Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 8

< July 7 July 9 >

July 8

Category:The CFL on TSN

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The CFL on TSN ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, per many previous discussions. -- Prove It (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category is being used to list sport announcers by network. This is a variation on "performer by performance" categories, a form of overcategorization. This is not feasible in the long term, as these announcers work on many shows across many different networks. If categories were created for every sport/network combination, the categories would be difficult to read and use within the articles on the individual announcers. Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 18:01, 14 July 2007 (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 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:Napoleonic video games

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleonic video games to Category:Napoleonic Wars video games
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The video games are about the Napoleonic Wars, not Napoleon. The new name would indicate that more clearly. Dr. Submillimeter 21:36, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Napoleonic Wars war films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Napoleonic Wars films --Kbdank71 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Napoleonic Wars war films to Category:War films about the Napoleonic Wars
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The current category title seems awkwardly written. The new version would be longer but not awkward. Dr. Submillimeter 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in this form. Out of keeping with the parent Category:War films. Counter propose Category:Napoleonic Wars films (also in keeping with Category:Napoleonic war books proposed rename to Category:Napoleonic Wars books). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to counter-proposal to avoid being out of line with the rest of the parent whilst getting rid of "Wars war" duplication. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 15 July 2007 (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 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:Roger Corman films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Andrew c [talk] 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roger Corman films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as Category:Films directed by Roger Corman already exists. Ibaranoff24 19:31, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Jimmy Kimmel Live

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jimmy Kimmel Live ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. After removing the improperly categorized performers, the show's article is all that's left. This category is not needed. Nominated once previously and kept on unfathomably shaky grounds. Otto4711 17:50, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Virginia Military Institute graduates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Andrew c [talk] 04:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virginia Military Institute graduates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Virginia Military Institute alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States. -- Prove It (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's o.k. by me. my search did not turn up the alumni category. I just figured if there had been such an animal then George Marshall would surely have been in such a category. So what is the conventional prevailing category for schools such as USMA academy (west point), Harvard, etc.? Is it graduate or alumni? let's go with the most common and do a merge. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:28, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Lieutenant Governors of the colonial Province of Quebec

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lieutenant Governors of the colonial Province of Quebec to Category:Lieutenant Governors of the Province of Quebec (1763-1791)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to the above or to Category:Governors of the Province of Quebec (1763-1791). I think this was created out of confusion as today there is only a Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec not a Governor. However I believe that there were Governors for the Province of Quebec (1763-1791) as well as Lieutenant Governors. I am not sure whether we should have a separate category for the Lieutenant Governors (I have just made a page for one Hector Theophilus de Cramahé- I don't know if there are others who have articles) or whether we should just rename the Category to Governors and include any Lieutenant Governors as well as Governors? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:12, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Songs introduced by Fred Astaire

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs introduced by Fred Astaire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Fred Astaire songs, convention of Category: Songs by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Late 18th and early 19th Century Military Construction Projects

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Andrew c [talk] 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Late 18th and early 19th Century Military Construction Projects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, An awkward and badly named category that doesn't seem to really fit anywhere. -- Prove It (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Songs introduced by Frank Sinatra

