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 21:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Inaccuracy. Papuan does not have the same meaning as Papua New Guinean. Papua is, politically, a pre-independence term referring to the territory of Papua - the southern half of the mainland. Pre-independence, the Territory of New Guinea encompassed the northern part of the mainland and the Bismarck Archipelago. Thus Papua is not a short form of Papua New Guinea. The main article refers to the cultures within the whole of Papua New Guinea, not just Papua. Wantok 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 16:44, 11 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Only entry speedy deleted, category too general to be of any use since there are many Orange Counties. Vegaswikian 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Okay, I moved it to Category:Orange County, New York Routes. Are you happy? A delete or redirect should now be in order. Smartyshoe 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Looks like someone did a speedy delete on that one along with the article. Vegaswikian 00:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The actual category created was Category:Orange County, New York County Routes, but it's empty right now. - EurekaLott 00:57, 11 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 21:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nominated for deletion. This is an unencyclopedic category that has no possible uses other than to divide Wikipedians be belief, which is unacceptable. Wikipedia isn't a bunch of warring groups. -- Cyde Weys 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Make extinct - it should share the same fate as the creationist one which is dying down below. Serves no purpose and could potentially be harmful. -- Doc ^ask? 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not because some might view it as controversial, but because it's overcategorization. We don't have Wikipedians categorized by any other scientific theory, no matter how complicated. Users should instead feel free to include themselves in Category:Wikipedians interested in biology or Category:Biologist Wikipedians. - EurekaLott 03:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not least because "evolution" is a noun, not an adjective. David Kernow 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete along with Category:Creationist Wikipedians. Controversial culture-war philosophy. -- Vossanova 12:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with this definition it makes a very important statement. If you intend to get rid of all conflicting tags then you may as well get rid of the religious tags, and any other tag that defines a Wikipedian's individuality. I was very annoyed to see my home page popup and it no longer be there, if I can't have the definition I still want to display that banner on my page. Basique 17:04, 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 merge. Syrthiss 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a duplicate of category:Australian football (soccer) players, and is distinct from category:Australian rules footballers (which is by far the largest category of Australian sportspeole). If this was intended as a disambiguating parent category, the fact that it contains a 131 articles suggests it is more of a problem than a solution. Osomec 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge as above. Osomec 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. -- Mike Selinker 23:29, 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant with Category:Pokémon images, almost empty. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge, possibly a speedy for spelling? Also, note that the cat is tagged for deletion rather than merge. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The only image in the cat is one that is dead in two days anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:02, 12 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. Vegaswikian 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Empty. See category:Lao cuisine. Delete CalJW 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete - it's a merge, but empty. This could probably have gone through speedy rename as a capitalisation, despite the target's existence. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 21:59, 11 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 and place catredirect. Syrthiss 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

To conform with the convention used at the main article, synthpop. Also comes up significantly more on Googling the Wikipedia domain. Unint 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom -- Cyde Weys 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. John5008 | talk to me 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Almost forgot: probably best to keep a redirect, as well. – Unint 02:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename and keep redirect. Hawkestone 22:47, 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 delete. Syrthiss 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nominated for deletion. This is an unencyclopedic category that is simply inappropriate. -- Cyde Weys 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete divisive. -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Then delete it again just to make sure. -- Bachrach44 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. CalJW 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete daft Runcorn 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- I'm really getting tired of this sideways jihad.
  1. This is a WP:POINT nomination.
  2. The related Template:User infidel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been speedy deleted twice this year (restored after deletion review again this same day of May 10).
  3. These are folks that don't find the term pejorative as to themselves.
  4. It's not divisive.
  5. It's no more unencyclopedic than any other Wikipedian category.
  6. It's just one of currently 57 Category:Wikipedians by religion.
  7. Heck, there's been a m:List of Wikipedians by religion since 2003.
  8. If some folks think that all user categories should be abolished, then a nice proposal should be written up, and we should come to consensus.
  9. Other than that, I'm waiting for Cyde to speedy delete as divisive and inflammatory that religion has been responsible for more death in the past 2,000 years than any other:
     1. Category:Christian Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs); and
     2. Template:User Christian ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) again (he restored it recently).
  10. Let's celebrate diversity, not condemn it!

