Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting results:

"Rename" (5): Jtdirl, Djegan, File Eireann, Noisy, Kiand

"Keep" (4): Oliver Chettle, Instandnood, HenryGb, Kbdank71

No consensus. Default is to keep

This category is unworkable in this format. Users may not realise but what is now the Republic of Ireland has had 8 names, some of them overlapping. This category using this name can rightly only cover elections since

• Oppose I believe there is a political agenda at work here, part of an ongoing attempt to create a category system for Ireland which legitimises the Republican claim to the whole of the island of Ireland. If FearÉIREANN (who parades his lack of neutrality for all to see) thinks he needs eight categories, he should create eight categories. It isn't that hard. I have created more than that in the last twenty-four hours. Oliver Chettle 05:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is pananoid rubbish, so ridiculous it is beggars belief. The only issue is that at present, elections like the 1918 one are orphaned. They can't be categorised under this name of this article. Neither can the 1932, 1938, 1943 or 1944 elections. Nor can any in the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th centuries. It would be ridiculous to create 8 categories, when some of the states' names overlap, meaning that elections after 1949 would belong in both the Éire category and the Republic category, the 1922 election would belong in three - the Irish Republic, Sourthern Ireland and the Irish Free State. Finally using one's national colours in one's username does not mean one is not neutral. I've spent much of the last few weeks working on British royal pages and tonight took republican propaganda from a page on the Irish famine. Mr Chettle's grasp of colour schemes is as shaky as his grasp of Irish history. FearÉIREANN 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't paranoid at all. There have been several attempts to destroy Northern Ireland categories as if it is not a legitimate entity, such as category:Geography of Northern Ireland and Category:Rivers in Northern Ireland. You have given no valid reason not to create eight categories. There is no rule against putting an article in three categories. It has been agreed that Republic of Ireland only articles should be in Republic of Ireland categories. Oliver Chettle 16:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the point. But the Republic of Ireland only came into existence in 1949. It isn't a new change of state, of constitution, only a technical change. The 1948 election had the same electorate, same state and same electoral system as the 1951. Not even the ballot paper changed. So why should it be in a different category? And what name would be used, as the name of the state in the constitution in 1937 is Ireland? Using United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is problematic for the 1921 election as the majority of the electors had rejected membership of that state. Using Southern Ireland is problematic because that state only existed on paper for 18 months. Using Irish Republic is problematic because that was an illegal state that didn't call the election. So how the heck do you categorise the 1921 election? The issue has absolutely nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was created in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 so all its elections belong in their own category. But whereas all elections there from 1921 can be kept together under one name, there is no one name that can be applied for elections outside NI. Southern Ireland is POV and anyway only could cover 1921-22 when it was abolished. The Free State only covers until 1937. The Republic covers from 1949. The 26 counties is a loaded Sinn Féin term that is too controversial. Elections in Ireland is the only workable category. It can cover all the elections on the island up to partition, and those outside NI from then on. NI could be used as a crossover subcategory in both British and Irish elections categories. That is the obvious NPOV way of doing it. But coming up with paranoid rubbish about it being some master plot to shaft Northern Ireland on wikipedia is diluded childish paranoia. FearÉIREANN 23:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fergananim here. Before I chance my arm on a vote, I need a clearer understanding of the issues concerned from those who have taken an interest in this article. Namely, Oliver Chettle and FearÉIREANN

Here is the situation as I understand it; feel free to comment if you feel I am wandering off-target or have it arseways.

Ireland is the offical name of the country that occupys the greater part of the island of Ireland. It is a republic, and soverign.

Northern Ireland is part of the country called the United Kingdom, or UK for short. As the name UK implies, Northern Ireland is a full and integrated unit of this county. As part of the UK, Northern Ireland occupys the north and north-eastern part of the island of Ireland.

Ireland - which we will henceforth refer to as the Republic of Ireland or just the Republic - and Northern Ireland are, thus, two distinct political units.

