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 --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Move content to existing Category:History of Europe and delete. (User:BD2412 observed duplication on Category talk:History of Europe.) Task for Pearle? -- Nigosh 20:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agree--Hiding 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as proposed. — Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 2005 Jun 23 (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 rename --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

Rename to Category:History of the Soviet Union

• Original discussion on History of Foo is here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 12 --Kbdank71 18:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Objection here. This category covers not only the Soviet Union, which starts in 1922, but the Sovet period of Russia 1917-1922 as well. This is exactly what it is: Soviet history.

This issue has been a matter of various misunterstandings. The history here is in a kind of a knot. If you really want the Category:History of the Soviet Union, it must be a subcategory of Category:Soviet history, rather than a replacement. mikka (t) 18:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Discussion already moved to talk page. --Kbdank71 18:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • To which one? mikka (t) 18:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry, the main CfD one: Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion --Kbdank71 18:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This page is for discussion of categories. Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion is for discussing Categories for deletion. So, copying yours here. mikka (t) 18:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:History of the Soviet Union. So what do you suggest, moving everything to History of Foo except for Soviet History? And what about History of the Soviet Union? And why does Soviet redirect to Soviet Union? What is the problem with trying to become more consistent? --Kbdank71 18:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exceptions exist in every law. mikka (t) 18:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And why wouldn't all of Russia's history, including any and all Soviet Periods, fall under Category:History of Russia? Please remember, we are not deleting any articles, which would presumably describe the Histories of the Soviet Union and Russia, this is simply renaming a category. As such, are people really going to be confused with this change? Is anyone going to say, "Woah!! This is the History of the Soviet Union. That's not what I want, I want Russian history between 1917 and 1922. I wonder where that is?" I understand where you're coming from, but are we making a mountain out of a molehill here? --Kbdank71 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union is not Russia. The very questions you ask show the confusion that exist, and hence in favor of my position, which is based, like I mentioned, on previous problems with wikipedia. And your irony is misplaced. Believe me or not, there were and will be the people, who would say (and said) this "woah!" is similar situations, and even start edit wars. I am not trying to complicate things here. What I am saying reflects the existing complications. mikka (t) 18:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Original discussion on History of Foo is here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 12 --Kbdank71 18:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• why not rename to Category:History of the Soviet Union and Soviet Russia? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be ok with me. --Kbdank71 14:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds good to me too. -Sean Curtin 05:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:History of the Soviet Union and Soviet Russia - SoM 12:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • OK with me. I've already written the corresponding charter in the category. mikka (t) 20:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Would anyone mind if I closed this out now since technically, we're going on a week and a half now, and Mikka is ok with Grutness' new suggestion? --Kbdank71 20:51, 22 Jun 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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 18:04 (UTC)

This category appears to be hopelessly POV and unverifiable and should be removed. Delete. Hall Monitor 17:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Do we really need to vote on this again, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_19. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • The original nomination was to correct the capitalization from Symbols to symbols.--Kbdank71 19:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And the discussion expanded into a keep/delete discussion. But whatever. The analogy with category:gay icons (which has survived CFD listing) is striking. Perhaps I'm showing my age, but I find it absurd for Marilyn Monroe to be categorized as a gay icon but not as a sex symbol. I actually find most culturally based categorizations somewhat dubious and would favor deleting all of them, but unless we're doing that (deleting all of them) I vote keep (again). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Malathion 22:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not cat-worthy (and imho, neither is gay icons). Radiant_>|< 07:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Radiant on both points. --Kbdank71 14:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Jonathunder 20:29, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with List of sex symbols. "Sex symbol" is an important concept in our culture. The category makes it easy to browse from Marilyn to other sex symbols and to see them in context. — Sebastian (talk) 05:27, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, isn't helpful at all if there is no clear, definitive, and NPOV way to define what a "sex symbol" actually is. Hall Monitor 17:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How many categories really have clear and definitive definitions? I don't generally see a problem with this because when in doubt we can always google for article name + category name. However, you may have a point: Excessive POV fights can do more harm than good. Do you have evidence for this danger? — Sebastian (talk) 08:36, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• I don't like category:gay icons, but since we do have it, we should be consistent and keep this category. ··gracefool |☺ 12:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How would that be consistent? --Kbdank71 17:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assuming this is a serious question, category:Gay icons and category:Sex symbols are both essentially cultural labels applied to specific people. Keeping both or deleting both would be consistent with the stance that cultural labels are (keep) or are not (delete) appropriate categorizations. I would prefer keep/delete decisions like this be rooted in some clear policy. As it stands we seem to keep or delete categories based on the whims of who's voting today. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

