Category:Caegory:Business career of Donald Trump
[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: speedied as implausible redirects created by accident. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Caegory:Business career of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Caegory:Business career of Donald Trump
- Nominator's rationale: We don't have redirects for misspellings of the namespace. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems speediable as obvious misspellings. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not need to maintain redirects from alternate versions in which the word "Category" is misspelled. Reviewing the edit histories, in fact, this doesn't appear to have been intentional — the user started out accidentally creating the "Caegory" version, then accidentally creating the "Category:Caegory:" version by making a second mistake in his own attempt to correct the first error, and then finally getting it right on his third try by moving it again to the target. So we can just speedy these as good faith user errors, as they both result from typo-correcting page moves and weren't deliberately created as a thing anybody thought we genuinely needed. I'm going to speedy these accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: It's not exactly a broadcast network, more like a cable channel carried on broadcast in Mexico City and some of whose programs are cherry-picked by Televisa local stations. It doesn't have affiliates. Delete this and the "affiliates" subcategory. Raymie (t • c) 21:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't know that this happens in the United States as much, but Canadian television stations also sometimes air content that originates on one of their parent network's subsidiary cable channels — e.g. CBC Television doesn't produce its own distinct morning or noon news shows anymore, but just simulcasts CBC News Network — but that doesn't make the stations affiliates of the cable channel, it's just part and parcel of being an affiliate of the network. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2017 (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 York City Subway stations located at-grade
[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. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since it would probably be useless to create a global category for these (Category:Railway stations located at-grade), I see no reason to create such a category for an individual railway system, even if within that system such stations are extremely rare. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is one of four categories of NYC subway stations located at a certain elevation relative to the ground, complementing Category:New York City Subway stations located underground, Category:New York City Subway stations located aboveground, and Category:New York City Subway stations located in an open cut. This category can exist regardless of whether there's a global category of railway stations located at-grade. <Also, I'm planning to make this
a hidden category based on the input in ((Infobox New York City Subway station)), where it can be classified based on the (({structure))} parameter. epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it seems to be defining characteristic. If this is going to be expanded, it should only be done for Subway systems. I don't quite understand why creator suggests it should become a hidden category. Also, if any of the four categories should be deleted, it should rather be Category:New York City Subway stations located underground since underground is the default option for subways. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, at least procedurally. I'm not convinced that we need to categorize subway stations on the question of whether they're above-ground or below-ground or at-grade at all, and would probably support a batch nomination to get rid of them all depending on the strength of argument — but there's no valid reason to get rid of this one in isolation while not deleting the other ones alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Renominate with Related Categories I agree with Bearcat. I won't make someone nominate every possible similar category, but the ones for NYC subway should be nominated together since they would likely share the same outcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2017 (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:History of Belarus (1945–90)
[edit]Category:History of Belarus (1918–39)
[edit]Category:Retrocomputing
[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: delete. I will re-parent the main page and the subcat Category:Home computer remakes, which would otherwise be left uncategorised. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Retrocomputing does not have a concrete definition, and it mostly comes down to personal opinion. Without a definition, all computers, software, chips, etc, that are greater than X years old have the potential of being added to the category. The retrogaming category was removed for similar reasons. Dgpop (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to take issue with the current state of the category Retrocomputing. It includes Wikipedia articles for several computing systems that were in use from the 1970s to the 1990s, but are not in use any more. The reason for this issue is that the computing systems themselves are not "retrocomputing" - they were the cutting edge of technology when they were released, and the vendors did not think "people will fondly remember these half a century in the future", they sold them as new products. Labelling them as "retrocomputing" retcons their entire lifetime as hobbyist toys rather than actual computers, and retconning itself should be avoided. With this logic, every computer a couple of decades old becomes "retrocomputing". In my opinion, "retrocomputing" should be specifically used to mean running software for old, legacy, obsolete computing systems today (or old, legacy, obsolete software for modern computing systems today), not for the systems themselves. JIP | Talk 06:36, 16 December 2013 (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.