Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 29



Category:Civil rights era African-American history

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Civil rights era African-American history to Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current member articles cover events from 1958 to 1964. Match African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Maybe this could be a speedy decision WP:C2D, but I have only just put that page into the category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose These seem like two different categories. Category:Civil rights era African-American history involves historical events and cultural history of African-Americans during the Civil Rights era. Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), on the other hand, is specifically a category on the civil rights movement, not a history category at all. The second category is better defined and "civil rights era" is rather inexact but the former category is about history and the second is about a movement. Other events and trends occurred in African-American culture during this period of time besides the civil rights movement. I think both categories could exist. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The page Civil rights era redirects to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), hence the nomination. Many history categories contain sub-cats about specific past periods without including the word "history" in the name. A case in point is Category:Reconstruction Era, which is rightly a sibling category within Category:History of African-American civil rights. Therefore this will still be a history category even if it is renamed after the movement, following the lead article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename The target better matches the contents. This is not a broad category for all things African-American during the Civil RIghts Era, but only contains articles clearly linked in some way to the Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Veterans of the Battle of Kursk

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting veterans of the battle of kursk


 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Battle of Stalingrad
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the 1st Belorussian Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the 2nd Ukrainian Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the 3rd Ukrainian Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the 4th Ukrainian Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Central Front (Soviet Union)‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Kalinin Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Karelian Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Leningrad Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the North Caucasian Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Northwestern Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Southwestern Front (Soviet Union)‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Volkhov Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Voronezh Front‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Veterans of the Western Front (Soviet Union)‎
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories contain mostly/only articles about artists (e.g. Piotr Vasiliev) who (although they may have been profoundly affected by the conflict) are not notable as a soldier (see WP:COP). Note: one person may have served in many battles etc (and still not be notable as a soldier).  Note: We don't categorize veterans of western armies in this way.  See also essay WP:DNWAUC.  This is different from Category:Military personnel by war as that is for people notable as military personnel (it comes under Category:People by occupation).  For that reason these categories should not be merged to Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II (although many of the artists are currently in that category). DexDor (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Categories bind articles about Russian veterans of World War II with the participation in the fighting on certain fronts. It is important for researchers and should be continued. Leningradartist (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:DEFINING for the soldiers involved. Fighting in the war is, splitting it down by front/battle is WP:OC. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II is sufficient categorisation for these articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bushranger, your comments suggest a merge to Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II which would be incorrect for people who are notable as artists, but not notable as military personnel. That category should be purged per WP:COP so that it's easier to browse articles about people like Georgy Zhukov without the category being cluttered by hundreds of articles like Priidu Aavik. DexDor (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If they're "Veterans of so and so", then Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II is an appropriate categorisation. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The military personnel category is under Category:People by occupation which "classifies people by their notable occupations" (per WP:COP). DexDor (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And for Soviet personnel who served in the Great Patriotic War, that service is very definingly notable - The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These should definitely be merged up. My understanding is that the "X military personnel of Y" categories have been used routinely for anyone who saw active military service, even if this is relatively minor compared to their later careers - Richard Nixon, for example, is filed under "American military personnel of World War II", even though that's a thousand miles from what he might be remembered for. It's used in a similar way to the school/university categories, which are often part of an individual's history rather than their claim to notability. If a note on the parent category disagrees, well, that's unfortunate... but it's not describing current practice. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely correct to say "it's not describing current practice" - many Israelis, for example, have served in their military (as a conscript), but their articles (example) haven't generally been categorized in Category:Israeli military personnel or in a category such as "Israeli  military personnel in the First Intifada".  Just because there are some articles of type X in category Y doesn't mean that most articles of type X are in category Y (or that they should all be in category Y).
 * Sure, there are some (in fact, quite a few) people who are not notable because of their military service whose articles are currently in the "military personnel" categories; that's also the case with other occupation categories (e.g. is Rowan Atkinson really notable as a truck driver?).
 * We could make military service an exception to WP:COP, but (1) if we make one occupation exempt from a rule then some editors are likely to want a similar exemption for other occupations (firefighter, policeman, lifeguard, plumber ...), (2) do we really want, for example, Category:Israeli military personnel to have thousands of articles about people who were a non-notable conscript for 2-3 years before becoming a notable politician/actor...?, and (3) any proposed change to COP#N should be discussed its talk page, not here. DexDor (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "active" may be the key phrase here, rather than peacetime military service - I agree it would be a bit counterproductive to, eg, include almost everyone who was an adult male Soviet citizen, but active service in a particular war has been pretty consistently categorised in the articles I've dealt with, and I've never seen it challenged until now. For example, Category:British Army personnel of World War I currently has ~2500 entries; I opened ten at random - the last ten "A"s - and found only one whose military service was directly linked to their notability.
 * It would be worthwhile ensuring the policy actually reflects normal practice, and I'll flag it up there, but I think we have to have this discussion here if the basis for not merging the categories is simply "policy says we shouldn't". Andrew Gray (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete people should not be categorized by battle/battle front, etc. Imagine, the average veteran of the US Pacific campaign and how many battles he (or she) could get placed in; cat clutter. If the main personnel are noteworthy, listify them in the articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't make sense dividing soldiers up based on a particular battle or front as it could lead to overcategorization since soldiers fight in multiple geographic areas. I would like to see the opinions of members of the Military History WikiProject on this subject, too. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:International Rubber Science Hall of Fame