Because Ireland is the name of the island and the name of the Republic covering much of the island, AND part of the name denoting that part of the UK on the island of Ireland, there cannot but fail to be confusion.

Therefore - it seems to me - that we must have a very clear understanding of what we mean when we say "Ireland", and "elections in Ireland" (plus variant of same). So please, refer back to me on your understanding of these terms, in explanations as simple as possible.

Oliver's concerns are that there is (quote) "a political agenda at work here, part of an ongoing attempt to create a category system for Ireland which legitimises the Republican claim to the whole of the island of Ireland."

Now, could Oliver explain who he means by Republican? I take it he means Sinn Fein and/or the SDLP, because neither the Republic nor any of its partys endorse the idea of a United Ireland. FearEireann calls his fears paranoid rubbish, but it is a fact that among more hardcore Republican partys, the ideal of a United Ireland (which would necessarily mean the political destruction of Northern Ireland) is openly stated as a goal.

These partys - okay, Sinn Fein - have besides their actual activities used demeaning terms such as 'statelet' and more besides to deigerate a valid political term and unit. The same tactic has being used in their description of the Republic of Ireland as "the 26 countys", and other terms besides.

In effect I am saying that actually, FearEireann, Oliver's concerns are neither paranoid nor rubbish but quite vaild and from his point of veiw, correct.

To anticipate a question of yours, Oliver, it may be said that certain partys in the Republic speck of a United Ireland. However, these are little more than lip service to an old idea which has little practical application in reality. In the words of one well-know politician from the Republic - "Who the hell wants a millon and a half angry Unionists in the Republic? Sure hav'nt we enough troubles as it is with Ryanair?"

In any case, my own personal view of the matter is that as a result of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, in which the Republic of Ireland gave up any and all claim to the north, the Republic became, de facto, a united Ireland. And again, in a personal capacity, I have no problem with a United Ireland based on consent, but there is no historical basis for such a state and, as I said, I feel we have already achieved a united Ireland. But please people, file your arguments on this under the relevant heading, and not here.

I am not yet commiting myself to a vote, but surely it is obvious that we must deal with elections held on the island of Ireland under the heading of its various political units over the centuries, and, in the case of the Republic and Northern Ireland, seperatly? After all, they are quite distinct and are of two different countrys. Does it not then boil down to a meat and potatos matter of classification? Fergananim

• As what I said at the previous discussion and at category talk:Elections in the Republic of Ireland, keep the present name and add a notice at the top of the page. — Instantnood 19:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

So keep the wrong name and add a PS - we know it is the wrong name. Just pretend that it isn't, ignore the name and add in articles that predate the Republic of Ireland. And have the current reversions that are happening to pre-1949 election articles, where users keep deleting the category saying 'these elections did not happen in the Republic of Ireland'. That solution is amateurish, inaccurate and non-encyclopaedic. FearÉIREANN 19:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Elections in Ireland, it is the name of the island, despite what anyone else may try to say in claims and accustations. Kiand 22:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (a non-Catholic ulsterman, just to add more fuel here...)[reply]

At least we can agree on what to call the island! Any suggestions for the categorys under that heading? Fergananim

• Keep and as suggested (with an NPOV tweak) say in the intro: "this covers elections since 1918/1921/1922 in what is now called the Republic of Ireland" --Henrygb 02:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But seeing as it was not the Republic at that time, on what basis should those elections be included while those from 1922 to 1949 - which is implied - be left out? Fergananim