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs introduced by Frank Sinatra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Frank Sinatra songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you provide a link where it says this is the convention? Gareth E Kegg 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See: Songs by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a subcategory of Category:Frank Sinatra songs. -- Prove It (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, thanks. Which begs the question, if the subcategory fulfills a useful function, why merge? Dermot 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the big issues of categorization is knowing when to stop, and to some degree, that is a matter of taste. It seems to me that we don't really need two categories for Frank Sinatra songs. If you are a huge fan, you could create dozens of year categories, or divide them by genre, or film, or songwriter. However, I think for most people, a single cat will suffice. I don't really have strong feelings about it, and I really don't mind if others disagree. My point is, what's useful and what isn't is somewhat of a matter of taste. -- Prove It (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be a matter of taste. Rather, it should depend on whether the introduction of such subcategory will significantly enhance the parent category. Artists such as Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire and Frank Sinatra, had songs specially composed for them by the leading composers of their day (Gershwin, Berlin, Porter etc.), songs which are now regarded as cultural treasures. The ability to characterize leading exponents of the Great American Songbook on the basis of notable songs written specially for them by notable composers, is highly relevant to students of the genre and is of cultural significance. This is the main point - the ability to explore how the leading composers interacted with the leading singers of the era - this is what the "songs introduced by" category is designed to achieve. What's more, it provides a fairly natural means by which the vast discographies of these individuals (eventually the song by artist categories for the singers mentioned is likely to be populated by many hundreds of songs - when editors get around to it). My argument is on the basis of relevance and pragmatism, subcategories in this area are inevitable so by planning ahead, the parent category/Songs by artist will be better organized and navigable. Dermot 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per rationale given by Dermot Gareth E Kegg 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; terrible precedent, serious overcategorization, and Dermot's ILIKEIT hyperbole is not at all persuasive. The Great American Songbook is an ill-defined and highly subjective grouping. And why should we have special categories for students of this "genre" and not for other popular genres such as jazz, rock, or hip-hop? (Many of which are also viewed as cultural treasures.) Yes, artists with long careers may well have (or have had) many songs in their repertoire, but I don't see that as a problem. It's highly questionable whether dividing a moderately large category by inobvious criteria actually adds any navigability—certainly I would have no clue whether any random Sinatra song is located in this or the parent category. Categories shouldn't require pre-knowledge of their contents to be useful! And if we are going to subdivide song-by-artist, it should be under a more generally applicable schema, since large repertoires are hardly limited to this era or this style of performer. (The Radiators (US), a rock band of modest notability, has a documented repertoire of over 1300 songs, including over 300 originals, mostly written by the insanely prolific Ed Volker. Yet a "songs introduced by" category would be almost completely redundant with a "songs written by" category.) If the goal is really to "explore how the leading composers interacted with the leading singers of the era", that is better done by a list, which will not hinder navigation the way this category, IMO, does. Xtifr tälk 06:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about subcategories messing up navigability is a good one. I can see that a list, linked to the Category page, would be a more satisfactory solution all around. Dermot 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting question. There are dozens (hundreds, actually) of songs that Sinatra sang, many of which are considered "his" songs, but many of which are often thought of as "somebody else's" songs. I think there needs to be some serious discussion as to how to categorize these. (One problem is that so many Wikipedians are unaware of earlier musical practices and think of today's practice of people writing songs which they sing, and do not understand that it hasn't always been that way.) I think that lists are the best way of showing the complete set of songs recorded by a singer, but I would certainly approve of a "songs introduced by" category for major artists like Sinatra. And yet there is not always a total overlap even between "songs introduced by" someone and "songs associated with" him -- look at "Prisoner of Love" which was introduced by Russ Columbo but is at least as significantly associated with Perry Como. I'm not certain how best to handle these cases. -- BRG 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There have been numerous cfd discussions about "cover songs" (here, here, here, here, and others, I'm sure) in which there's been consensus that songs should not be segregated into separate categories based on whether other artists performed or recorded them previously (or, in this case, since). I did not participate in any of those discussions, but I agree with their principle completely. ×Meegs 22:44, 12 July 2007 (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 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:Cold Case

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cold Case ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category not needed for the material. Otto4711 13:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the root category for Cold Case. We do the same thing elsewhere, if a subject has multiple subcategories, we put them all in a supercategory along with the main article. --ST47Talk 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you offer some reason as to why this particular category should be treated differentlty from all of the other similar, now-deleted, categories? Otto4711 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the wrong precedent has been set with those. On an earlier CFD for these type of cats, you said something about like they clutter Wikipedia, absorbing time and effort for maintainance. What do you mean by that? Surely everything "absorbs time and effort for maintainance" on WP? Lugnuts 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, everything on Wikipedia absorbs maintenance time, which is why it's a good idea to avoid creating categories that serve little or no function beyond acting as magnets for misuse. As noted in WP:OC, categories named for people frequently attract inappropriate articles becuase of the interaction between notable people. The same thing happens with categories named for TV shows, especially in light of the consensus against performer by performance categories. Categories named for TV shows frequently end up with articles for people who appeared in them, because people place them there in lieu of the "(TV show) actors/directors/writers" categories we've gotten rid of. If the material in the category is navigable throught the articles themselves and/or a template and the category has to be watched to keep improperly categorized articles out of it, it's best not to have the unnecessary category so that the time that would have been spent on cleanup can be used on something else. Otto4711 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eponymous television categories aren't needed solely for episodes and characters. Those are subcategorized under other corresponding schemes, and the main article for the show serves as the navigational hub to peruse those articles. Dugwiki 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. To not follow precedent would require a strong case. I don't see that established in the discussion above. Why do we need root categories for these based on the series name? Vegaswikian 00:30, 13 July 2007 (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 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:Drawn Together

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drawn Together ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Eponymous cat not needed for this material. Otto4711 13:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have deleted close to 100 TV series categories with this level of material as unnecessary. If your only objection is that the words "TV series" don't appear in the guideline, then the dozens upon dozens of similar deleted categories still establishes the precedent. Otto4711 15:43, 8 July 2007 (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 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:The Surreal Life

