< May 6	May 8 >

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 to delete --William Allen Simpson 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion overturned at WP:DRV here. Relisting here because I feel the DRV folks were laboring under a misconception. While TFD found that the template was useful here, the related CFD decided that the category itself was not here. One of rationales was that the template "now has more users". ((User kon)) currently has 2 users, found using 'What links here'...which should be all anyone needs to find another kon user. In the meantime, a bunch of other vanity categories were just deleted in the past week so while the template itself was upheld by TfD, there's nothing that should tie the category itself to the template and cause its re-animation. Syrthiss 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was my fault to list it for Cfd as explained in the DRV: Categories populated only by a template need a Tfd, not a Cfd. Template:Catfd(edit talk links history) could do this, but better not with this harmless "Category And Template", the poor author isn't responsible if we have difficulties to understand the fine points of the category deletion policy. Of course the CAT is dubious at best, but the Tfd failed. <shrug /> -- Omniplex 07:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a necessary/useful category. --Cyde Weys 04:19, 15 May 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 keep. Syrthiss 01:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There do not seem to be any particular criteria for inclusion in this category or in its three specifically related subcategories: Category:Disney franchises, Category:Computer and video game franchises, and Category:Science fiction by franchise. Some discussion previously came up on the talk pages for the latter two subcategories, but neither was actually nominated for outright deletion before. Judging by the contents of these categories, it would seem that any film, game, TV series or book qualifies as a "franchise" if it is a successful brand name, which seems to be as simple as getting a single sequel or getting adapted once into another medium. There aren't any categories for profitable or notably merchandized media, nor should there be - that boundary would be far too fuzzy to be useful or maintainable. (The closest is Category:Brands, but that's not the same thing.) There are already categories for sequels, series, fictional universes, and adaptations into other media, and everything in these categories seems to have been included here because it fell into one of those four existing categories. In particular, the SF franchise category seems to want to be Category:Science fiction universes. The contents of this category and the aforementioned three subcategories should be merged into whatever other categories are appropriate, and all four categories should then be deleted. -Sean Curtin 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This all seems exactly the right categorization scheme to me. There's a lot that probably should go into these categories that isn't there.--Mike Selinker 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, of course there's a lot to go into these categories that isn't in there already: the apparent criteria for inclusion in the category are excessively broad and vague. As I said in the nom, every piece of media with a sequel or some sort of cross-media tie-in or merchandising would belong in the category, and that sort of category is too all-encompassing to be useful. -Sean Curtin 02:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all 4 I see no merit in this proposal. Bhoeble 21:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Category:Multimedia series seems to be the intent of this category. Lady Aleena 06:17, 13 May 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 no consensus (counting bhoeble's note above). Syrthiss 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:Media franchises above. -Sean Curtin 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disney is the definition of a franchise. This category is redundant. Lady Aleena 06:10, 13 May 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 no consensus per above. Syrthiss 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:Media franchises above. -Sean Curtin 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the items in this category are already covered under Category:Computer and video games by company. Lady Aleena 06:23, 13 May 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 no consensus per above. Syrthiss 01:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:Media franchises above. -Sean Curtin 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Category:Multimedia science fiction series (same reasoning as Media franchises). Lady Aleena 06:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Multimedia science fiction series. MakeRocketGoNow 05:42, 14 May 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 deleteSD. Syrthiss 01:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad precedent. How many substances could some people be classified under? I have removed text which made it pretty clear the category was set up to promote LSD use. Delete Hawkestone 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Categories for drug activists already exist; most others who are known to have used LSD aren't notable for it. -Sean Curtin 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sean Curtin ReeseM 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Sean Curtin, but rename for caps if kept. mattbr³⁰ 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Like, dude, how can I post my Delete vote when the computer screen keeps melting? KleenupKrew 12:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic category. --Cyde Weys 04:20, 15 May 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 Keep. Conscious 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Poaceae" is a more precise name because the category is only for the "true" grasses (i.e., grasses in the family Poaceae). There are many plants called "grasses" that are not "true" grasses, it would be better to rename the category to avoid accidentally putting the "false grasses" into Category:Grasses where they do not belong. SCHZMO ✍ 21:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Subdivide as necessary, but please do not make the category system for plants and animals any more impenetrable to non-specialists than it is already. Hawkestone 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Hawkstone. Having a Category:Grasses and Category:Poaceae will mean that Wikipeadia is useful for both general users and specialists. Alan Liefting 20:03, 14 May 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 looks like a keep. Syrthiss 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Executions by method
• Category:Executions by breaking wheel
• Category:Executions by decapitation
• Category:Executions by disembowelment
• Category:Executions by dismemberment
• Category:Executions by electric chair
• Category:Executions by firearm
• Category:Executions by firing squad
• Category:Executions by gas chamber
• Category:Executions by hanging
• Category:Executions by hanging, drawing and quartering
• Category:Executions by lethal injection

