< April 17	April 19 >

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 move.

Rename to correct Wikipedia category name: Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of 67.129.121.254. -- ADNghiem501 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've moved the category to the new name. It's not necessary to be nominated here, otherwise I do it on my own. -- ADNghiem501 04:45, 20 April 2006 (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 rename. Syrthiss 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I missed this one out of the listing when it was recently agreed to rename all the European transport(ation) in categories to "transport". Rename Category:Transport in Slovenia. CalJW 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- ADNghiem501 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ReeseM 22:29, 19 April 2006 (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 Moved to SFD - TexasAndroid 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to SFD where it belongs. Please read the instructions, folks! Grutness...wha? 04:40, 19 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Created on 26 March as a supercategory. Result has been to remove Category:Scottish newspapers and Category:Northern Irish newspapers from the main Category:British newspapers; and to remove cat:British newspapers from its original spots in Category:European newspapers, Category:Newspapers by country, Category:Media of the United Kingdom and Category:British culture. It is hard to see what other purpose it serves. (While we are here, why are these categories all called "Fooian newspapers" instead of "Newspapers of foo", which appears to be the standard for inanimate objects?) Mais oui! 21:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; This one is my fault ... I created this category while coming down by way of Category:Newspapers by country, trying to categorize something. I was expecting the subcats of Newspapers by country to be countries ... couldn't find the UK so I created it. Note there isn't an American newspapers either, even though thats what we (US) call ourselves. It wasn't until later that I found the British newspapers group. I think that the problem is, that to an outsider its not entirely clear whats included in Britain and what isn't. So, I think that the current cat should stay, if only as redirect to British newspapers. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge They are "Fooian newspapers" because this is a cultural category. CalJW 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the British category becoming the parent for the Scottish and Northern Irish categories. mattbr³⁰ 08:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Bhoeble 17:56, 19 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fix abbreviation and capitalization. Paul 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from speedy after discusion. Vegaswikian 21:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not eligible for speedy and it should be category:American county government officials. Bhoeble 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete There is a small discussion of this category at Category talk:County Government Officials in the U.S. Basically, if this category is for anyone who ever held a county government position, it's potentially going to have an overwhelming number of entries of people who have very little in common. At minimum, the category should be for elected officials. Better yet, it should be only for current elected officials. And quite possibly the best thing to do would be to delete the entire category. John Broughton 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This will be category clutter for major figures who have held such office and the minor figures who have done so don't need to be associated in this way. There is an existing system of politicians by U.S. state, which is a better of allocating them. CalJW 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CalJW but if kept rename category:American county government officials. Osomec 16:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a horribly ambiguous category. There might at some rationale for having a super-category to be the root of a hierarchy, but at present, that would be incredibly spotty. older ≠ wiser 16:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per older Athenaeum 20:02, 25 April 2006 (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 for now. Syrthiss 13:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created category:National Hunt racehorses without realising category:Jumping racehorses existed. Both titles mean exactly the same thing, but I think the new title is more 'correct'. If I'd have known it existed I'd have suggested renaming it. Zafonic 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment category:National Hunt racehorses will be a UK only category will it not? If that is the case, perhaps the other one should be kept as a parent category, but as it is empty at the moment it isn't very important whether it is or not. CalJW 23:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. Osomec 16:43, 20 April 2006 (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 rename all. Syrthiss 13:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago I successfully nominated category:American literary biographers for merging into category:American biographers because it was based on a user's point of view as to which biographers were of literary merit (it was not restricted to biographers of writers, which would not have been desirable in any case as many biographers have written biographies of both writers and others). I have now realised that it was part of a set, all created by a user who is currently banned from Wikipedia for twelve months. "Celebrity biographer" is the other side of his point of view, the place where he put what he considered to be trash. But nearly all published biographies are about celebrities in a broad sense. The distinction is imprecise, it is not helpful for accessing articles and that is little or no sign that it has been taken up by other users.

