< December 14 December 16 >

December 15

[edit]

Category:Deceased Filipino actors and actresses

[edit]
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) 02:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia doesn't have this type of category for other nationalities, and it doesn't seem like a significant characteristic. ... discospinster talk 23:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:English astronauts

[edit]
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. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The wp:commonname is Category:British astronauts, see for example Tim Peake launch: The seven Britons to go to space, BBC and British space programme § British astronauts. The nationality of the astronauts follows British nationality law. Deletion of the Category English astronauts has been contested before at Category talk:English astronauts#Contested deletion, but the rationale for deletion seems sound. Whizz40 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I wouldn't over-emphasise the nationality aspect (as many had to take US citizenship to join NASA), British is clearer than English. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query How many more Ulstermen would Andy like to see in orbit? Just a few or we talking total genocide here? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a list... Loudest first. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:ASB Classic

[edit]
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 per move of ASB Classic. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per move of parent article, WTA Auckland Open. Mattlore (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Heineken Open (tennis)

[edit]
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. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this should be a speedy or not? Rename to remove old sponsor and match with parent article, ATP Auckland Open. Mattlore (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Festivals by name

[edit]
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: speedy delete (G7) including all sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we need a new tree of Category:Festivals by name and all its children? What is wrong with Category:Festivals? How else does the default categorization work, if not by name? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I think the new "name" category makes scanning possible and more reasonable, and also meshes well with the "name" festival tree already on Wikimedia. It also allows various Category:Festival templates to be used to build the name sections, and make it pretty straightforward and simple for future updaters (just add, for example, a "Template:Rock Festival" template to a rock festival, and it is automatically placed in Category:Rock festivals by name, which would otherwise be an impossibly large category to ever fill up - but if each festival page eventually gets an appropriate template (my dream :b), the category will be nice and complete one day. Earflaps (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need festivals organised by name, and grouped by types. MediaWiki categorization will happily do both, in the same categories. The subcategories (implying the types) will be in the upper half of the page, the individual pages (the festivals by name) in the lower half. We don't need to hide "festivals by name" away in a separate sub-cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Districts of Pakistani Punjab

[edit]
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. It is merge rather than delete, because the convention for places is option 1 as listed under WP:EPONYMOUS. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories 86.161.145.206 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Founders of companies of the United States