Most of these have been created in the last few days, perhaps all of them. Some people are now in three categories related to their execution, plus a year of death category. That is four categories for death, and perhaps there are even more in a few cases. This is ridiculous. Category clutter is at its worst in biographical articles. Just because one can create a category, that doesn't mean one should. There is no encyclopedic connection between someone executed by decapitation in country X in the 15th century and someone executed by decapitation in country Y in the 19th century. It is what they did to get executed that matters, not the random conincidences of the legal codes in those two times and places. The executions by nationality and by type of crime categories are enough (if not too much).

• Delete all Sumahoy 20:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Hawkestone 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP ALL!!

I don’t know what particular jihad User:Sumahoy is on – and I don’t particularly care. The reasoning given for deleting these Categories is bullshit. They may not be relevant to his/her particular areas of interest, but they are to persons interested in having and keeping such research data. It is clear, however, that this User has a problem with Categories as a whole. I will spare all readers a lengthy justification for these Categories existence; just to say they were each created for a relevant purpose. Besides, with those who have already made up their minds: It is difficult – if not impossible – to teach someone something they think they already know.

Michael David 22:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read Wikipedia:Civility. I care a lot about categories, which is why I come here often, but I do not believe that more is always better. Sumahoy 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility without assertiveness is timidity. You seem to be more obsessed with the quantity of Categories rather than the quality. Michael David 22:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making unfounded allegations about my motives and read Wikipedia:Civility again. I have given detailed reasons for my nomination and deserve to be treated decently, as do any other Wikipedians you may disagree with. Sumahoy 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You are wanting, because of some obsession with the number of Categories, to wipe out four months of work - and all you can ask me to do is to be CIVIL ABOUT IT. What planet are you on? Michael David 03:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to be upset and to think that somebody is wrong, and still be civil. Spending a long time on a project doesn't mean that it is any more worthy. Since I generally assume good faith, I assume almost every category was thought a good idea by the person who made it, when they made it. That doesn't make it any more worthy, either. Perhaps you could provide a short justification for the cats, and see what people disagree with? For what it's worth, I think the categories should be kept - but you're doing yourself no favours. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am going to let a cooler head prevail here. User:SeventyThree reached me.

Before I explain why I believe the Categories in question should be kept. Let’s look at the reasons given by User:Sumahoy for deleting them:

“Most of these have been created in the last few days, perhaps all of them.” This is simply not true. Take a better look at their creation dates.

“Some people are now in three categories related to their execution”. Why is this an issue? If the Categories are relevant to the Article – they need to be there.

“This is ridiculous.” You already know what I think is ridiculous. “Category clutter”!! Huh!?!.

“There is no encyclopedic connection between someone executed by decapitation in country X in the 15th century and someone executed by decapitation in country Y in the 19th century.” This is only one of many reasons Articles should be connected.

“It is what they did to get executed that matters…” Again, that is only one of many reasons Articles should be connected.

“The executions by nationality and by type of crime categories are enough…” Enough for whom? “…if not too much”. This, alone, speaks volumes to this Users POV concerning the Categories issue.

My reasons for creating some of the Categories in question, and for wanting to keep all of them are relatively simple. To obtain a complete and accurate picture of capital punishment throughout history it is crucial to include how the methods of executions have evolved; the method speaks a great deal about the culture of the country at the time it utilizes it. This picture comes into even clearer focus when it includes the histories of the persons executed. These links are crucial to accurate and credible research. To delete them would be a great disservice to persons needing this data. There also needs to be a research tool connection between the execution and a profile of the person executed.

I have been trying to encourage my colleagues and their staffs to utilize and contribute to Wikipedia. For this to happen it needs to be not only accurate and reliable, but also convenient for their research.

I also find it difficult to hold an informed debate with someone I know nothing about, and where their User Page reveals nothing of substance about them.

Am I annoyed? Yes! However, if some are going to vote whether to keep or delete the Categories based on their feelings that I wasn’t civil, then I don’t understand what this process is all about in the first place.