• Keep Category:Elections in the Republic of Ireland. --Kbdank71 14:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kbdan71, you vote to keep it as Category:Elections in the Republic of Ireland but do not explain your reasons why. Could you do so? Thank you. Fergananim.
    • Sure. An island does not have elections, a country does. Along those same lines, this category is a member of Category:Elections by country, not Category:Elections by landmass. Thirdly, we just had a CfD and the consensus was to delete Elections in Ireland. --Kbdank71 19:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Simply because YOU had a CfD - in which the Irish vote was negligible - does not mean that another vote cannot be held. You'll have to try harder because your above ideas are seafoid. Fergananim
      • For 800 years the 'island' and 'country' were on and the same and the elections were called 'Irish'. There are now two states on the island. One is called Northern Ireland. One is called Ireland in its constitution, by the European Union, the United Nations, the United States, the Council of Europe and 114 states internationally, not to mention sports bodies from the International Olympic Committee to the rugby nations worldwide (including England, Scotland and Wales). That state's constitution no longer makes any claim over Northern Ireland, nor does any of the entities presume that Ireland refers to Northern Ireland except when geographically referring to the island or historically referring to the island pre-1922. As to that supposed consensus, it was a consensus of users whose comments showed they did not understand that the 'Republic of Ireland' is not the right nomenclature to refer to anything that happened in Ireland pre-1949. It was a debate based on serious inaccuracies. The fact that few Irish people were aware of the debate, much less took part, allowed the inaccuracies and mistaken grasp of history to be pushed as fact, hence the need to overturn that patently wrong result here. FearÉIREANN 22:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'll Love This!!! I see you've been soliciting for votes. Surely you won't mind if I contact a few myself? By the way, if Republic of Ireland isn't right for anything that happened pre-1949, why don't you create a category that is right? Basically, we can create the correct categories and subcategories and be accurate, or take your approach and be "kind-of-but-not-really" accurate. While we're lumping everything together, why not just get rid of all of the elections categories and create "Elections on the Planet Earth"? Has a nice ring to it. (that last part was sarcasm, by the way, no need to tell people how someone is saying we should really do that) --Kbdank71 13:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • • How can an intelligent conclusion and vote be arrived at unless as many Irish people, who known their nation's history, be solicited? You imply that he did something low and underhanded in this, when in fact he should be applauded. Fergananim
          • Because, Kbdank71, there is no one name that can describe the various states on the island other than Northern Ireland, as has been repeatedly pointed. If there was, then we wouldn't need this debate. FearÉIREANN 17:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So let's use "Ireland" as a supercategory, and create whatever else we need, including "Republic of Ireland", as subcategories. So we have eight of them (or however many), so what? Is it accurate? That's what we should be aiming for. --Kbdank71 17:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good idea. And for the period between the abolition of the Irish Free State in 1937 and the creation of the Republic in 1949 we then use the name of the state in the constitution, which is . . . um . . . . Ireland. So Elections in Ireland would have a subcategory Elections in Ireland. Interesting idea. lol. FearÉIREANN 18:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Kbdank71, I was acting on the assumption that you were either Irish or have a good knowledge of Irish affairs. After all, how else can you vote intelligently? But you and at least one other poster seem to consistantly miss the point. Please, take a deep breath, and READ the points raised in favor of deletion. Thank you. Fergananim.

• Delete the category for "Republic of Ireland" and use "Ireland" instead for all states from "Irish Republic". My reasoning is that "Republic of Ireland" is a discriptor and can be applied to that state only after April 1949 - to use it before then is wrong. Creating a multitude of subcatgories is uncalled for - this is where wikipedia really falls down. In particular "Irish Republic" and "Southern Ireland" had such short duration and fuzzy status that we would only be creating categories for the sake of it. "Eire" is totally inappropriate as this is not the states name, in English, irrespective of ideas to the contrary. Categories should not be created uncontrolled to confound, confuse and as pet-projects by people - a category "Ireland" is more than appropriate as the state is "in Ireland" (and notwithstanding that Ireland is the states official name in English since 1937) and this can cover a wide variety of states over time - how it offends or is a conspiracy is beyond me? Djegan 18:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the category for "Republic of Ireland" - the current situation makes no sense and common usage in the Republic of Ireland would tend to favour the term "Elections in Ireland"--File Éireann 20:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It would be clearly better to have an Elections in Ireland category rather than this one. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:27, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the category. It plainly belongs as a subcat of a category for Elections in Ireland, along with all the others listed in the intro. Move to Category:Elections of the Irish State or Category:Elections in Ireland (state). I'm convinced by some of the arguments below, (but Category:Elections in Ireland is still only a supercat). The original deletion was plainly wrong, and it should have just been used as a supercat. Noisy | Talk 14:34, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

