Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 10

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< July 9 July 11 >

July 10 edit

Category:Scrum (rugby) edit

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 11:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this category exactly? There is one good article on scrums, do we need any others? If not we really don't need this category. I really can't think what else could be added here.GordyB 22:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-encyc cat, that is unlikely ever to make it to more than a small handful of articles. -Splash 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless categorization, related articles should be placed in Category:Rugby. <>Who?¿? 02:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I put in a plea for people to put things in Category:Rugby union or Category:Rugby league rather than Category:Rugby. Few things naturally belong in Category:Rugby.GordyB 22:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment scrummage - In definition, the term is used to describe play, in rugby. The two categories you suggest, are for organizations that either, play or support rugby, not for the game itself. Hence, the articles belongs under the cat which it is defined. <>Who?¿? 03:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not the case, there is no sport called 'rugby'. There are two separate sports called Rugby league and Rugby union. I suggest you read up on the history of both games, they have been quite separate since 1895. They are not the names of organisations. This is similar to the soccer / football problem, just because 'football' refers to one sport in the USA and another in most other countries does not mean they should share a category.GordyB 18:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My appologies, it's true, I wouldn't know the exact terminology, just what I've always seen and heard when I played, etc.. I was using the Wiktionary definition as a reference. As far as football, to me it's soccer, because it had the name first, I call American football, just that. If that's the case with the true name of rugby, I would not oppose placing it in one of the categories suggested by GordyB. Although, the Wiktionary entry would need to be updated as well. <>Who?¿? 01:26, 13 July 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.

Category:Asian mountains edit

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 11:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Mountains of Asia for consistency with other continents. RedWolf 20:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename per nominator. -Splash 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Perhaps such renaming should be done automatically by an admin, w/o listing here to save time. Pavel Vozenilek 20:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that would circumvent the whole CfD process; sometimes useful things are brought up in the dicussion that ensues. And how would the admin 'automatically' work out the right name? Also, it would mean, rather unfairly, that admins could change a cat name to whatever they like whenever they liked whilst non-admins could not. I don't think much is lost by bringing such things here; it's not like VfD after all. Of course, there is the speed-rename section at the top of the CfD page which completes in just two days so minor things can already go there. -Splash 00:39, 13 July 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.

Category:Marketing research edit

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 11:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Market research. I've always heard "market research," and Google finds it to be a considerably more common term. This does not seem to be an AE/BE difference as both British and American websites use "market research." Marketing research is also more ambiguous, as it can be read as "selling research." - SimonP 18:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename per SimonP. Googlebattle: "market research" gets 12,800,000 and "marketing research" gets 1,820,000. -Splash 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per suggestion. James F. (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. (Ugh, -> kicks google, but agree with terminology research). <>Who?¿? 03:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topics in this category are marketing research topics, not market research topics. mydogategodshat 05:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Market research" is research about a market. "Marketing research" is research about marketing. Maurreen 08:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's about the field of marketing, not the study of a particular market for a product. Greg Robson
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.

Category:ELCA colleges and universities edit

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 11:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America per Wiki policy on acronyms. Those outside of the ELCA are unfamiliar with what ELCA stands for. -Ichabod 2 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

  • Iff no further names are suggested, or no more consensus for my suggested name, do not object to nom. <>Who?¿? 02:31, 11 July 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.

Category:English doctors edit

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 English physicians into English doctors --Kbdank71 11:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Category:English physicians. --Tabor 2 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)

  • Keep The alternative category is in U.S. English. The word physician is almost never used for a doctor in modern everyday British English. Historically it was the highest of the three grades of medical practitioner in the UK above surgeon and apothecary. Nowadays it has a specialist meaning in England (as opposed to the US) though, like most people I should think, I don't quite no what it is. An English doctor should not be called a physician unless he or she is a member of the Royal College of Physicians, which most of them aren't. CalJW 5 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reverse Merge Category:English physicians → Category:English doctors. CalJW is right; it would sound deeply strange in British English. Consistency is one thing, but this particular piece stems from a version of systemic bias, and would just cause confusion (apart from being technically inaccurate). -Splash 6 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
    My vote stands for the purposes of the second CfD. -Splash 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:English physicians already exists and has articles in it, unlike Category:English doctors which is empty. If the consensus is to go with "doctors", the physicians category should be merged with that one. --BaronLarf July 6, 2005 14:17 (UTC)
    You're right. That was what I really meant, so I've clarified my vote.-Splash 6 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Looks like the consensus was to move English physicians to English doctors. The cfd tag was not added to English physicians until today, so I'm giving it another seven days to be fair. --Kbdank71 16:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merging English physicians to English doctors. Hiding 20:42, 10 July 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.

Category:U.S. philanthropists edit

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 11:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

→ category:American philanthropists. Dunc|☺ 15:59, 10 July 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.

Category:Himalayas edit

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 11:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Himalaya as it's the technically correct name (see Himalaya). RedWolf 08:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename. There should be consistency between the category and article name and, yup, the article name is the correct one. Grutness...wha? 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to (correct) singular form. James F. (talk) 00:54, 11 July 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.

Category:Prize_of_Quebec_recipients edit

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 11:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a mis-translation of Prix du Québec - scientifique, "Quebec (Science) Award". Furthermore, there is only one article in this category, the subject of which has received more prestigious awards. A category for this award seems unnecessary. Peter Grey 08:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, add relevant information as a list to the bottom of said article. Radiant_>|< 09:56, July 10, 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.

Category:Bismarck, North Dakota edit

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 11:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend deletion of this category because it attempts to duplicate what is already found in the more inclusive Category:Bismarck-Mandan --MatthewUND 04:41, July 10, 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.

Category:Fargo, North Dakota edit

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 11:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend deletion of this category because it attempts to duplicate what is already found in the more inclusive Category:Fargo-Moorhead --MatthewUND 04:41, July 10, 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.

Category:Grand Forks, North Dakota edit

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 11:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend deletion of this category because it attempts to duplicate what is already found in the more inclusive Category:Grand Forks-East Grand Forks --MatthewUND 04:41, July 10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_10&oldid=1121941484"