  -- William Allen Simpson 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete because it encourages rambling rants like the above, distracting from contributing to the freaking encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This endless categorisation of Wikipedians MUST STOP. It wastes time, bandwidth and starare space. We should be spendin time and resources doing the real stuff of categorising stuff within Wikipedia itself. Alan Liefting 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Attack category. Hawkestone 22:48, 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 Out of process deletion by Cyde ( talk · contribs) -- William Allen Simpson 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

It already has at least one ferry. -- SPUI ( T - C - RFC) 18:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• OpposeRename to Category:Bridges on the Mississippi River, and it would sure be a lot better if this got linked to category:Bridges in the United States in some way. There they are categorized by states, but I'm not sure whether they're categorized easily by river. They should be, though. (And lose the ferry.)-- Mike Selinker 18:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Just add the bridge by state cats to Category:Bridges on the Mississippi River and then remove the bridges of the United States cat. Vegaswikian 06:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Bridges on the Mississippi River. Ferries should go somewhere else; there are enough bridges over the Mississippi that they deserve their own specialized category. -- Cyde Weys 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The question is whether there are enough ferries. And what if a tunnel is built? -- SPUI ( T - C - RFC) 20:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • We'll cross that bridge once we come to it. -- Cyde Weys 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Would you support making this a subcat of Category:Crossings of the Mississippi River? -- SPUI ( T - C - RFC) 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I see you would. Then I reluctantly support your rename. -- SPUI ( T - C - RFC) 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Bridges on the Mississippi River per Cyde. David Kernow 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Okay, I've made the supercat contains the single Ferry and a subcat, which contains all of the bridges. The subcat still needs to be renamed, but I'll wait for some more opinions on that. If I forget about it, poke me at my talk page to remind me to have Cydebot do it. -- Cyde Weys 20:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Everything should be done now. I guess, consider this one closed. -- Cyde Weys 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Don't you think that you should have waited more than three hours to see if there were any objections? They usual time period after all is a week. -- JeffW 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

If there do end up being any significant objections it's as easy as just running the bot again to change to whatever the new desired name is. I'd rather not have to wait a week to get our Mississippi bridge categorization scheme correct, as that is pretty important. Millions of people cross Mississippi bridges every day. -- Cyde Weys 22:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I'm a little confused by Category:Crossings of the Mississippi River including a ferry. Bridges are structures and a ferry is a ship. Both provide a way to cross but a ferry is not a crosing which is a structure. Vegaswikian 23:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Crossing doesn't mean structure. It refers more to the act of crossing the river. Thus, only physical bridges are bridges, but bridges, tunnels, ferries, zip-lines, transporters, heli-flights, et al are all crossings. -- Cyde Weys 23:20, 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 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nominated for deletion. This non-encyclopedic category isn't doing any good and is actually harmful in a number of ways. First, it gives the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian. Wikipedia isn't a battleground for cultural issues like creationism; people grouping themselves into various camps on this issue is a bad idea. This category also has the potential for vote-stacking (and similar categories have been used for these purposes in the past). We simply shouldn't be categorizing Wikipedians by beliefs on divisive issues as this leads to all sorts of problems. -- Cyde Weys 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Burn with fire. Kelly Martin ( talk) 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Blow up with a big bang and kill any evolutionist equivalent.-- Doc ^ask? 18:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Burn at the stake. Divisive and useless and wholly unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Kill by Pepsi ingestion -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete along with Category:Evolution Wikipedians. Controversial culture-war philosophy. -- Vossanova 12:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all categorization of Wikipedians by political or religions POV. KleenupKrew 12:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Vote stacking tool. Hawkestone 22:49, 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 merge. Syrthiss 21:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant, small & unlikely to grow much. CovenantD 17:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC), corrected 11:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Palendrom 03:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't know if the two users above have even read this category. This is not a request for renaming. Covenant suggests that this subcategory should be merged back with its parent. User:Dimadick