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: listify. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: List created at List of inductees in the International Rubber Science Hall of Fame. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting international rubber science hall of fame


 * Nominator's rationale: Having received this recognition is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its recipients - some of the articles in the category don't even mention the award (example). There is, AFAICS, no enwiki article about this HoF.  If kept, this should be renamed to "... inductees" to match other categories under Category:Hall of fame inductees. DexDor (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose somehow keeping the collection of articles together. This collection of articles needs to exists somehow, be it as a "category" or as an "article".  Inclusion in the IRSHF is certainly notable, and it adds greatly to wikipedia's coverage of the science and industry of rubber.  There is great value in having all of these very notable people accessible from one page.  AresLiam (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could create an article such as International Rubber Science Hall of Fame that includes a list of recipients. Advantages of a list (compared with category) include that entries can be cited, it can include people who do not currently have a wp article and it can be in date order. An example of such an article is Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Listify. This is perfectly suited for an article/list, but in general only the most major Halls of Fame are appropriate for categorisation. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems like a valid category but it has no parent categories so it is not connected to other, related categories on Wikipedia. If connections were made, I'd recommend keeping it. (Using great restraint not to make a joke about "rubber science" as that would be juvenile). Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians_who_are_not_a_Wikipedian
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no action. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose, um, hrm.. What CAN we do with Category:Wikipedians_who_are_not_a_Wikipedian
 * Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted after a number of contentious discussions, the last one was here Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_31. And yet, in spite of it being deleted, it continues to exist in a sort of quasi-dead state - still useful for traitorous collaboration. Additionally, it is still filled with rebel traitors who openly defy the Empire and our laws. Is there a way to delete a deleted category - like maybe it needs to be disintegrated or vaporized? Perhaps we subject all admitted members of this category to tediously boring category diffusion tasks to atone for their crimes? How has this outrage been allowed to continue? I think we need to take a close look at all red-linked categories, and find out if the rebels are using them to somehow collaborate. I'm going to call Darth (he's a close personal friend) to see if he can't convince some of the rebel scum to reveal their plans. or  would be a good first targets - are they onboard that transport ship? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Obi, I think you need to check your calendar, dahling--it's the 29th, not the 1st. What's next--Category:Wikipedian sex workers? Category:Worshipers of the Mandarax? Category:Fans of the Basalisk? Drmies (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Few people know I was describing Drmies talk page when I said "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." So clever, to think we wouldn't discover your secret red-category network. Wait till Yoda hears of this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I looked at one user page. If I read the history correctly, it was added to the category before it was deleted.  So why was the entry not removed? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I've long suspected that certain "powerful" factions here have the ability to modify wiki-software towards their nefarious ends.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Although I am here as a result of blatant canvassing, and (full disclosure) would be a member of Category:Wikipedians who have vowed in the past never to participate in CfD but do anyway and don't see that as a violation of their vow if I hadn't vowed never to create another category, I will nevertheless deign to share my wisdom with the local denizens of this page. The only way to deal with such a category is to have a bot running perpetually creating every member of the series Category:Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, Category:Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, and so on. As a fitting reward for bringing this problem to the community I believe that Obi-Wan should be nominated to bring this to the Bot-runners request board, or whatever it's called.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedians who are not, to make it more inclusive. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think being able to tolerate the ambiguity of the existence of red link user categories is a sign of maturity. Personally, I would allow this category to be created but since it has been deleted several times in the past, this will not be happening. So, unless an editor wants the job of policing what categories users create to label their own pages, we must live with red links. By the way, if anyone wants to go around, deleting red linked categories from user pages, expect pushback. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Attack Attack! songs
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting attack attack! songs