  Would Category:Elections in Éire be useful in reducing the number of cats, since Éire covers everything from 1921? Noisy | Talk 14:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think so - Éire does not cover everything from 1921 - it was first used officially in 1937 and it is an Irish language word and not the states official name in English which is "Ireland". In English Éire is at best the British constitutional name for Ireland 1937 to 1949 and not a name worthy of a category. Djegan 14:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not entirely discount this suggestion. The main point is that there is no such country as the Republic of Ireland. To quote Article 4 of Bunreacht na hEireann, "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.", hence either Eire or Ireland would suffice. As this is an English wiki, Ireland would be better, but Eire would do, I suppose. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:09, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have an objection to Eire, which is both that a: this is en:, not ga:; and b: its almost solely used in an insulting sense by people these days. People in Ireland would never use it, and I've found most of us find it insulting. Kiand 15:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree wit a:, but I have to say that I do not find it insulting. However, I have a clear preference for Ireland in this context and find Republic of Ireland completely unacceptable for reasons already given. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:33, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think Éire would be a mistake. i. It would not cover any elections before 1937; ii. It is used in a rather condescending tone by some British newspapers in a way that has caused a negative reaction in Ireland, so it would cause offence and would trigger off endless reversion wars from Irish people who would be deeply offended by its use. Though it technically could be used, the way it is used provokes the sort of reaction that one would get, for example, if one called Germany 'Krautland' or France 'Frogland'. It is used by some anti-Irish elements in a rather snide way, a way they also use Southern Ireland or the way some Irish republicans call Northern Ireland the Occupied Six Counties. FearÉIREANN 17:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, but it is still our language. We have noting to be ashamed of in calling our country Éire, should we so choose. Rather, those who use it in an offensive manner are the ones making themselves look and sound like amadans for being so culturally clueless and uncivilised. Fergananim

• Comment Their is a general misunderstanding of the states name in this section and its importance, Names of the Irish state provides a good background for the states historic names from Irish Republic to Republic of Ireland. Djegan 15:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty (and orphan) category. The article Analysis is a disambiguation page. Any articles relating to a particular form of analysis ought to be put in a category relating to that particular form, rather than this potentially ambiguous category.RussBlau 19:36, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created solely to put Pope Benedict XVI in it. Everyone was member of the HJ, shall we have 8 million people here? They were only HJ members because they were forced to (well, most of them, at least). "Category:German conscripts in WW2" would make a lot more sense, but should also be unnecessary. This category is as ridiculous as "Category:People attending school in Germany". --83