• Yes, at least one did, but subst:d a rename rather than merge template in reponse. Thanks for spotting; now corrected. David Kernow 11:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- Tenebrae 15:04, 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 no consensus. Syrthiss 21:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary and ambiguous categorization Intangible 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep - for my full point, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 10#Category:Far right political parties in France. Also, this category includes or ought to include terms specific to the French context - such as Integralism, Legitimism, Orleanist - as well as concepts linked to the topic and political groups who do not fall in the Category:Far right political parties in France (since they were not actual parties). Dahn 18:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge into category:Politics of France. Far right is a term of abuse in English and this is the English-language encyclopedia. The translated category name may be fine in French, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is appropriate here. It will be taken to be pejorative by most native-English speakers. Osomec 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment So is Fascism nowadays. That does not mean we should empty the Category:Fascism and its subcats when movements have been using the term to define themselves. Dahn 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge into category category:Politics of France. This just invites misunderstanding. They didn't define themselves as far-right in English, and this sort of term is too sensitive to ignore national differences in usage. Bhoeble 16:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete meaningless and arbitrary categorization KleenupKrew 12:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Far right in France is a very easily identifiable category; you may refer to the classic study of historian René Rémond (member of the Académie Française) concerning this classification. The legitimist movement, for example, out of power since the 1830 July Revolution (brief exception of Vichy France) is an example of far-right movement in France, as is the Parti Populaire Français (PPF) collaborationist movement, as is the OAS, etc. Furthermore, it is not necessarily a "derogatory term". This misconception (current on Wikipedia) is based on the assumption that words have only one sense, which do not depend on context. If "nigger" can be used positively, than why could'nt "far right" be proudly affirmed? There are quite a few people, including members of the Front National or the Youth organization of the FN which proudly state they are far right, as do some members of the current Action Française tradition. Deleting this category is showing lack of understanding, to the least, of French politics and history. You may also refer to the February 6, 1934 riots by far right leagues... Tazmaniacs 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Your definition, which now has become Left and Right, has only limited use within the English wikipedia, and thus creates vagueness and ambiguity in categorization. Maybe you should start a Left-Right politics in France article instead, where you can detail all French obscurities. Intangible 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. No personal offense meant, but I am not responsible for your lack of knowledge concerning either France or the concepts of "left" & "right" in politics. I am not responsible either for these very common concepts to be used in a general way by many people. I ain't responsible either for the fact that these concepts were invented during the French Revolution, with progressive deputies sitting in the left & conservative and royalist deputies sitting in the right. Last but not least, I am not responsible either for this habit and this very popular definition among political scientists to be still relevant in 2006, and for French deputies to keep this habit which you seem to find "limited". Instead of advising the creation of unnecessary articles (a "left-right politics in France" will simply duplicate Politics in France), maybe you should look for some information on these very popular concepts before asking for the deletion of obvious legitimate categories. The only legitimate example against this categorization has been given by User:Dahn & concerns gaullism, not the far right which we have no trouble identifying. However, Dahn's remarks goes against the vast majority of mainstream historians, who have no problem at all placing the gaullist movement in the right-wing category, although it did include left-wing people for a time. How about you find the translation of René Rémond's classic studies on the three right-wing families in France ( legitimist — far right — orleanists and bonapartist — to which the gaullist movement is related to)? I'm sorry, but I may be able to write you a sentence on it in Rémond's Wikipedia entry, but I can't read it for you. Looking forward for further advice, cheers anyway! Tazmaniacs 19:30, 21 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 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary and ambiguous categorization Intangible 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Far right politics or something of that purpose. I used the term because it was already there, but I am sure an objective categorization is at hand. Dahn 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete meaningless and arbitrary categorization KleenupKrew 12:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Too malleable a category to maintain without inherent bias problems regarding what does and does not get included. Even a renamed version would be too problematic, considering the difficulty of defining the "political right" in the first place.-- ragesoss 20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. There is something such as left-right politics although not all Wikipedians may be familiar with these terms. Tazmaniacs 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I think many wikipedians are familiar with the terms and know that the concepts they represent vary widely. Intangible 22:27, 19 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. Syrthiss 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary and ambiguous categorization Intangible 16:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep Although I agree with the ambiguity of right-wing vs. left-wing, which creates a vacuum in the middle (see Gaullism), is completely useless for many other countries, and is highly subjective, this one is neither. The term has tradition in France (see Ultra-royalist), and it defines a clear set of policies in the French context (royalism, traditionalism, ultra-conservatism, blood and soil, anti-immigration, Maurrasianism) - which may or may not be fascist. I created the category without meaning to be POV - it does adjust to reality, and it is not slander (consider that the term reflects the way they have or would have been seated in the French Assembly, which should also cut out the ambiguity). Besides, the category serves an important purpose - I had created it as a subcategory of Category:French politicians per ideology, and the term is perfectly suited to cover all variations from Legitimism to Boulangisme to French Fascism to Organisation armée secrète. At this level, it was consistent with Category:Socialist parties in France. Further work with the "French politicians" subcategorizing should make its purpose even clearer, as it will include 19th century politicians which would not be covered by any other term, and have certainly considered themselves to be ultras (while taking pride in being "far right"). Furthermore, the term covers the Vichy France politicians that should not be described as "fascists", as well as the Action Française itself. The reason why it does not include them yet is the fact that I like to wikify articles that I categorize, and that I have been busy with some other things. Again, the common denominators of the movements are traditionalism and anti-Republicanism (or, at least, anti-left-wing Republicanism after the Dreyfus Affair). If you check with the relevant articles of those included and those to be included, you will see why this is both logical and necessary. Dahn 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge into category:Right-wing parties in France as far right is a term of abuse. CalJW 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment "Far right" is a term of abuse only if used indiscriminately. It was common self-reference in France in the 19th century and thereafter. In fact, "right-wing parties" is:

universal but universally problematic - it is even constantly applied to the US (consider that the US has had numerous Socialist parties, which fall way short of the term "liberal" as this is applied in Europe). Endlessly problematic because it does not cover terms like syndicalism (see Cercle Proudhon) or even Gaullism (which were both well represented in France), and because it leads to even greater confusions and subjectivism if and when applied to other countries, which still hold the French reference (consider romantic nationalist forces in Eastern Europe or newly-created parties such as the Democratic Party (Romania) which was part of the Socialist International and is nowadays a right-wing party). In my book, a category created should attempt to be mindful of similitidues with other countries, so that all subcats may merge into a uber-cat that is not a misnomer (if possible, and I see the possibility here)

confusing - there are no text-book definitions of right and left, even in France. "Extremes", however, are well covered (I do not see anybody shying away from calling Trotskyists or Maoists "far left", although this too is a term of abuse)

Furthermore, I think categorization reflects consensus reached on the articles included (both for parties that have a far right ideology - which, again, is not a pejorative - and the way in which Gaullism borrows from mild right and mild left). If you do not read the articles to get a sense of the complications involved, at least take the points I have made here and in my previous comment into consideration. Dahn 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

According to the Far right article: ""Far-right" is thus usually a pejorative term used by outsiders rather than a self-label." In France, ultra-royalism to Boulangisme to Anti-Dreyfusards to Maurrasianism to Vichy to the OAS to Poujardism (passing through fascist forces) more often than not used the label to define themselves. Those that failed to do so still have a self-declared allegiance to those forces that used the term to define themselves. Dahn 21:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge Far right is a term of abuse in English and this is the English-language encyclopedia. The translated category name may be fine in French, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is appropriate here. Osomec 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment So is Fascism nowadays. That does not mean we should empty the Category:Fascism and its subcats when movements have been using the term to define themselves. Dahn 23:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge into category:Right-wing parties in France. Fascism is also a category of dubious value, but this is worse because it is vaguer. Bhoeble 16:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