Michael David 12:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, overcategorization. If we were to retain these categories, they would need to be renamed to "People executed by ...", in any case. Kirill Lokshin 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Overcategorisation. ReeseM 00:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - the pages I looked at didn't have too many categories. Also, for many of these people a large part of their notability comes from their execution, so it's not excessive to give them several categories for it. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Changed my opinion (see below). SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all and rename to Category:People executed by ''X'' per Kirill and SeventyThree below.

... I recognise Sumahoy's point, but, say we have an article on an English revolutionary executed in France for treason by being beheaded – which of the linked categorisations are more important/useful/to be overridden; and why?  Regards, David Kernow 12:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC), amended 00:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, but shouldn't it be Category:People executed by decapitation, then? I would have thought that Category:Executions by decapitation would contain general articles about executing people by decapitation, not about the people themselves. Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I began that way, but switched to "Executions by..." so that these subcategories echoed their parent Category:Executions by method. Revisiting the issue again now, perhaps the most effective way to name them is by using a "People executed by..." format, as (a) they are meant to carry articles that are about people; and (b) a "People..." category name is more likely (I hope) to dissuade folk from adding anything but articles on people to a category. I guess, though, there might be opposition from those folk supporting the compression of category names. Thanks for prompting me to think again. Regards, David Kernow 15:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all; per SeventyThree. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. That some people's deaths are more notable than their lives is an unfortunate truth. Proper categorization reflects the positive and the negative.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal does not remove notice of anyone's death from the category system, it just exercises a little moderation. Bhoeble 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per SeventyThree. I have to agree with User:Kirill Lokshin, though, as far as it regards the names of the categories. Perhaps the names of the categories should be "Executed by method" which is both short and accurate. NoIdeaNick

