Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 12

: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 13:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This category is for Windows software that can be run on Linux using the WINE software. There are a number of problems with this category: 1) Running is not a "yes or no" situation, but a matter of how well the software runs. 2) Almost all Windows software runs to some degree or other. 3) Keeping track of this sort of thing really isn't our job. Oh yes, and the category is miscapitalized. --Carnildo 23:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete seeing as there are so many wollyness problems pointed out by the nominator. (Capitalization, however, is a reason for renaming rather than deletion.) -Splash 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Radiantmeta:mergist 07:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable, fluid. Wine website has such list and this should be referenced (not copied) from Wine article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though this could potentially work as a list, if there's a user dedicated enough to make it. siafu 00:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

: Wine itself is not able to keep all such list /reliably/. Pavel Vozenilek 23:35, 15 July 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 13:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories created by author of articles now under discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Comedy police, as an auxilliary to those articles; titles are unclear (should at least be "Police in comedy", etc.). -- BD2412 ^talk 18:27, July 12, 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 13:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Empty. Cfd tag was added on July 5 by User:Gtrmp. --Kbdank71 17:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not clear what should be in. Pavel Vozenilek 20:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Whoops. Delete: redundant with :Category:Armies. -Sean Curtin 00:29, July 13, 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 moved to SfD --Kbdank71 13:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Cfd tag was added on July 2 by User:Tabor, history states it is a duplicate. --Kbdank71 17:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Suspect that a stub cat belongs over at SfD? -Splash 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, it has been over at SfD Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#Category:Paranormal_stubs_.28no_template.29 since it was tagged, and is still sitting there. I'll change tag to {{sfd-c}}. --Tabor 19:12, 13 July 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 13:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Cfd tag was added on July 8, hours after being created by User:PullUpYourSocks, saying it was moved to :Category:Case law stubs. --Kbdank71 17:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -Splash 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy, if possible. siafu 02:50, 15 July 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 merge --Kbdank71 13:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest merging it to :Category:Executed politicians, like :Category:Murdered prime ministers and :Category:Murdered politicians from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 6. --Kbdank71 17:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. -Sean Curtin 00:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per previous CfD (and nomination). -Splash 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. per nomination. siafu 00:11, 14 July 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 merge --Kbdank71 13:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Cfd tag was added on July 7 by User:PeregrineAY but not listed here. I suggest merging it to :Category:Assassinated politicians, like :Category:Murdered prime ministers and :Category:Murdered politicians from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 6. --Kbdank71 17:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. -Sean Curtin 00:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per previous CfD (and nomination). -Splash 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. As above. siafu 00:11, 14 July 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 keep BM and FM, no consensus on GF/EGF (keep) --Kbdank71 14:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Bismarck-Mandan community, et cetera, to clarify. Radiantmeta:mergist 09:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep BM and FM. There is precedent with :Category:Minneapolis-St. Paul. I'd say rename the last to :Category:Greater Grand Forks as per the intro text. --Kbdank71 14:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Do you mean :Category:Greater Grand Forks community ?
• Keep BM and FM, rename GF-EGF per Kbdank71. Brevity is the soul of utility. -- Visviva 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep BM and FM, rename the other to :Category:Greater Grand Forks community. -Splash 00:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep BM and FM as they are and rename GF-EGF to :Category:Greater Grand Forks. Changing GF-EGF to :Category:Greater Grand Forks community would make the categories inconsistent with each other. If BM and FM wouldn't have the "community" label attached to them, why would a "Greater Grand Forks" category have a "community" attached to it. --MatthewUND 06:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Excuse me if I misunderstood this, but I believe people want BM and FM kept because there exists another category using that naming schedule, e.g. Minneapolis-St. Paul. However, that might well be a reason for renaming MSP along with these ones. If people do prefer the old names for another reason, please let me know. Radiantmeta:mergist 07:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Pardon me, but I'm not sure what you don't understand about my earlier comment. I created :Category:Minneapolis-St. Paul so that is why it is similar to :Category:Bismarck-Mandan and the other two. I would like to see :Category:Bismarck-Mandan stay as it is, :Category:Fargo-Moorhead stay as it is, and :Category:Grand Forks-East Grand Forks become :Category:Greater Grand Forks. I created all three of the categories and, at the time, I picked what I thought were the best names. I can now see that the larger Grand Forks area is really called "Greater Grand Forks" while the BM and FM areas have no such collective name. I think we should attach the word "community" to either all or none of the categories. However, I really don't know why we need the word "community" at all. --MatthewUND 08:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all of them - Bismarck-Mandan and Fargo-Moorhead are quite commonly used. Only the Grand Forks category might have to be renamed, and that would really depend on the area actually coming up with a stable metro name. You may recall the Dave Barry columns ca. 1998 on the "Grand Cities". "Greater Grand Forks" is currently in vogue but it's just as likely to change again. GF-EGF is common enough and is parallel to Bis-Man and F-M. I don't see any real need for a change here. --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As I see it, one reason for including these deals with the U.S. census categorizations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and look also at the fact that F-M and GF-EGF are included in both :Category:Metropolitan areas in Minnesota and :Category:Metropolitan areas in North Dakota. That cross-state factor is an additional reason for keeping those two. If any term is added, I'd suggest that "metropolitan area" would be better than "community" but don't really support either. Gene Nygaard 11:32, 13 July 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 rename --Kbdank71 14:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Museums in South Korea per category contents. We can always create :Category:Museums in North Korea if needed. -- Visviva 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename. Pavel Vozenilek 20:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Technically inaccurate in current form. siafu 00:13, 14 July 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 14:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This was created by an anon to categorize four characters from a book called The Sword of Truth. It does even that poorly, as we have a :Category:Sword of Truth that includes all of them alrerady. Aside from that, there's the capitalization error, so it should go. Delete. --Dmcdevit 04:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy del incorrect spelling capitalization I mean, should cover speedy. On top of that, delete out of redundancy. <>Who?¿? 05:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• RENAME to :Category:Sword of Truth characters, and categorize under the appropriate subcategory of :Category:Fictional characters 132.205.45.110 06:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. --Kbdank71 14:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. -Splash 01:02, 13 July 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 rename --Kbdank71 14:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Should be renamed :Category:Scottish rugby union teams and :Category:Japanese rugby union teams. 'Rugby' might be used to mean 'rugby union' in Scotland / Japan but this is not universal and the sport of rugby league is quite different from Rugby union. As it stands it would be correct to put a rugby league team into this category and that would be nonsensical. Similar categories e.g. :Category:English rugby union teams already include the vital 'union' word.GordyB 20:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename per nomination. -Splash

: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 14:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Should be renamed :Category:Rugby union governing bodies. 1) It's more obvious, if you don't know who the IRB are you don't know what the category is for. 2) At present an article on the IRB is a member of this category, they are a governing body but they are not members of themselves.GordyB 20:40, 12 July 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.