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 14:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to propose a renaming of this category to Category:Dams in Georgia (U.S. state) to match the other category names and to match the use of Georgia (U.S. state) in Wikipedia. But with only one article in the category, and with not much growth expected, I propose that it be deleted and the one article moved up to Category:Dams in the United States. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename. [1] shows 3,277 dams in Georgia. So I suspect some of those are encylopedic and will get an article at some point. Vegaswikian 05:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename per Vegaswikian, and hope that an enthusiastic user will populate it soon. ∞Who?¿? 11:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Take a gander at Category:Dams in the United States. If Category:Dams in Georgia (U.S. state) gets created, do we create categories for every other state, some with only one article? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Realize that Category:Dams in the United States was not even in existence until 2005-07-31. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, was taking it on good faith that there must have been other state damn cats. I do think its a good sub-cat'ing though, and wouldnt oppose the creation of the others. ∞Who?¿? 06:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category. It is replaced by tagging ineractive games in production with {{Future game}} which automaticly places them in Category:Future games. This is in line with use of {{future product}} and {{future}} (for events). --The Merciful 13:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT Category:Future games is an ambiguous name for something only involving Computer and Video games, and does not fit the CVG heirarchy. It should be called Category:Future computer and video games and merge both into that. Further the template should probably be renamed. There are other kinds of games besides C/V-G ones. 132.205.44.43 18:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It follows the pattern set out in Category:Computer and video games. If anything, merge Category:Future games into this category. --BradBeattie 02:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I honestly prefer this category over Category:Future games. Future games, as stated does not fit into the CVG heirarchy. That should be merged with CVG in production. K1Bond007 07:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia currently does not have harmony for names of categories about upcoming things. Current ones are Category:Upcoming films, Category:Computer and video games in production, Category:Future events and Category:Future products. Reader should find similar kind of articles from similarly named categories. (As a side note, I think "digital games" would be better than "computer and video games" as the hierarchy's name.) --The Merciful 09:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While there's no current standard for upcoming things, it should be noted that the future categories are not the best examples to prove a point of consistency as they're not more than two weeks old. This category follows the established pattern in the CVG heirarchy as per K1Bond007's vote. --BradBeattie 13:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wiki is not a crystal ball. Scheduled or unscheduled events shouldn't really have articles. Who cares (no not me), that a game is going to be released, it does not mean it will be released, much less even sell. If they do, fine, then they can go in the normal category. ∞Who?¿? 11:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every article created about a game in production applies to the no crystal ball rule. Some of these games are well documented such as The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and James Bond 007: From Russia with Love. Even still there are games in production that haven't been been officially mentioned in the last few years or so that are still encyclopedic such as Duke Nukem Forever. K1Bond007 15:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • What K1Bond007 said. "Not a crystal ball" means Wikipedia doesn't make predictions. Wikipedia is free to report predictions in a verifiable and NPOV manner. SchmuckyTheCat 15:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with you, the example of Duke Nukem Forever doesn't fit. This category should contain no vaporware, only games that have been confirmed to be in active development. --BradBeattie 15:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is in active development. Every once in a while George Broussard makes a comment about it. He's notorious for talking about it in internet forums (notably Shacknews), which sometimes leads to those comments being printed on news sites such as CNN. The infamous "STFU IMO" comment about his publisher and DNF's release comes to mind from 2003 [2]. K1Bond007 19:14, August 2, 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 14:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand someone thinking this category being useful, but in eight months it has gained three articles, one of them simply written in in text as though it was an article rather than a category. Of the articles in there, one should have a NPOV template and the other two are already in African stub categories (which would be a more logical place for people to look for African articles that need work). And the category is a bit shambolic, with a mis-spelt parent. It should either be completely revamped or put out of its misery. Grutness...wha? 12:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely unnecessary- stub categories were specifically designed to do this. Cynical 13:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since unused. Pavel Vozenilek 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 3, 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 14:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category by accident. The appropriate category, Category:Irish people stubs, as since been created. Ryan 11:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment you are the creator, you can place a speedy tag and request its removal, just list the reasoning and that you created it. ( deja-vu ? ). ∞Who?¿? 12:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is a stub category anyway, and therefore should have been listed WP:SFD, not here. In any case, as an admin, I've speedied it for you. Grutness...wha? 12:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry about that. I didn't know there was a separate list for stub category deletion. Anyway, thanks for deleting it. Ryan 12:47, August 1, 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 14:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created in error - meant to create Beaches of Croatia.Saga City 08:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment you are the creator, you can place a speedy tag and request its removal, just list the reasoning and that you created it. ∞Who?¿? 08:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but keep (at least for a while). Very important category for this country. Add Category:Croatia as parent. Pavel Vozenilek
• Defer to Wikipedia:Category titles. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - "Beaches in Croatia" is the right usage. JW 09:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason the three articles in this category can't be in its parent Category:Homosexuality in Singapore. Besides, categorizing articles on the basis that the article itself is "minor" seems very odd. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delte: unclear and unnecessary. Deciding which articles are minor presumably involves some POV. Flowerparty ^talk 07:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Merge withCategory:Homosexuality in Singapore -- Samuel Wantman 08:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Same reason as per Samuel Wantman. --*drew 14:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Samuel Wantman. Jonathunder 18:22, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
• Merge/delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 20:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, triple overcat. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm with the delete on this, but please note that a user changed the parent category from Category:Homosexuality in Singapore to Category:Sexual minorities in Singapore this morning. "Sexual minorities" is problematic terminology; this may need to be reverted. Bearcat 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 soft redirect --Kbdank71 14:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this category was great until I realised its purpose is already served quite well by the near-synonym Category:Computational models, which all of the relevent articles are already in. We could make it a soft redirect. See abstract machine, Turing machine, finite state machine in particular. Deco 05:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I created it before I found Category:Computational models. --R.Koot 02:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And after deleting it rename Category:Computational models to Category:Abstract machines. I think it's a better name. --R.Koot 03:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The overlap with Category:Communication is very problematic, since almost all forms of communication described involve humans. Perhaps there is a more useful way to divide up "communication". -- Beland 01:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think this is another mis-categorization problem. Move the problematic articles and sub-cats to Category:Human communication, or to their appropriate sub-cats. There are other forms that are and should be categorized beneath Category:Communication, such as types of communication, radio, digital, postal, etc.. Also there are several types of non-human related communication that involve animals. The mere fact that a human is involved in the communication process doesn't mean it is necessarily Human communication, see article for specifics. ∞Who?¿? 02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pages there are not random. Misleading and pointless. If you want random user pages, use Special:Randompage/User. Angela. 00:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Agree, mis-leading. I think maybe it was intended to be something like "Random pages of interest" or "Interesting Wikipedian userpages". If so, maybe rename. I have invited the creator to participate in this discussion. ∞Who?¿? 00:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, it seems my original assesment may not have been the intended purpose. Do not oppose a rename if anyone wants to take it in that direction. ∞Who?¿? 02:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something along the lines of Wikipedians who edit random pages. ♥purplefeltangel 08:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I guess majority of Wikipedians edits random pages (or follows random like pattern). I see no value in such category. Pavel Vozenilek 20:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But the category is more for people who want to identify themselves as editing pages they find by clicking the "Random Article" link. I do that quite often, usually adding categories/ boilerplate text/ stub notices or finding copyvios. ♥purplefeltangel 04:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 3, 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 --Kbdank71 14:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an unintended duplication of Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary. Is there any reason for two distinct categories? Russ Blau (talk) 00:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I looked at the category and I'm a little baffled as to why it's empty. The template {{Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished}} inserts this category, while {{Transwikied to Wiktionary}} inserts Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary. This is where the bafflement comes in: there's quite a few articles with that template that show on the article they should be in this category. For example, look at Talk:Breadbox. It should show this article in the category, but it doesn't. What I'm saying is this there is a reason for this category, but there's something wrong with it and I can't figure it out. Any ideas? --Dmcdevit·t 01:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