• Delete all This is the way the categorisation system could die; people with a special interest or point of view overwhelming articles with several categories from a particular angle and it mounts and mounts until it categorisation becomes useless. Categories are less than two years old, but many people already have far too many. Articles should not be connected by "many" methods but by a carefully chosen selection. Wikipedia's great weakness is that it doesn't know what to leave out - a key editorial skill - whether that is trivial categories or those dreadful lists of largely meaningless pop culture references to X or Y. Bhoeble 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How would you categorise the "English revolutionary executed in France for treason by decapitation" example above?  Thanks, David Kernow 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all -- useful, see similar in Political Graveyard (the website) --William Allen Simpson 03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all certainly more useful than the various categories related to minor characters in some barely notable fictional thigamajig. Remember, these people were executed not some internet meme or tv soap opera that is categorized to (pardon the pun) death. Carlossuarez46 00:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep all, as per Carlossuarez46. --BrownHairedGirl 12:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People executed by Foo etc. If that doesn't pass, then keep as is. SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because, the fact that they were executed is important, and why they were executed is impotant, but how they were executed is a side-note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHammen (talk • contribs) - oops, I still forget to do that sometimes... NHammen 03:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - sufficiently useful to not count as category-cruft. TheGrappler 00:14, 14 May 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 keep pages, make parent of the other XfD categories. Syrthiss 01:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After VFD became AFD, perhaps its time for Category:PFD become Category:AFD? Also the category page says that the category is for deletion of articles. "Pages" may mean userpages, image description pages, etc. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but keep the former as a parent category for all items that are under discussion for deletion (stubs, WP: pages, etc). -Sean Curtin 19:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is a better proposal, if its possible. --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia deletion already exists.[reply]
• rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Sean Curtin -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make Cat:AfD (and Cat:CfD etc.) a child of Cat:PfD per Sean Curtin. PfD covers all of them. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make former parent, latter sibling per Sean et al above. David Kernow 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Pages for deletion as parent, add Category:Articles for deletion as child, agreeing with Sean et alia. --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 9 May 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 Keep. Conscious 11:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Category:Art museums and galleries in Berlin nor its parent category Category:Museums in Berlin is particularly large (4 pages and 9 pages respectively), so there's no particular need for the subcategory. I propose merging the two categories into Category:Museums in Berlin and deleting Category:Art museums and galleries in Berlin. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is proper subcategorisation. It is also a subcategory of category:Art museums and galleries in Germany. It will grow. Bhoeble 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art museums and galleries in Germany is equally useless and should also be merged with its parent Category:Museums in Germany, but this isn't the place for that discussion. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Each country has a "Museums in X" category and an "Art museums and galleries in X" subcategory. If you think that that is redundant, nominate the parent, Category:Art museums and galleries by country, for deletion. -Sean Curtin 19:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, if this CFM loses, it'll be easier to just ignore the useless subcategory and put new articles on museums into the main category. If someone with too much time on their hands wants to pad their edit count by moving it into the subcategory, fine. But I've never encountered a museum that didn't have art in it, so I don't see what the point of the subcategorization is. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator should not cast aspersions on other editors' good faith edits. Hawkestone 22:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: military and technical museums may be specialised and do not show "art" in conventional sense. To ease the categorisation problem the cats should point each other with explanation. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Some museums concentrate on art, but many don't. Hawkestone 22:22, 7 May 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 withdrawn. Syrthiss 20:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category is completely unnecessary... Anyone interested in the band should be able to find the internal links to both LPs on the !!! page. --(Mingus ah um 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Oppose. As has been said many times, all albums have artist categories. Doesn't matter how many there are.--Mike Selinker 14:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Mike Selinker. Afonso Silva 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Mike Selinker. Bhoeble 15:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CFD withdrawn. --(Mingus ah um 20:16, 7 May 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 01:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming and description are not NPOV (who wants to be "anti-"?). If others would like to move it to Category:Gun control advocacy groups in the United States, it sould be made a sub group of Category:Gun politics advocacy groups in the United States . Note, there currently is no Category:Gun rights advocacy groups in the United States. Delete. -MrFizyx 07:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Gun control advocacy groups in the United States. Bhoeble 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per Bhoeble. Aldux 19:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per Bhoeble. --BrownHairedGirl 12:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per Bhoeble. garryq 12:49, 13 May 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 deleted, orphaned cat. Syrthiss 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Members of Vlaams Belang. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 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 Deleted at WP:SFD. Conscious 11:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved to WP:SFD. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:27, 8 May 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 both into vitoria sc players. Syrthiss 02:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Vitória Guimarães players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; Both of these have mebers already. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think both categories should be deleted as the club name is not Vitória Guimarães, it is Vitória Sport Club. If you want to keep that short form, at least, add "de", like Vitória de Guimarães. Afonso Silva 13:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Both; into Category:Vitória SC players (matches Vitória SC, and parallel to Category:Vitória Setúbal players) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:32, 7 May 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 deleted, orphan. Syrthiss 02:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Trubetskoy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:20, 8 May 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, orphan. Syrthiss 02:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, blanked by Raymond Cruise -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to Category:Spanish-Guatemalans. mattbr³⁰ 11:19, 8 May 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 deleted. Syrthiss 02:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, more suitable for list -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vague and POV. Sumahoy 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify per nom. David Kernow 13:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Impossible to listify in an NPOV manner as "scholar," "finance," and "imperialism" are all undefined.-choster 18:19, 8 May 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 as suggested. Syrthiss 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, no objection if populated -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If populated and kept, rename to Category:Posthumous publications of Holocaust victims. David Kernow 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for name suggested above. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the name suggested by David Kernow. I added Ann Frank's diary to the category, so now it's not empty. No other work was at the tip of my memory. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 10 May 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 Nomination withdrawn. -- JLaTondre 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cat for non-fiction news, overly broad, but still only one member -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are categories containing thousands of articles between them which should be in this. Perhaps a vandal moved them. I will populate it. Bhoeble 15:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; That isn't what happened, but you make a good point. I withdraw my nomination. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, possibly too broad to be useful, but we won't know until it gets properly populated. -Sean Curtin 19:47, 7 May 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 deleted, orphan. Syrthiss 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Natives of Merionethshire, Category:Natives of Caernarfonshire, blanked by Owain. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 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 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Muslim musicians, blanked by creator. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete for caps. mattbr³⁰ 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per mattbr³⁰. David Kernow 13:31, 8 May 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 02:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Aircraft manufacturers of South Korea -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (empty) per nom. David Kernow 13:34, 8 May 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 speedy. Syrthiss 02:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Irish politicians by party, blanked by creator. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete for caps. mattbr³⁰ 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per mattbr³⁰. David Kernow 13:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Speedy delete, with a red face. I was the category's creator, and made it in error having already created Category:Irish politicians by party. I should have tagged it for speedy deletion at the time: sorry! --BrownHairedGirl 11:55, 10 May 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 02:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Rappers, unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as vocalist is synonymous with rapper in hip-hop. hateless 07:34, 13 May 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 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Kyphosidae, blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 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 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Wikipedians in Macedonia (Greece) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all below to #Category:Holy Cross High Schools per nom. David Kernow 13:44, 8 May 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 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, blanked by Jcaragonv -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 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 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 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 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Someone has now populated this category; I withdraw my cfd. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's populated, but still too narrow a categorization of fancruft. --BrownHairedGirl 12:02, 10 May 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 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, blanked by Jcaragonv -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 11:56, 10 May 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 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