DeleteSaying "far right" is an opinion. This clearly has an agenda and it looks more like a liberal enemies list more then anything. If this article does not get deleted it defies the basic principles of wikipedia. Jerry Jones 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment You are, of course, entitled to this opinon, and I am not going to cling on to the category for the sake of it. However, you are wrong to assume that it was meant as "a liberal enemies list" (whatever meaning you give to the term "liberal", and considering that all meanings would be alien to the French situation, as was pointed even by those who do not support my views). If it were that, it would include all parties on the right, and not parties which represent "a variation of the right". As the creator of the category, I ask you not to assume that I have an agenda, and to please inform yourself on what the topic actually is - you may hold the same opinion in the end (and I grant it that my point may be interpreted as subjective), but please do not assume that I use Wikipedia to create blacklists. Dahn 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. Far right in France is a very easily identifiable category; you may refer to the classic study of historian René Rémond (member of the Académie Française) concerning this classification. The legitimist movement, for example, out of power since the 1830 July Revolution (brief exception of Vichy France) is an example of far-right movement in France, as is the Parti Populaire Français (PPF) collaborationist movement, as is the OAS, etc. Furthermore, it is not necessarily a "derogatory term". This misconception (current on Wikipedia) is based on the assumption that words have only one sense, which do not depend on context. If "nigger" can be used positively, than why could'nt "far right" be proudly affirmed? There are quite a few people, including members of the Front National or the Youth organization of the FN which proudly state they are far right, as do some members of the current Action Française tradition. Deleting this category is showing lack of understanding, to the least, of French politics and history. You may also refer to the February 6, 1934 riots created by far right leagues... (PS: beside, gaullism was a right-wing movement, although it gathered people from the left - this is common historian interpretation of it, not mine). Tazmaniacs 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Your definition, which now has become Left and Right, has only limited use within the English wikipedia, and thus creates vagueness and ambiguity in categorization. Maybe you should start a Left-Right politics in France article instead, where you can detail all French obscurities. Intangible 22:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Thank you for your advice. Read my comment in the above section if you feel like you may also need some advice, such as read René Rémond instead of asking me to explain you such things. I may have other things to do than explaining "left" or "right" to someone who believes against all political scientists that this categorization is not relevant for France! Tazmaniacs 19:33, 21 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 -- William Allen Simpson 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary and ambiguous categorization Intangible 16:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. Dahn 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep The best way to categorise French parties. As was explained recently in another nomination, the predominant use of terms like "liberal" is U.S. centric and leads to regular miscategorisation of French parties. CalJW 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment But, surely, this was not the case. I mean, the term did not "replace" a supposedly US-centric definition (again, the terms you advocate also work in America, more than theoretically) that would have been in place, and no mention was made of there ever being a need for one to be created. Dahn 21:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the explanation given at the top of the category. Osomec 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The terminology is correct for France. (Indeed the terms left-wing and right-wing originate in French politics). As the article left-wing politics comments, parties in the French National Assembly continue to sit physically either to the left or the right of the chamber dependent on their politics (and I believe this practice is also followed in other European parliaments) Valiantis 03:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom KleenupKrew 12:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per User:CalJW. We can't go on with classifying French parties according to US classification. If you refer to political spectrum or Left-Right Politics, you will see that since the French Revolution parties are classified according to left or right wing in France... Tazmaniacs 21:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Your definition, which now has become Left and Right, has only limited use within the English wikipedia, and thus creates vagueness and ambiguity in categorization. Maybe you should start a Left-Right politics in France article instead, where you can detail all French obscurities. Intangible 22:24, 19 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 -- William Allen Simpson 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary and ambiguous categorization Intangible 16:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. Dahn 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep The best way to categorise French parties. As was explained recently in another nomination, the predominant use of terms like "liberal" is U.S. centric and leads to regular miscategorisation of French parties by American users. CalJW 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment But, surely, this was not the case. I mean, the term did not "replace" a supposedly US-centric definition (again, the terms you advocate also work in America, more than theoretically) that would have been in place, and no mention was made of there ever being a need for one to be created. Dahn 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the explanation given at the top of the category. Osomec 23:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. A categorization along the lines of christian-democratic, liberal, conservative, social-democratic, nationalist, gaullic, secessionist, neo-fascist etc. is much more useful. This goes for all these above cfd categories. The point is that left and right have no meaning whatsoever, like status quo conservatism for example. It's dependent on place and time. That does not mean the category Conservative parties should be deleted however, because there at least two more useful definitions of conservatism (reactionary and traditionism). For (far, extreme) left and right however, there are gazillion possible definitions, because they all are based on consensus, and not per se based on historic usage. Intangible 00:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep The terminology is correct for France. (Indeed the terms left-wing and right-wing originate in French politics). As the article left-wing politics comments, parties in the French National Assembly continue to sit physically either to the left or the right of the chamber dependent on their politics (and I believe this practice is also followed in other European parliaments) Valiantis 03:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete meaningless categorization KleenupKrew 12:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. How can you say "meaningless categorization"? Have you any indirect (I'm not even saying "direct") knowledge of France to make such statements? If you refer to political spectrum or Left-Right Politics, you will see that since the French Revolution parties are classified according to left or right wing in France. It is not only meaningful, but is the most relevant categorization concerning French parties. Tazmaniacs 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Your definition, which now has become Left and Right, has only limited use within the English wikipedia, and thus creates vagueness and ambiguity in categorization. Maybe you should start a Left-Right politics in France article instead, where you can detail all French obscurities. Intangible 22:24, 19 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 21:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Are we going to have individual categories for the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet symbols, Americanist phonetic notation symbols, and all the other phonetic alphabets? I might be able to accept a single broad category like Category:Phonetic transcription symbols, but a large number of phonetic transcription symbols are also just regular old alphabetic letters and vice versa. Ptcamn 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep as is. If these articles exist, I think you have to separate them by alphabet, or you have no idea what you're looking at when you go through the category.-- Mike Selinker 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment - There's a huge amount of overlap. Most letters would end up in many categories. It would be like having a separate category for "English letters", "French letters", "Spanish letters", "Portuguese letters", etc. etc., so that the letter A ends up in hundreds of categories for each language -- rather than just having pan-language categories like Category:Latin letters and Category:Uncommon Latin letters as we currently do. -- Ptcamn 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see. Only knowing IPA, I didn't know that they overlapped with other languages. Then sure, rename as Category:Phonetic transcription symbols. (I'm presuming the reason you're not using Category:Phonetic alphabet symbols is because some characters are not alphabetical.)-- Mike Selinker 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Question Is the concern that a common letter like 'A' would accumulate a huge number of category tags? Would it work to limit the phonetic alphabet symbol categories to just those symbols that are unique to that phonetic alphabet? If not, I could support a rename to Category:Phonetic transcription symbols.