[edit]
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 as nominated. There seems to be a consensus that the location of the company founded is not a defining characteristic of the person being categorized, but the nationality of the founder is, and since there is a major overlap between the two, the nationality ones should be kept and the others deleted. It looks to me like Bearcat in good faith felt that these categories were essentially duplicates and that this is the reason he redirected them; it doesn't seem to me to be an attempt to get around having a CFD and I wouldn't call it an error on his part. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I caught "Founders of companies of the United States" about an hour ago and ((categoryredirect))ed it to "American company founders" as a duplicate of an existing category — but this was challenged on the basis that they weren't duplicates, as the key characteristic of "American company founders" was the nationality of the person while the key characteristic of "Founders of companies of the United States" was the location of the company. But the majority of the potential entries for this category are American citizens anyway, meaning that they would end up sitting in both of these categories simultaneously with each other — and for the small minority who aren't American citizens, the location of the company fails to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the person in the manner necessary to support a category for it. (For example, if I as a Canadian start a company here in Toronto, and then it gets bought out a year later by an American investor who moves the head office to New York City, then I've suddenly become a "founder of a company of the United States" without ever actually leaving Canada at all — so the company certainly becomes defined by its relocation, but that relocation doesn't magically turn into a defining characteristic of me.) So I still consider it a pointless duplication, and I'm not even remotely convinced by the counterargument. What say the rest of you, though? Bearcat (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Merge what? The category was completely emptied before the CfD was initiated. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech. Merge whatever articles are in the category when CFD is closed. Fyi it wasn't empty when I added the above cmt. DexDor (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any "standard 'by location' versus 'by nationality' category breakdown system". We don't have any categories where "American X" and "X of the United States" coexist simultaneously with each other, containing 90 to 95 per cent the same topics anyway — we have topics subdivided by nationality ("American") or by country ("of the United States"), depending on which makes more natural sense in that particular topic area, but there's nowhere in Wikipedia's entire category system where those things both exist as siblings of each other for the same topic.
And just by the by, I'm Canadian. So the idea that I'm coming from a US-centric bias here? I have to bring "ROTFLMAO" back for that one. Bearcat (talk)
You are erroneously conflating company and person there, in my opinion. As I mentioned above, we have a Category:Company founders by country (or we did until you just now removed it from all subcats and redirected/renamed it without discussion) and Category:Company founders by nationality, distinguishing company location from nationality of founder. To remove one large and important subset of the former violates the system, or the system that existed until you summarily dismantled it without discussion. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Company founders by country" and "company founders by nationality" are not two separate topics. Considerably more than 90 per cent of the people involved end up having to be in both trees simultaneously with each other — violating WP:OVERLAPCAT — and for the very few who aren't doubling up in both, the location of the company is a defining characteristic of the company, and not of the individual person. So I'm not "conflating" anything, erroneously or otherwise. And again, we don't have any topic, anywhere in all of Wikipedia, where "X by country" and "X by nationality" both coexist as siblings of each other for the same "X". So this standard scheme you claim I'm violating simply does not exist.
And, for the record, not all changes to the category system require discussion first; spelling errors and duplicates, for example, can be speedied without having to come to CFD first. Completely empty categories can be deleted on sight by anybody with access to the deletion function. Categories that aren't consistent with the applicable naming conventions (e.g. if somebody uses "women" in a category tree where the established expectation is "female", or vice versa) can be renamed on sight without needing to be debated. And on and so forth. The correct process after you challenged it was to take it to CFD, which I did — but given that I considered the categories to be duplicates to which our speedy CFD/CFR/CFM criteria were applicable, there was no requirement for me to take it to CFD before I could act on my original judgement — the only requirement was that I take it here for review if somebody objected. Which I did. Bearcat (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Did you know I created this category tree? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Why would it who did or didn't create something have any relevance to the matter either way? The includability or deletability of anything in Wikipedia is a question of whether the content fits with Wikipedia's established consensus about whether the content is includable or deletable under our content policies. Except occasionally in some extreme vandalism circumstances, the identity of any given content's creator has no bearing either way on the question of whether it's keepable or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Will Pfizer still be an American company after it merges with Allergan / Actavis (based in Dublin and Parsippany-Troy Hills) which is now the property of Teva Pharmaceuticals (based in Petah Tikva) after it was sold to it in July 2015? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me ... and is Aditya Julka an Indian company founder (this is how he gets classified when I try to classify him as a founder of companies of India)? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Why are we wasting time discussing these virtual categories that have already been emptied out of process and redirected? How can editors make informed decisions when the evidence is gone? Why does the list of categories under discussion keep growing while we "discuss"?
I tried to retrieve as much as I could from the devastation left behind, but I do not have access to any automated tools so it takes me exponentially longer to revert all the actions that took the nominator only minutes to accomplish. As it stands now I have only been able to revert a subset of the categories which were redirected by the nominator on Dec15, but those categories are mostly empty because the nominator emptied them also on Dec 15.
This "discussion" is not only a waste of my time (including the time it took me to build this category in the first place), but also the time of the nominator and the rest of the editors involved here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Bearcat may yet prove to be in error and help to reverse the damage. Even if he does not, consensus may be reached just by considering the points of principle, although it is of course often useful to be able to look at examples. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I don't see bearcat trying to reverse his error. Am I missing something? AND while this CfD is still open other editors (In addition to bearcat nominations of categories I created) are jumping in with further nominations that will wipe the history of bearcats actions of December 15, 2015. See for example: Category talk:Businesspeople of companies in Canada, a page deleted by bearcat without discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech: agreed, Bearcat is evidently not going to help, and has expressed a personal view of CFD process which is not shared by anyone else as far as I know. If the general view is not sufficiently clearly documented, this will have to be addressed at WT:CFD. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is not and has never been any consensus that redirection is considered equivalent to deletion, or that a redirect must always be taken to CFD first unless it fits the exact same criteria that would allow it to be speedy deleted — for instance, if Category:Italian novelists already exists, and then somebody not cognizant of the naming convention creates Category:Novelists from Italy alongside it, there is no rule or convention that requires a full seven days of CFD debate before somebody can redirect the new category to the existing one and refile the articles accordingly. If any such consensus does exist that redirection is the same as deletion, and is therefore subject to the same rules about when it can be speedied versus when it has to go to a full XFD instead, then it certainly hasn't been documented anywhere (and thus represents an error on the community's part in failing to document it properly, and not an error on my part in failing to follow an undocumented rule.) If there's a new consensus established by which that should become the new rule going forward, then that's one thing — but it is not the consensus rule that pertains to redirects as of now, and accordingly I will not tolerate this situation being branded as any form of error on my part. Maybe this rule needs revision, maybe the consensus needs to change; I can accept that. But I absolutely, unconditionally will not brook any attempt to claim that I acted improperly under any existing rule pertaining to redirects. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another category that was deleted with no discussion: Category:Chairmen of corporations by country. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Merge in either direction, with a weak preference for Fayenatic london's alternative for a reverse merge to prioritize country of the company over nationality of the founder (which is a slight reinterpretation of my earlier merge vote). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THE FOLLOWING IS TRANSCLUDED text from Category talk:Company founders by country. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

