July 3, 2005 14:22 (UTC)

• Comment Does this mean the subcategories will be deleted too? The discussion seems to indicate that the subcategories should not exist, but only getting rid of the parent will just land these on Category:Orphaned categories. --Tabor 2 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
  • Comment I probably should have been more specific. I think the subs should be deleted as well, just didnt' want to make a huge umbrella Cfd, as it would suck up space. Updated with this comment. <>Who?¿? 3 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
    • Delete then. --Tabor 3 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
• Delete and delete all the subcategories. - SimonP July 3, 2005 16:45 (UTC)
• Delete the category and subcategories (with the exception of Category:Sobieski) --BaronLarf July 6, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
• Keep This is a useful in that it links together several bearers of the same surname. Their blood relationship does not need to be an issue. I cannot see why this should be deleted yet catagorys concerning royalty should be kept. Fergananim July 6 2005
  • Comment royal families are notable as a family name, whereas other biographies are notable by themselves, their names have nothing to do with their notability, except maybe for families such as the Baldwin family or Wayans family, as almost the entire family is notable. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
  • Comment This cfd isn't intended to remove categories of families (such as Category:Bach family or Category:Medici) but rather categories of people who have nothing in common but their last name. Category:Sobieski should be spared not because it contains royalty but because it contains articles about notable people who are closely related. It fails the tests recommended on Wikipedia:Categorization: Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? No and no. --BaronLarf July 7, 2005 18:54 (UTC)
• Delete. Very pointless. --DR31 (talk) 9 July 2005 03:25 (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.