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 -- The point is that these ones are preserved. We might have (but probably never will) hundreds of articles about beam engines that have been scrapped, which would properly belogn in the suggested target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2012 (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.
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.
Maybe not on R3 or R4, but I was assuming that Nick Briggs had got round to introducing most of them by now with his corny jokes on BBC7. Hey, when did that get renamed as BBC Radio 4 Extra? Anyway, it still has two hours a day of "7th Dimension" to fill with sci-fi audio recordings. Ah, this may be a complete record of BBC radio broadcasts from September 2007 to date... and this seems to be a complete list of the BBC radio stories – more than the current category members, but much less than I thought. I'll withdraw this CfD. – FayenaticLondon20:03, 23 August 2012 (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: Contrived and vague usage; people ordinarily say "horse accident". This may be the only accident category which uses "related". Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather prune those that are not accidental (e.g. the suffragette who committed suicide by throwing herself in front of a horse). Co-opting the subject of the article in order to justify the naming scheme doesn't strike me as a good approach. And if we have to get fastidious about whether the horse was injuries, I would sooner prefer Category:Accidents involving horses; but then we'll end up renaming all the rest of the accidents in the same manner. I think that people understand that "horse accidents" here is to be understood as "involving horses" rather than as "to horses". Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On these sorts of things, there's such a fine line at times. Plus there are those things which are "unknown" the cause. As for -related, while I'd like to presume others' understanding, we both have seen (even just at CfD alone) how people can come up with surprising interpretations of terms : ) - I understand your concern about -related having a potential subjective feature, which is part of why I'm not strongly tied to it. But, I do think it's more clear with it, than without it. - jc3718:00, 22 August 2012 (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.
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.
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:Delete. All "Wikipedians by individual band/artist" categories were previously deleted here due to being too narrow to foster collaboration. Additionally "who like" as this particular category has does not suggest any inclination to collaborate. Further, this particular category was previously brought for debate but was requested for deletion by the author amidst the discussion, see here. Suggest a full length discussion proceed so G4-deletion precedent can be established this time. VegaDark (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2012 (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:Delete all - We each can "aspire" to do numerous things, but it doesn't foster collaboration to categorize us by such aspirations. If allowed, this would open the door to any number of "who aspire to" categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (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.
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:Delete. Really more of a discussion. This is a collection of pumping stations. Some are for water supply, some for sewage systems and others for agricultural use. So this is effectively a collection of like named things which we tend to avoid. One option could be to split it out by type, but given the size, I'm not sure that is called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it do think it is not really the within the "spirit" of WP categorisation. And isn't "named things" what categories are for? I have added a couple of categories. Given the size I am not keen on a split-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Pumping stations are what kind of structure they are. No more a strange collection of things than any other category, such as schools, fire houses, dams, etc. Hmains (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, maybe add cats Most of the British examples appear to belong somewhere in the "listed Grade X" categorization, and probably ought to be placed there somehow; I'll place a note with the appropriate WP since I don't know enough about their historic place/thing system to deal with it. That said, from an engineering point of view, pumping is pumping. They are "like-named" because they are all doing the same thing. That the material pumped is somewhat different and the reason for the pumping is somewhat different is not important. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See also Media related to Pumping stations at Wikimedia Commons. Like Commons, this could usefully be sub-categorized as water supply, sewerage, land drainage and possibly docks too. I fail to understand the complaint " a collection of like named things". These aren't just things called "pumping" and "station", they're large infrastructure plants dedicated to pumping. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (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.
Media related to Pumping stations at Wikimedia Commons. Like Commons, this could usefully be sub-categorized as water supply, sewerage, land drainage and possibly docks too. I fail to understand the complaint " a collection of like named things". These aren't just things called "pumping" and "station", they're large infrastructure plants dedicated to pumping. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)