overly narrow -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 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 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

overly narrow -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 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 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

overly narrow -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 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 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Yidams, blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - I created it, and feel it should go. The category may be a useful synonym for Hindu Gods - but there seems to be enough going on regarding that for the moment. The way in which the cat. was being used was concerned with the Indo-Himalayan Buddhist concepts of Ishtadevata, which are better known in the Tibetan - as Yidams. Hence the move. (20040302 17:12, 7 May 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 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Congregations of Holy Cross -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 11:59, 10 May 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 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Holy Cross secondary schools, blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 11:59, 10 May 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 02:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are used, should be merged, either direction is fine -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merger per nom. -MrFizyx 08:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sylviidae into Old World Warbler Joelito (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Old World Warbler into Sylviidae (as I believe in WP:BIRD this is more common than the merge suggested by Joelito.) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per UtherSRG Dysmorodrepanis 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per UtherSRG Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:58, 10 May 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 02:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from prod (which is only for articles). The reason given in the prod was "Made redundant by Category:Kerala Wikipedians". Neutral SeventyThree^(Talk) 05:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Kerala Wikipedians. Both mean the same. A person from Kerala is a Keralite. -- thunderboltz^(TALK) 11:52, 9 May 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 without umlaut. Syrthiss 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Presidents of Haïti
• Category:Haïtian communists
• Category:Haïtian writers
• Category:Haïtian writers
• Category:Haïtian musicians
• Category:Haïtian tennis players
• Category:Olympic competitors for Haïti
• Category:Haïtian boxers
• Category:Haïtian footballers
• Category:Haïtian basketball players
• Category:Haïtian Americans
• Category:Haïtian Canadians
• Category:Haïtian politicians
• Category:Haïtian artists
• Category:Haïtian women
• Category:Haïtian sportspeople
• Category:Haïtian musicians
• Category:Fictional Haïtians
• Category:Haïtian people by ethnic or national origin
• Category:Haïtian emigrants
• Category:Haïtian people

Rename all to "Haitian ..." : the main article is at Haiti, consistent with general English usage, so I can't see a good reason to include diacritics on the categories. TheGrappler 02:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Much better without the umlaut.--Mike Selinker 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 15:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 19:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 11:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Thanks Hmains 02:34, 16 May 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 speedied by The JPS (C1). Conscious 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, useless, pointless, nothing to do with articles, etc. Delete. DarthVader 02:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1) no evidence that they're sockpuppets (one of them is more an imposter of Shanel than General Eisenhower). MoppEr ^Speak! 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -MrFizyx 08:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is useless but I want to be infomed. Delete or Archive. General Eisenhower 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if kept, rename to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected Sockpuppets of General Eisenhower to match the rest of 'em. SeventyThree^(Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename per above. — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 23:45, 14 May 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 02:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist point of view and unsuitable for a global encyclopedia. Rename Category:Bulgarian revolutionaries. Sumahoy 00:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Scranchuse 02:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. ᎠᏢ462090^Contribs 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. Bhoeble 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 12:41, 13 May 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 02:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist point of view and unsuitable for a global encyclopedia. Rename Category:Indian revolutionaries. Sumahoy 00:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Scranchuse 02:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. Bhoeble 15:22, 7 May 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 02:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist point of view and unsuitable for a global encyclopedia. Merge into category:Indian activists. Sumahoy 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Scranchuse 02:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:22, 7 May 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 Speedy Delete as author request/empty cat. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category should be deleted. I've created two new categories, Category:Right-wing parties in France and Category:Left-wing parties in France. Having a "liberal parties in France" is just too complicated, because liberalism in France means supporting economic liberalism and that is considered right-wing, while what is called in the US "liberal" is usually considered left-wing in France. Thus, French people put right-wing parties in this category while US people remove them, it's going back and forth without any logic. I think we should rather use the French distinction between left-wing and right-wing (gauche et droite), that's how it works in France. Tazmaniacs 00:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beside I created the category! Tazmaniacs 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 00:57, 7 May 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.