• Category:American celebrity biographers merge to Category:American biographers
• Category:English celebrity biographers merge to Category:English biographers
• Category:French celebrity biographers merge to Category:French biographers
• Category:Celebrity biographers merge to Category:Biographers
• Category:English literary biographers merge to Category:English biographers
• Category:Scottish literary biographers merge to Category:Scottish biographers
• Category:Welsh literary biographers merge to Category:Welsh biographers
• Category:British literary biographers merge to Category:British biographers
• Category:Canadian literary biographers merge to Category:Canadian biographers
• Category:French literary biographers merge to Category:French biographers
• Category:Literary biographers merge to Category:Biographers

Survey:

• Merge all Bhoeble 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. CalJW 23:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. David Kernow 01:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all. Sahasrahla 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all. per nom. Osomec 16:43, 20 April 2006 (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 dark delete. Syrthiss 13:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No articles in category except from user area. Thorpe | talk 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ADNghiem501 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. On top of that, there's only one article there! --Icarus 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:29, 25 April 2006 (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 rename. Syrthiss 13:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "wikiproject United States." It is an organizational category for centralizing work on all the United States-related WikiProjects. —Markles 15:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it be "United States WikiProjects", then? Kirill Lokshin 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I typed it in wrong here on this page. But now I've corrected it. Nice catch.—Markles 15:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a discussion currently going on at Category talk:WikiProjects about what the best naming for such categories would be, so it might be better to wait a bit before settling on a particular renaming in this case. Kirill Lokshin 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename as proposed. It can always be renamed again later. Bhoeble 18:40, 18 April 2006 (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 rename. Syrthiss 13:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category needs to be more clearly distinguished from category:Religion in Greece. The lead article is called Ancient Greek religion. Rename CalJW 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. ×Meegs 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -choster 16:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- ADNghiem501 03:07, 19 April 2006 (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 rename. Syrthiss 13:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Buildings and structures" is the standard form. It should not be "in Ancient Greece" because Ancient Greece was not a state and the boundaries of the Ancient Greek world were far from fixed. This category is for the buildings and structures erected by the civilisation, wherever they happened to be. Rename CalJW 14:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. ×Meegs 14:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- ADNghiem501 03:08, 19 April 2006 (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 already deleted - TexasAndroid 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All contents have been moved to Category:FIFA World Cup following the renaming of Football World Cup article to FIFA World Cup. Conscious 13:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Was it really necessary to move the article? Any reference to FIFA is a reminder of the existence of the loathsome Sepp Blatter, which can only spoil one's day. Bhoeble 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there was a heated discussion and a little move war, and the category renaming was requested during the FAC process. Conscious 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, although perhaps U.S. folk won't know that FIFA => soccer...? David Kernow 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they don't know that football = soccer either... ;) — sjorford (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant. All the articles listed (and many more) are also present in Category:Scientific misconduct. Cpt. Morgan 08:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 10:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 02:04, 19 April 2006 (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 that one article. Syrthiss 13:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need an entire category for non-notable buildings. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ardenn 04:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. pm_shef 05:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That is a policy for articles, not categorisation. As there are 8 articles it is good categorisation to group them so that they can be placed in both category:Buildings and structures in Toronto and category:York University in a tidy manner. Bhoeble 10:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination would have been better left until the deletion nominations of the articles had been through the full deletion process. Bhoeble 18:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there are less than 8 articles in it by the time this is closed, which there probably should and will be. CalJW 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carina22 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The category is down to one article, and it can be merged into parent Category:York University. - EurekaLott 03:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per EurekaLott Golfcam 22:36, 27 April 2006 (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 rename. Syrthiss 13:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category isn't about law (i.e., legislation), but about rules of order for conducting parliamentary proceedings. The term "parliamentary procedure" gets ten times the number of Google hits as "parliamentary law". —Psychonaut 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 10:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. CalJW 23:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. MikeHobday 22:18, 19 April 2006 (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 rename to Naval batles of Italy. Syrthiss 13:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard naming for categories of battles by participant. Alternately, merge to Category:Battles of Italy as the split isn't really needed at this point. Kirill Lokshin 03:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is also a subcategory of category:Naval battles. Do not rename as the convention is for countries not navies and the equivalent "Royal Navy battles" sounds better than "Battles of the Royal Navy". Bhoeble 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced we need a separate category for this, then, considering how small Category:Battles of Italy is. Not also that following the convention for sub-categories of Category:Naval battles would produce something like Category:Naval battles of Italy; there is no Category:Royal Navy battles (nor has anyone really missed it). Kirill Lokshin 11:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Naval battles of Italy. The naval battles category needs to be subcategorised and it would be better to use country names as I had never heard of the Regia Marina until today and I'm sure that must be true of most non-Italian non-naval enthusiasts. Bhoeble 18:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Naval battles of Italy, which is clear to English speaking readers. ReeseM 22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Naval battles of Italy, as above Josh 04:42, 20 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. There might be some river craft that could qualify, but I can't find any such articles. Austro-Hungarian ships are covered by Category:Ships of Austria-Hungary. Josh 02:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 10:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 01:44, 19 April 2006 (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 rename. Syrthiss 13:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories cover the same ground, but I'm not sure which would be a better name. Another option is Category:Pharmacologic agent logos (cf. Category:Pharmacologic agents). They probably mean subtly different things in medic-speak.