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Surreal Life to Category:The Surreal Life participants
Nominator's rationale: Merge - with the exception of the show itself, all of the articles in the category are for the participants. The show article and the spin-offs and participants subcats don't need an eponymous show category. Otto4711 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nomination is not in favor of deleting Category:The Surreal Life participants. The problem with deleting the participant category are the same as deleting Category:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here! nominated yesterday. We treat reality television different from fictional television for purposes of categorizing appearances. Each of the people in the participants category in the absence of the category would be eligible for inclusion in Category:Participants in American reality television series. When we deleted the various cast and crew categories it was in large measure because a prolific actor could end up in dozens of such categories. In this instance, deleting the participants category not only contravenes the usual practice for reality TV it does nothing to reduce the number of categories into which the member articles fit and replaces a specific category with a general one. Otto4711 01:41, 10 July 2007 (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 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:Victoria's Secret Angels

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victoria's Secret Angels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - variations on this category have been deleted a couple of times previously. This is improper performer by performance overcategorization. Models can endorse any number of products during a career. Otto4711 12:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the SI swimsuit models only appear once on an annual SI swimsuit issue. The issue looks like a regular magazine. How can that be culturally significant? From the guidelines, it's still overcategorization. I find that unfair. - Confused newbie, (Number1spygirl 16:17, 9 July 2007 (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 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:CoverGirls

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CoverGirls ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance categorization. Models can endorse any number of products over the course of a career. Categorizing all of them would lead to a great deal of category clutter. Otto4711 12:53, 8 July 2007 (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 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:The Colbys

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Colbys ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category not necessary for this material. Otto4711 12:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that this category may be less necessary for navigation than Category:Dynasty because this one contains less items, etc. but I don't see the harm in keeping it for organizational purposes. In my own navigation of Wikipedia I honestly find categories like this useful to find related articles. It seems to me that something not being "essential" shouldn't be an adequate rationale for deletion; this category is not cumbersome or distruptive, and while it may only be useful to a certain number of editors/readers, I can't see a negative effect. Some of the points made in the Dynasty discussion apply here (for both sides of the argument). TAnthony 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the "related articles" in this instance consist of the show's article, an episode list that's linked to the main article and three images that appear in the two articles, I'm not seeing that this particular category offers any navigational utility. Otto4711 15:40, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Prisoner

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, precedent. --Kbdank71 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Category is not required for this material. Otto4711 12:40, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Linux only free software

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linux only free software ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Three entries, one of which is Linux itself. A needlessly specific category of little potential use. Why would someone care if a piece of software doesn't run on other operating systems? Perhaps this should be renamed Category:Linux free software, and, along with Category:Mac OS X-only free software form subcats of a new Category:Free software by operating system? Feezo (Talk) 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, forget the merge idea. It still wouldn't be useful. Delete for reasons given. Feezo (Talk) 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining, with exception of kernel and SW much tied to the system everything could be ported, theoretically. Pavel Vozenilek 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: calling the Linux kernel "Linux only" seems redundant, and at least one other member makes no mention of being Linux-only—I suspect that it actually works on any X11-based system. The remaining entry seems to be a Linux kernel feature, not a separate piece of software at all. The category is small, with very little potential for growth, since most software that runs on Linux will also run on other UNIX-like systems (BSD, Solaris, etc.) One could even argue that Linux itself is not Linux-only, since it can run on a virtual host. Even supposedly Linux-only binaries can frequently be run on other systems through compatibility layers as offered by some BSD systems. If kept, this is likely to become populated with X11-specific software (as already seems to be happening), since a lot of casual users are unaware that X11 is available for systems besides Linux (including MacOS and Windows). Xtifr tälk 22:09, 8 July 2007 (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 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:AFI 100 Years films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AFI 100 Years films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as published list, see also AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition). -- Prove It (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Achaea

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in the Achaea prefecture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Municipalities in the Achaea prefecture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Municipalities in Achaea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge all to Category:Cities and towns in Achaea or choose one another name. The others should probably follow likewise. -- Prove It (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Municipalities in the Achaea prefecture, convention of Category:Municipalities of Greece. -- Prove It (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Fictional corrupt police officers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Andrew c [talk] 04:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional corrupt police officers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Fictional police officers, spoiler. -- Prove It (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Mountains of Epirus, Greece

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountains of Epirus, Greece ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Mountains of Greece, convention of Category:Mountains by country. -- Prove It (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2007 (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 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:List of Ben 10 episodes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 15:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Ben 10 episodes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Ben 10 episodes, convention of Category:Television episodes by series. -- Prove It (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2007 (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 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:Category:Famines in China

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename, this is obviously just a mistake. -- Prove It (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famines in China ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Famines in China--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:30, 8 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_8