 * Nominator's rationale: Only one member which is a redirect. Richhoncho (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:OC. Part of an established category tree, . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Armbrust. I understand small cat, but surely one redirect which redirects to an album which is categorized as an Attack Attack! album is surplus to even small cat? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're working through the category tree, the redirect being categorised is useful for navigation. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I usually vote for small categories to exist but one that only contains a solitary redirected page? This category shouldn't exist as there are no actual articles on Attack Attack! songs. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and Liz. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine to Category:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
 * Nominator's rationale: I created this category for an article, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. That article was moved a while ago to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, per an informal discussion on the talk page, as a result of the evolution from 'protests' to 'insurgency' in some areas. For reasons that I cannot myself understand, this category was denied speedy renaming, and so I shall list it here. Notice that the subcategories, which I have nothing to do with, already use the newer name. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I was about to propose the same thing. "Protests" seems an understatement on a category with articles names including "militia", "republic", and "siege".--Martin Berka (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NickSt (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was denied speedy renaming because it is apparently 'controversial', according to Armbrust. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a his personal opinion not based on WP:C2D rule. NickSt (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just a personal opinion. C2D only applies if the articles name has long standing stability, or was choosen via a RM discussion. Neither applies to this case. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Or per WP:COMMONSENSE. Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as this seems to be the nomenclature used in subcategories and articles. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. "Protests" is no longer an adequately descriptive word. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly needed change. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African-American women judges
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge to all parents. The nominator and participants did not give any reason for omitting the third parent Category:African-American women, so the pages should go up into that one as well. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It has just been pointed out to me that Category:African-American women is a container category, so I will remove the pages that were merged into it. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:African-American women judges to Category:African-American judges, Category:American women judges
 * Nominator's rationale: This is another classic case of final rung EGRS category which should not be created. This is a final rung of both, serving to potentially ghettoize women from men, and of , serving to potentially separate African-American women from non-black counterparts. Neither of these parents are currently divided on any other criteria, and given the rich tree at I don't see any value or reason to divide these parents further. It's better to avoid such a triple intersection and upmerge to both parents. I'm also hoping that most of the judges within are already categorized elsewhere in the generic  tree, but we can sort that out once the merge happens. If the intersection is of encyclopedic interest, we can give a category intersection link to the readers at the top of each page that will generate a full list of all people in both  and  like this which gives a more accurate list anyway...Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete do African-American women judges judge differently than others? If so, please cite a source. Otherwise this is impermissible. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not a final rung category. It could further be divided by location (from New York, from California, from Florida), type of court (state, county, superior), ethnic descent (of Jamaican descent, of Dominican descent, of African descent), religion (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist), sexual orientation or by which law school they graduated from and those are just some ideas that come to mind. What should be created is an Category: Male African-American judges. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Liz, for that to work, you'd have to divide both the parents by those criteria. I note that the grandparent - the neutral cat - is very well divided by state, and other ways, which is why the parents of this one arent a problem. The other divisions of which you speak - eg religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation are non-diffusing so dont help at all for last rung rule. I really think it would be a bad idea to divide american women judges by state and african american judges by state that would require creating 100 more categories and recategorizing hundreds if articles JUST to keep this one cat which is a triple intersection of gender + ethnicity + job. Category intersection can be used by anyone who truly cares to get this list rather than suggesting an incredibly complicated diffusion scheme just to keep.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Category: Male African-American judges would go against WP:Cat gender. —  dain  omite   05:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This is the type of division that while interesting, can not work with the last rung rule. We do not want to further divide women judges or African-American judges. One question is, does the last rung rule apply to subdividing an ERGS catregory by ERGS. If it doesn't, than I guess I would argue that this category should stay, if it does it should go. I fear so few people have even considered the last rung rule exists, that no one knows where it applies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support What we have here is an unecessary bundling of two existing categories in my opinion. —  dain  omite   05:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Software using the CDDL license