Note that Category:Drug logos used to be subcategorised under Category:Company logos - I moved it out just before CfM tagging. A drug is certainly not a company! There's a lot of activity in Category:Logos at the moment, so things are still somewhat in flux. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 10:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Rename to Category:Medication logos in lieu of even more suitable alternatives per above. David Kernow 01:44, 19 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category of unclear usefulness, little apparent encyclopedic value, and a monstrous namespace. —thames 01:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisionally, keep but revise: Some institutions whose business is to make predictions, such as the American CIA, apparently failed to anticipate the Soviet collapse. So a category for notable persons and organizations that did better with their predictions, schemes or wishful thinking, might be of interest. The title's unwieldiness could be addressed by paring it down to something like "Predicted a Soviet collapse." KonradWallenrod 04:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, Your recommendation was acted upon, see the page: Predictions of Soviet collapseTravb 20:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Hi, thank you for your feedback. I am the author of the category.
  How do I change the name? Unfortunatly, I tried to change the name but can't. thames I encourage you to please give me instuctions on how to change the name, and I look forward to your suggestion for a new name. Since the title of the template ((cfd)) is: This category is being considered for deletion or renaming, would changing the name satisfy your concerns?
  In a conversation with User:Ahasuerus we agreed to limit the time period to post world war 2, since before WW2 so many people thought that the USSR would collapse that it makes the category unwieldly. Maybe the title: Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR? What do you think? "Predicted a Soviet collapse", which KonradWallenrod suggested is a great suggestion, but maybe not precise enough.
  I look forward to everyone's future feedback suggestions on the improvement of this article. Unfortunatly, nothing was written on the talk page and no suggestions for improvement were given before this deletion.
  Being a brand new category, we actively encourage suggestions for improvements. I feel that deleting an article with no consultation beforehand maybe isn't the best solution.
  On the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page,the page asks: "Does the page really belong on AfD? Read the following two tables to find out what to do with a problem page." There are several solutions before initiating a deletion, unfortunarly none of these suggestions were attempted before initiating this deletion.
  Since according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy this deletion appears to be initiated prematurly, does any wikiuser know of any steps, with thames blessing, that we can retract this deletion? Is this possible?
  Finally, every entry to this list that I added is supported by verifiable sources. Please see talk page, which lists a source for every addition to this category.
  Again, thank you for your feedback, I look forward to working with you all soon. Travb 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why limit to post-World War II? Why not just be selective in terms of the quality of the individuals or organizations making the predictions? KonradWallenrod 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great ideas. Since my response included references to four different wikipages, I responded on the category talk page, found here.Travb 07:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travb: don't worry. I'm not a bloodthirsty deletionist. The category can be moved to a new namespace, but that will still leave the problem of citing your sources. If this category were transformed into a List article, you could include citations of the instances (in the article text itself, rather than on the talk page) when the various people included predicted the downfall of the USSR, and their reasoning at the time. I think that would make a much better article. As a category, it will do little to illuminate our readers.—thames 13:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was intended to get this category deleted, it appears like it will be. Thanks man. I appreciate it.

Please tell me how to change the title of the category, which I asked for.

