Category talk:Tagged for deletion

Notes regarding pages tagged for deletion

Just for one place to put all these. Please chip in with opinions. I will remove bullet points as they are resolved.

• Can I delete Bill Gates achievement (and associated pages) along with Expensive_Geohash (and associated pages)?

support deletion of Expensive, keep Bill Gates -- relet 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Against Bill Gates. It's humor. Expensive can go though. -- Wmcduff 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I say keep expensive as a way of recording unusually expensive adventures mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Bill Gates, because it makes for a good laugh (and well illustrates the impossibility of cheating the algorithm which is doubted by almost everyone once in a while). "Expensive" was supposed to be turned into a "subjective" achievement, a task that's more served by the gratutious ribbons nowadays. I don't like to think of this as a regular achievement but would like to keep the ribbon available. --Ekorren 08:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely keep Bill Gates. It's beautifully developed, funny, and what Ekorren said about impossbility. Who/when was it proposed for deletion? I'm quite surprised. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Category:Meet-up achievement still has a whole bunch of pages in it

I will check if someone has renamed the achievement.. if yes, have reletbot move them to the renamed category. If not, the delete tag is wrongly placed. -- relet 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as duplicated of Category:Meetup geohash achievement - which is empty. Barring naming problems, I vote we delete the second one, and keep the first. --joannac

seconded mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion of Category:Meetup geohash achievement. -- Benjw 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh shoot. I moved everything over before reading this, thinking that "Meetup geohash achievement" was required for the new naming convetions. Sorry, sorry, that was dumb. I should have looked here first. It's only three saves and I like Meet-up achievement better, so I have put everything back where I found it, and wholly support deletion of Category:Meetup geohash achievement. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Ok, I untagged Category:Meet-up achievement and tagged Category:Meetup geohash achievement. I think we were agreed that the latter was (now, even if not originally) named wrongly. -- Benjw 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Category:National Parks got moved to Category:Houston parks - is there some meaning of Houston I'm missing?

Not that I am aware of. I guess that's just a better classification for the pages that got categorized in the first place -- relet 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

None of those parks are in Houston (or Texas). Not sure why the name change

I still want it to be National Parks. But I won't whine. Much. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• All the old expedition pages with various levels of detail. We need to decide which to delete, and which to keep (and remove delete tags from)

IMHO all that is either a) replaced by a correct page or b) expedition planning (unless it is very elaborate and worth reading) -- relet 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See also discussion here

I find the fact that someone once started to plan an expedition in a graticule where I am interesting, if it's the only activity for that graticule. The catalogues of "point was here, no one went" can definitely go. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Canandaigua-Corning, New York should probably only have one name.

And a more pronounceable name in general, yes. :P -- relet 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I say delete the existing Corning, New York, then move Canandaigua-Corning, New York to it. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• HOLY CRAP World

Yeah, that was created by some avid (anonymous? I don't remember) scripter.. I never saw the point, given that we have the Map statistics with clickable graticules. -- relet 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion. It's totally outdated and dawidi's map serves the purpose much better. --Ekorren 08:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion. It doesn't seem to be linked anywhere, takes an age to load and I really doubt anyone uses it. Or will use it. -- Benjw 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion. I thought it had some purpose like the All Graticules page. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fort Worth, Texas is moved to Ft. Worth; all the other "Fort" cities are unabbreviated. Ditto "Saint" cities.

I suspect the official name is "Fort Worth", so I'd support renaming the graticule back to "Fort Worth, Texas". If this doesn't happen then the Fort Worth page should be turned into a redirect for the graticule page, rather than deleted. -- Benjw 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Fort Worth should be the main page with Ft. Worth a redirect, in accordance with the official unabbreviated spelling of the city. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Someone hit me over the head and tell me that keeping spam pages around when I have the most points is a BAD idea.

BONK! It's a bad idea, Joanna. Besides, you get a million points for deleting the whole page, so you win! -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Main Page - should be Main page? (yes, i'm just getting really picky now)

Probably. And All Graticules should be All graticules. I just didn't dare to move them, because someone else's code relies on them. -- relet 08:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Set up a redirect, at least, if the code can't be changed. -- Benjw 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I much prefer it Main Page. Wikipedia, from where we copied our naming conventions uses Main Page, so so can we. I wouldn't object at all to All graticules, if it doesn't bother Zigdon's code. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

All_Graticules is regularily read by at least three external applications. But as long as there is a redirect, they should get served the correct page through the redirect anyway. And even if that won't work for all of them, it would be work for half a minute each to fix up the applications. --Ekorren 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Will add more as I discover them. --joannac 01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)