--start transclusion-- Category talk:Company founders by country

--end transclusion--

The fact that somebody has worked on populating a category is not, in and of itself, a reason why that category would automatically get kept. The category system does not exist as a way to create lists of every single thing it might be possible to create a list of — it exists as a classification system to group topics on WP:DEFINING characteristics. We do not, for example, maintain categories of people by hair colour or eye colour, or by unencyclopedic hobbies, even though all of those would certainly be possible — we categorize people by characteristics that are defining of why they have an encyclopedia article, such as their occupation and nationality, and not on characteristics that constitute trivia. Nobody owes you a cookie for having worked hard on something, without regard to whether that something has encyclopedic value or not — people are allowed to look at a category, believe that it constitutes a duplication of another category that already exists, and act accordingly without asking for your personal permission first. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made. (from WP:CFD). Marcocapelle (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're entirely misunderstanding the order of events here if you think I ever did anything that violated CFD rules in any way. The categories in question had already been redirected and depopulated under the speedy criteria by which a duplicate category can be immediately redirected and depopulated, and thus in full accordance with "prompted by duplication". Only after all of that was done did anybody express an objection to my reading of the situation — at no point in this entire matter has a single article been removed from any of the categories in question after they were restored and taken to CFD for wider discussion, so at no point whatsoever has any CFD rule been violated at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While admitting that I had meanwhile forgotten about the sequence of events, I wonder if there are any speedy criteria like that. Don't get me wrong, I do support the nomination, but I'd rather also keep some consensus about procedures. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat: I am not aware of speedy criteria for duplicate categories permitting immediate merging. WP:CSD includes A10 for duplicate articles, but no equivalent under General or Categories, unless there is consent from the category's creator. – Fayenatic London 11:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CSD criteria have no bearing on what can or cannot be merged or redirected to another article or category; redirecting is not deletion and is not subject to deletion-process rules, so what is or isn't a speedy deletion criterion has no bearing on a redirect. There is no rule that one must always initiate a full AFD/CFD discussion before a duplicated-topic article or category can be redirected to the existing topic or category. The only hard and fast rule that applies to redirection of duplicated content is to take it to CFD for wider discussion if you're challenged on it after the fact, which I did — but there's no rule by which my original action was improper. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: You seem to have interpreted this category in good faith as duplicated, so I can see how you might conclude the above from the lead section of WP:CFD: Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made.
However, you recognised in your nomination that you later realised it was controversial after all, as others see this case as a strong degree of overlap rather than a duplication.
I'm spelling this out here in case other editors read this discussion and take it as a precedent for controversial merges without following the WP:CFD process. Where effort has been put into building a debatable category or hierarchy by an editor who is still active, it would be good practice to ask that category's creator whether they agree that there is duplication. Even if this leads to a disagreement which then comes to CFD as a merger proposal, it is better to have a discussion of full categories than empty ones. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversy" about a redirection (or a speedy deletion, for that matter) is not something that can always necessarily be foreseen or predicted in advance of an objection actually getting raised after the fact — sometimes it is, sure, but it isn't always the case. Wikipedia does not expect its editors or administrators to be clairvoyant or psychic, so my failure to have had advance foreknowledge that an objection was going to be raised after the fact still does not represent any negligence on my part. When an objection was raised, I acted correctly in taking it to CFD for wider discussion — but it was not my responsibility to have already known that such an objection was in the offing before I acted, because this is not a situation in which the potential controversy was plainly obvious right off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep the new category tree ... for simplicity ..." - ?! "it's often more about the gravitational center ... of a company" - this isn't categorization of companies; it's categorization of people. DexDor (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone continues to empty these categories while this CfD is still not decided. 73.35.169.55 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
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:Wikipedia Selected picture files