"but that will still leave the problem of citing your sources" Category_talk:Organizations_and_people_who_predicted_the_collapse_of_the_USSR Please take the time to read this. I am getting really flustered here. I spent about 9 hours exhastively referencing this category. Then I have some casual readers come along and claim that I did not reference the category.

If I write a "list" as you suggest, how do I know that some well intentioned, but misguided person will not come along and delete this too?

thames Would renaming the category solve your concerns? Travb 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you write it as a list, another editor very well may come along and nominate it for deletion, but I think you would have a much stronger case to keep a well cited article. As a category, this just doesn't work. So, I suggest taking your content and starting List of predictions of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also remember to brush up on Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. Sorry for all the hassle.—thames 01:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These were your original, valid concerns:

monstrous namespace I also submitted this for review for a new name, the name I suggested above (please see: Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR).

category of unclear usefulness, little apparent encyclopedic value I just wrote Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR and added the category: ((catmore| Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR)) . I also deleted all of the references to before WW2, too make this category clearer and more precise.

Thank you for your suggestions, your Wikipedia:Categories for deletion listing made this article better.

The ((catmore| Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR)) is now an important part of Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR.

Since I think I have addressed all of your concerns, could you please find it in your heart to retract this deletion?Travb 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think that the category does not work. I think the article will be fine, and your work will be fine there. Other users seem to agree that, as a category, this just doesn't make sense. Categories have pretty specific uses, and this stretches beyond encyclopedic value as a category.—thames 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Expresses an interpretation and the category system is too crude for that as it deals in absolutes. Also, it is doubtful that this is a defining characteristic for many of the members, if any. The likes of Ronald Reagan are in too many categories already, and if we tolerate a proliferation of categories related to ideas, comments and policy positions category clutter will reach a point where the category system is useless for prominent people. Bhoeble 10:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read Predictions of Soviet collapse. I hope this addresses your concerns. Thank you for your comments. Bhoeble what page did you first learn about this category? Travb 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On this page. I am a regular here, so I think I have a good idea about what sort of categories are desirable and which issues are better covered in other ways. Bhoeble 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry Bhoeble, you appear to assume that I am questioning your expertise on deletions. I am not. I am just asking you to please consider your decision. You seem very opinionated. I am interested if you have ever, with further contemplation, been mistaken in your analysis, and on further thought publically retracted your decision on any topic on wikipedia. I find this is the biggest weakness on web blogs, including wikipedia. Web bloggers and wikipedians feel like they will lose face if they admit they are incorrect. Did you read over the site I posted? What did you think? comments and policy positions category clutter will reach a point where the category system is useless for prominent people. This is a slippery slope argument, and I feel it is based on at least one illogical assumption: namely that by having a lot of categories, it will somehow make the category system useless. Again, I strongly suggest reading the category for Reagan on Predictions of Soviet collapse. Travb 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a nonsense category - as many of the existing entries show. How does 'samizdat' qualify (not a person, or an organization, and whilst expressing resistance to, in no way necessarily predicting the fall of, the USSR? The Mensheviks didn't predict the end of the USSR, they opposed the Bolsheviks. Where and when did Bernard Levin predict the end of the USSR? - it's not in the Wikipedia article. Etc. etc. It serves no purpose - into the bin, please.--Smerus 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the entry for Emmanuel_Todd The Final Fall: an Essay on the Disintegration of the Soviet Sphere and Andrei Amalrik author of Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?. also: Please read Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR, I hope this addresses your concerns. Thank you for your comments. Smerus what page did you first learn about this category? Travb 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The day after the 1991 coup he predicted in The Times that the Soviet Union would fall within five years. Not a very accurate prediction though. He may also have predicted it on prior occasions, bit it is hardly worth mentioning in his article in any case. Bhoeble 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bhoeble who is "he", Reagan? Do you have a reference, so I can include it on the talk page?Travb 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the talk page, as I suggested above, it will explain when and where Bernard Levin predicted the fall of the USSR.
      Bernard Levin drew attention in 1992 to his prophetic article originally published in the Times of London in September 1977, in which an uncannily accurate prediction of the appearance of new faces in the Politburo was made, resulting in radical but peaceful political change.15