• Delete KTC 02:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this ridiculous category. FearÉIREANN 04:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously intended as a policital slur. Oliver Chettle 05:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ann Heneghan 07:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Str1977 08:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Though there were certainly some people who willingly joined the HJ, I must sadly say. --Zantastik 23:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before membership became required by law, the HJ had some 100,000 members. When the law came into force, they had all of a sudden 8 million.
• Delete. Postdlf 08:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless category - Pete C ^✍ 19:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled variant of Category:Stock.xchng images. -- Rick Block 17:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially redundant with slightly more general Category:Canadian automobiles. -- Rick Block 17:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think generally bad idea covers it. -- Rick Block 17:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete. How about Category:stupid names for this one? ;-) FearÉIREANN 04:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a patently useless category when we have
  bainer 09:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only a talk page, and seems like an invitation to POV arguments. -- Rick Block 16:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like this category was created by accident ([[Category:United States history (terrorism)]] instead of [[:Category:United States history (terrorism)]]. --Azkar 19:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep? I created this category, and was actually just getting around to re-populating it. If this title is POV bait, then under what heading should we classify the Oklahoma City bombing, the USS Cole incident, the Anthrax letters, etc.? -- Beland 12:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that 2/3 of these incidents fit the definition of Category:Terrorist incidents, and are listed there. -- Beland 02:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 16:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To comply with Wikipedia's (misguided) capitalisation policy this should be category:Country parks. CalJW 16:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not follow existing subcategorization structure (topical) of category:United States history. Both articles in this category are also in category:Prohibition which is a subcat of category:United States history. -- Rick Block 16:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV-named category with only one included article. Existing categories mean this is not necessary. violet/riga (t) 11:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Mecanismo 08:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV-named category with only one included article. Existing categories mean this is not necessary. violet/riga (t) 11:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The word POV is thrown around an awful lot. How exactly are these category titles POV? -SV|t 16:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because it blatantly implies that the U.S. are the only ones doing it. violet/riga (t) 17:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Inherently POV. --Mecanismo 08:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What one person calls a terrorist, another calls a freedom fighter. --Kbdank71 15:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV-named category with only one included article. Existing categories mean this is not necessary. violet/riga (t) 11:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. The creator misunderstood the term "free", mixing up free software and freeware. The original categories like Category:Windows web browsers and Category:Free Windows software is already clear enough to tell that this software is free and is for Windows. --minghong 08:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The creator did not 'misunderstand'. If you look at the history of the Xenu's Link Sleuth article, you will see that I reverted my own adjustment to differentiate correctly between freeware and free software. This was timed before I created the category 'Free Windows web browsers'. I also edited the definitions of the two categories 'Free software' and 'Freeware' to 'See also' to the other - so that this definition could be more widely recognised.

The category 'Free Windows web browsers' was created as a sub-category of the existing category 'Free Windows software' using that category's definition of Free. All articles in 'Free windows web browsers' were previously articles in 'Free Windows software'. As such, category 'Free Windows web browsers' is also a subcategory of 'Windows web browsers'. The reason for creating the subcategory was that the 'Free Windows software article was large and needed some subcategorisation of its articles.

If you have a problem with this category, then you have a problem with the definition of 'Free' in the previous category: 'Free Windows software'; you will have a problem with category 'Free Windows web servers' which was created around the same time. Ian Cairns 09:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't get the point of this category at all. You're creating a subcategory of "Windows web browsers" that covers almost all Windows web browsers. All that accomplishes is to make it a little harder for people to find related articles. ¶ I'm reluctant to go near the semantic argument -- the meaning of the term "free software" is one of those ideological debates people argue forever without really accomplishing anything. I think it's enough to say that the semantic issue isn't important enough to create a subcategory that hinders browsing the way this one does. ---Isaac R 16:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Add Category:Free Windows web servers. Ian Cairns, if you categorize like this, you'll end up hundreds of subcategories, e.g. Free Windows text editors, Commerical Windows text editors, Freeware Windows text editors, Shareware Windows text editors. --minghong 18:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 duplicate listing --Kbdank71 14:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be renamed to Category:U.S. Iraq War. Category: Iraq War should redirect to above. The

• Oppose - see above nominations. violet/riga (t) 11:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This is already listed on April 27th. Please vote there. --Kbdank71 14:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be pruned for

I suspect this should really be Category:U.S.-Iraqi relations. Stevertigo tagged the category so they were probably the nominator (no signature at the time of this post). RedWolf 03:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

U.S Iraq relations is the proper form, and "Iraqi" is improper. The issue is pruning these articles of POV use. -SV|t 16:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• So what exactly is being nominated here? Category:U.S Iraq relations, Category:U.S.-Iraqi relations, or just The issue is pruning these articles of POV use? --Kbdank71 18:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its parent category should be

• Delete. Agree with Dr.frog. --Zantastik 23:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. redundant category --Mecanismo 08:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.