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep all. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Software using the CDDL license to Category:Software licensed under the CDDL
 * Propose renaming Category:Software using the CPL license to Category:Software licensed under the CPL
 * Propose renaming Category:Software using the GPL license to Category:Software licensed under the GPL
 * Propose renaming Category:Software using the LGPL license to Category:Software licensed under the LGPL
 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant acronym. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all. It may be redundant, but it is the scheme used by Category:Software by license. Like "ATM machine", it's simply part of the language, even if it makes English teachers scream. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Would prefer not to have "Software using the" on some categories and "Software licensed under" on others. OK with dropping license from "Software using the GPL license". 04:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Wickorama (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above. —  dain  omite   05:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Human rights movement in the USSR
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Human rights movement in the USSR to Category:Human rights in the Soviet Union
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Can probably safely be upmerged to, as there is a significant overlap and it's not clear how one would subdivide the content. (If kept, nominated category should be renamed to so that "USSR" = "Soviet Union" per naming guidelines, but I do not think that that would be the preferred outcome.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian social workers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Indian social workers to Category:Indian social activists
 * Nominator's rationale: Category:Indian social workers and Category:Indian social activists are similiar categories. Jayakumar RG (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A social worker and a social activist are two entierly different things. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, clearly a valid subcat of Category:Social workers by nationality. It's possible some people categorized here may need to be categorized only as activists but nevertheless I do see social workers in this category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Bushranger. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Daher al-Omar fortifications
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: listify and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Daher al-Omar fortifications to Category:Fortifications constructed by Daher el-Omar
 * Nominator's rationale: The proposed name both has a clearer naming format, and corrects the name of the builder. The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Listify and delete as WP:OCAT, non-defining for most of the members which are towns. Selectively upmerge Casal Humberti and Khirbat Jiddin to Category:Fortifications in Israel and Category:Ottoman architecture in Israel. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete per Fayenatic london. —  dain  omite   05:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fortifications of Switzerland in the 20th century
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fortifications of Switzerland built in the 20th century. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting fortifications of switzerland in the 20th century


 * Nominator's rationale: This is not a categorisation we, well, categorise by; WW1 and WW2 fortifications are, but "20th century" is not. All contents are already properly categorised elsewhere. The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. When I was looking at many castle articles, they were used as fortifications. For those, it was not clear that were for a specific period.  Many are categorized in infrastructure but not fortifications.  By country could be a useful tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's true: that's why there's Category:Castles in Switzerland and Category:Forts in Switzerland. It's the "20th century" part here that's the problem. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But all castles are not really fortifications. Right? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is also why there's Category:Fortifications in Switzerland. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Fortifications in Switzerland built in the 20th century as a subcat of a new subcat Fortifications in Switzerland by date of construction. There are a lot of fortifications in Switzerland, both ancient castles and modern fortifications each probably number in the hundreds. A chronological categorizations makes sense. Categorization by World Wars makes less sense than elsewhere because the Swiss have been building new fortifications nearly continuously up until the end of the Cold War.  Sandstein   15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to add "built", this is clearly meant to be when it is built, but is too ambiguous at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.