      15. Bernard Levin, in National Interest, Spring 1993, 64-65.
      Laqueur, Walter (1996). The Dream that Failed : Reflections on the Soviet Union. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195102827. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) p. 187
• Delete per nom Bhoeble and Smerus. Hawkestone 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkestone
    what page did you first learn about this category? Thank you.Travb 01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not quite nonsense, but useless, pointless and subjective. (Note: No disrespect intended to TravB, the creator.) Paul 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the entry for Emmanuel_Todd The Final Fall: an Essay on the Disintegration of the Soviet Sphere and Andrei Amalrik author of Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?. Travb 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul is either a (1) sockpuppet or (2) newb, I will let the users here decide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paulhanson. Travb 03:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category clutter. My main long term concern about the category system is that people like Ronald Reagan and Charles de Gaulle may end up in a huge number of trivial or eccentric categories, not enough of which will get deleted. Charles de Gaulle was also recently a member of category:cat lovers (or it may have been category:Bow tie wearers). He did and said many things more important than this, and we can't have categories for all of them. Categories should be used to group people by their defining characteristics, not all of their characteristics. With categories verifiability is not sufficient. CalJW 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments CalJW, I deleted Charles de Gaulle and Ronald Reagan from the list. Please read the entry for Emmanuel_Todd The Final Fall: an Essay on the Disintegration of the Soviet Sphere and Andrei Amalrik author of Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?. Does this solve your concerns? Please let me know.Travb 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete useless. --Irpen 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The question of who/when predicted the Soviet collapse does come up from time to time. If we could make this information available upon demand as part of WP, it would be likely useful, but I am not sure that a separate category is the best way to handle this. On the other hand, it could make a perfectly good article with quotes, attributions and the like. Ahasuerus 01:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with above. Travb, don't let the baying pack dishearten you. Ignore them, get to work on an article (you've got plenty of material available already), and you'll end up with a doctorate in political science and a best-selling book. Anatopism 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, for the support, it is so disheartening for something you worked so hard on be destroyed. On the Talk:Ronald Reagan there is a huge debate about this. I was wrong to post it there, I was hestiant to, and I wish I wouldn't have. It just caused partisans to get involved, and you often can't reason with partisans. User:Rjensen dug up a quote from Reagan in 1981. Travb 01:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but replace with article per somewhere above. David Kernow 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. There is a growing debate among scholars on the issue. John Gaddis argues that international relations theory is pretty thin gruel if it could not predict an event as big as this one. An extended treatment appears in The Dream That Failed: Reflections on the Soviet Union by Walter Laqueur - (Oxford University Press. 1994) ch 5-6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Sahasrahla 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote, but an interesting proposition. I'm not sure it should be a category (because the complete inability to annotate a category almost guarantees that it can never be more than a controversial trivia list. But there is an article in here somewhere: the various predictions, the politics of who made them, the degree to which what they predicted resembled what occurred (not much credit for predicting defeat by the Nazis, or by nuclear war, or by violent counter-revolution!). The question in my mind even then, though, is: would it be an encyclopedia article? Or just an interesting historical essay? - Jmabel | Talk 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jmabel, it's sort of been outpaced by events on the ground, as it's already been converted into an article: Cold-War groups which predicted the collapse of the USSR. We'll see how it fares down the road.—thames 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article referred to by thames is more appropriate. Carina22 20:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category serves no useful purpose. MikeHobday 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am surprised that no one has added Nostradamus to the list since he predicted everything. And because so many were convinced that the USSR was a herald of the apocalypse shouldn't some biblical authors be added, and what about those kids who say the virgin Mary in Fatima? Since there is no objective criteria for inclusion and otherwise serves no useful purpose it should go. Carlossuarez46 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Unencyclopedical nonsense. This is a perfect example of what I don't like about Wikipedia: stupid lists and categories posing for something useful and smart. KNewman 20:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this information is useful, should be a list not a category. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Borderline original research and not category material. Athenaeum 20:01, 25 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merger: the article descriptions appear to suggest they are the same (I will add merge tags to the articles, too). Stephenb (Talk) 13:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Webzine gets ten times as many google hits. Bhoeble 18:57, 18 April 2006 (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.