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 -- Cyde Weys 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hopelessly POV category. The creator of this category, User:Nintendude has created a rash of not-particularly-useful list articles in recent days, most if not all of which are currently undergoing AFD. 23skidoo 13:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Vossanova 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- InShaneee 14:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom (or transclude from Billboard 40 :-)). LotLE× talk 16:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete please, for the love of jeebus. -- stubblyh ea d | ^T/ _c 17:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, obviously. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete highly subjective and POV title. -- Bachrach44 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 21:04, 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 Speedy Deleted -- Cyde Weys 18:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Three more unused Wikipedians categories. The name of the latter is ironic :) Conscious 12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete all per nom. OK, I realize some people like wacky user boxes, but that doesn't mean we need a category for every single one. You want to meet people with unusual, specific traits, try MySpace. -- Vossanova 14:18, 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 speedy deleted by User:Cyde. - EurekaLott 01:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty; I have now moved this page to Category:Greek Jews. Marcus 12:14, 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 upmerge ISS expeditions. Syrthiss 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Copy of Category:Crew members of ISS Expeditions. Philip Stevens 11:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Reverse merge. Let's avoid abbreviations when we can. - EurekaLott 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge/upmerge. Note that Category:Crew members of ISS Expeditions is a child of Category:Crew members of the International Space Station, which seems the wrong way round to me. There's really not much of a difference at this point. Also note that the page is tagged for deletion not merge. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 22:08, 11 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 21:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