... and we previously kept category:Gay icons (twice). For those who don't remember or weren't around at the time see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Gay icons. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural labels they may both be, but as you pointed out, we don't have a policy to deal with that. Would people vote to keep a similar category with a derogatory name simply because Gay icons survived a CfD? Or vote to keep a category called Stupid Wikipedians because, well, that's about people just like Gay icons is. Those may be extreme examples, but my point is, we should be judging each category on its own merits. --Kbdank71 18:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and, as far as I can tell, the reason listed for every single delete vote here would apply equally well to category:Gay icons, hence, inconsistent. Yes, judge on own merit. But judge consistently in light of precedents. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 02:23, 25 Jun 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 28 June 2005 17:56 (UTC)

This Category is not only empty, but is redundant, as Category:Laboratory equipment already exists and is a full-fledged Category. It was created, probably mistakenly, as a part of the revamp of Category:Chemistry, and is not needed. Delete.Firestorm 16:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Speedy? --Kbdank71 19:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since a better, more general category already does a fine job. -Splash 15:20, Jun 25, 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 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Since this term has no actual legal meaning, putting any kind of software in this category is misleading and potentially encouraging software piracy. Its practical meaning tends to go to 'any software over five years old', and that's already better covered in, say, 1991 computer and video games. Delete. Radiant_>|< 13:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As per the article Abandonware, I'm tempted to keep this. But with only three articles in the category, and since I'm unable to think of any others that would fit, we can probably lose it without much fuss. --Kbdank71 19:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as per Kbdank71. There should be an enormous number of programs that fit this description. However, the term doesn't seem to be in general use. — Sebastian (talk) 05:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • The term is widely in use. However, is 1) overly general, and 2) poorly defined. Both practically disqualify it as a category name. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 12:20 (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 28 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)

POV category which is only linked to by 1 other page, but still shows up in search.illWill 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(The following votes are copied from this page's original listing on VfD:)

• Fixed link in header. Delete, inflammatory and unneccessary POV cat. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion is across the courtyard. Uncle G 12:49, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Thanks, have added it there.illWill 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly I have misunderstood <quote>only links to 1 other page</quote> -- on my viewer there are 15 pages (so far) grouped within this category, which implies to me that, even if it is <quote>infammatory</quote>, someone seems to have found a use for it. --Simon Cursitor 13:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, bad wording on my part - what I meant to say was 'only 1 other page links to it'. It wouldn't be much of a category if it only had one page in it.illWill 14:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(end copy from VfD —Wahoofive (talk) 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. Strongly subjective. Paul Tracy_|\talk 15:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. --Kbdank71 19:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. On a related note, all of those "Terrorism against Israel" pages are highly biased and make no distinction between focused attacks on soldiers and indiscriminate suicide bombings against civilian targets. International law and world opinion thinks otherwise. --Tothebarricades 03:21, Jun 23, 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 28 June 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Already covered by Category:Paleontology. --Brunnock 12:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 20:18, 20 Jun 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 rename --Kbdank71 28 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Rename to Category:British television channels. --Daniel Lawrence 10:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as suggested. --Kbdank71 19:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 20:18, 20 Jun 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.