A null edit fixed that. The template was added before the cat was added to it. I haven't figured out what to do yet, so I won't vote at this time. ∞Who?¿? 02:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm not sure what you mean by a null edit. What can I do to get all the article in this category? --Dmcdevit·t 04:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

If the template is on the article, and it is not in the category, Edit the page, and hit save without making any changes. It will not show up in history or your contribs, but it will force the db to update the categories. I have done this for Talk:Breadbox already, if there are more, just do that. ∞Who?¿? 05:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hmm. There's probably more than a hundred. Would deleting and recreating the category have the same effect? Even if not, I guess I'd be willing to do the drudgery. --Dmcdevit·t 05:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, unfortunately not, lots and lots of null edits. If one of the categories gets deleted/merged it will be listed at the bottom for null edits, or if kept, it can still be listed, then others will help, and/or a bot. ∞Who?¿? 08:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if in fact those in charge of the Transwiki'ing actually intended for there to be two separate categories, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. (I've also got a 'bot running null updates on all the relevant pages so that the category will be populated.) Russ Blau (talk) 15:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

In that case keep and populate. I'm a transwikier, too, though I would't say there's anyone in charge of it :) --Dmcdevit·t 18:30, August 1, 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 14:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently has three articles; unlikely to grow much larger. tregoweth 03:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete couldn't find a good merge cat just yet. ∞Who?¿? 12:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 3, 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.