recently voters rejected a nomination to rename "People by Fooian city" to "Fooian people by city" and so the nomination here is to "reverse rename" the few cat pages named in the later fashion to the former to make the list uniform. the list is:

• Category:American people by city to Category:People by American city
• Category:Australian people by city to Category:People by Australian city
• Category:Argentine people by city to Category:People by Argentine city
• Category:Finnish people by city to Category:People by Finnish city
• Category:Mexican people by city to Category:People by Mexican city

Rename all. people in a given city are not necessarily native of the country the city is located in and the category name should reflect this. Mayumashu 09:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all per nom. - EurekaLott 12:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. Valiantis 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. CalJW 20:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, sounds good. -- Cyde Weys 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Nationality adjectives have no place modifying cities, as the categorization system uses prepositions and countrynames for communities. Category:People by city in the United States, Category:People by city in Australia etc., while admittedly a little clumsy, would be preferable. The Tom 22:27, 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 merge. Syrthiss 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Only 7 out of a four figure tally of journalists with articles are in this category and it doesn't contribute much to the category system other than inconsistency. I found it via the article about a journalist who writers mainly for newspapers who was classified as a magazine writer and as an American writer, but not as a journalist. Merge Bhoeble 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 10:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as "Magazine journalists" (as subcategory of Category:Journalists, alongside Category:Magazine editors). Magazine writers are journalists, and not always a distinct breed (there is a big overlap between the UK broadsheet newspapers and the political mags such as The Spectator and New Statesman), but most print journalists work their entire careers on magazines rather than on newspapers, and there is not all that much crossover. -- BrownHairedGirl 11:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. BrownHairedGirl may be right about minor journalists, but prominent journalists very often work in more than one media, and that is likely to be the case more and more. It would probably be better to have only "journalist" categories and "seniority" categories for editors to minimise category clutter. CalJW 20:57, 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 rename. Syrthiss 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename. Less clumsiness in the category name. -- Nlu ( talk) 08:52, 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 deletecore!. Syrthiss 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Non-existent music genre. There's already a Category:Hardcore punk and hardcore punk, and post-hardcore (in itself an already dicey term), but post-hardcore punk is simply an invention. All of the (three) bands included here more accurately belong in other genres. ChrisB 07:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. LotLE× talk 16:33, 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 deletion of fame. Syrthiss 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

If somebody has truly had 15 minutes of fame, and nobody cares anymore, then we should simply delete the relevant article, and not place it in any category. If we keep the article, it must mean there's some longer lasting interest. Also, some placements seem to be somewhat POV (basically, we're saying we think the topic's 15 minutes is up). Rob 05:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 10:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I think the articles could be useful for context in historical research when one of these names comes up in an old magazine article or something. But it would be better as a list. -- JeffW 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: All right as a common expression; but as a category, NO. -- Slgrandson 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Wow. This might be a first: Delete per everybody. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete too subjective -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete too subjective --no way this won't end up being POV Palendrom 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Utterly subjective hence no way to use the category properly. -- JJay 13:59, 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 Speedy deleted -- Cyde Weys 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

All three unused. The creator said he doesn't need them anymore. Conscious 05:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete all per nom/creator. David Kernow 10:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all as per nomination. There are too many such categories. -- BrownHairedGirl 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. Again, we don't need categories for every single wacky user box people come up with, espcially not empty ones. --Vossanova 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Users can write their own opinions on their pages if they wish, not use silly categories (even ones I would be included in). LotLE× talk 16:35, 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.