[edit]
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Selected by whom? We have categories such as Category:Wikipedia Picture of the day and Category:Wikipedia featured pictures which are part of established processes, but I've been unable to find[1] any Wikipedia process that refers to this category. For info: This CFD is part of an attempt to tidy up the category structure below Category:Wikipedia images. DexDor (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Subcats of Category:Populated places established in the 1370s

[edit]
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging

Support per nom. Also, from Category:Populated places by year of establishment, "Where reliable foundation dates exist, articles should be categorised by year for 1500 and later, by decade from the 1300s to the 1490s, by century from the 10th century BC to the 13th century and by millennium for the 2nd millennium BC and earlier. Prior to 1500, where greater dating accuracy exists, articles should also be placed in the appropriate Establishments by year category." Greenshed (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Executed generals and admirals

[edit]
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:Executed military leaders. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Executed generals and admirals to Category:Executed marshals, generals and admirals
Nominator's rationale: This category contains marshals as well as generals and admirals. Greenshed (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We're looking at renaming a category not changing its purpose. As per its hat note, the Category:Military leaders is intended for those who exerted strategic level military leadership, including those without formal rank. Of course a sergeant who led a military coup could be doing this but his strategic or national-level leadership would be far in excess of his rank. Were the "lucky" sergeant then to be executed, his biographical article might get included in the category under discussion. We could of course create Category:Executed military officers, Category:Executed non-commissioned personnel, etc as subcategories of Category:Executed military personnel if required but that is not what we're here to discuss. Greenshed (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Executed generals and admirals has 92 articles and a subcategory while Executed military personnel has even more. How many articles would be needed to justify having a separate category? Greenshed (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Pro-Assadists

[edit]
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; merge contents to Category:People of the Syrian Civil War. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, non-definitive. Upmerge into parent category:Pro-government factions of the Syrian Civil War - üser:Altenmann >t 03:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's correct that the merge target doesn't fit individual people. A better merge target would then be its other parent Category:People of the Syrian Civil War. This more neutrally-phrased category also fits better with the fact that these people are not necessarily pro-Assad or pro-government – rather, they are fighting on the side of Syrian government because they happen to have common interests with the Assad government (common enemies in particular). 00:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with the last anonymous comment. Though a case could be made that Assad's collaborators are slightly more homogenous in their aims than his various antagonists, "pro-Assadists" clearly is no usable category scope. In this particular case I'm abstaining for now, as a good proposal might still pop up during discussion, but would otherwise propose deletion or upmerge to Category:People of the Syrian Civil War. PanchoS (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Anti-Assadists

[edit]
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; merge contents to Category:People of the Syrian Civil War. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, non-definitive. Upmerge into parent category:Anti-government factions of the Syrian Civil War . - üser:Altenmann >t 03:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, "120 not too much" is a funny reason, and your cited risk of people changing sides is neither a problem for our categorization nor informed by the complexity of a conflict that doesn't follow such a simplistic dichotomy. But in the end, what we can agree on is that these two categories should be upmerged. --PanchoS (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More