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) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Rugby union magazines to Category:Rugby football magazines and Category:Rugby union media
• Propose merging Category:Rugby league publications to Category:Rugby football magazines and Category:Rugby league media

Nominator's rationale: These were tagged by an anon editor without starting a discussion, so I am listing them now. As the first contains only two articles, it seems a good suggestion, and will match others within Category:Rugby football media. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support The categories are tiny and should probably be merged. Dimadick ( talk) 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge but without creating Category:Rugby football magazines: union and league are similar sports with slightly different rules. If there are magazines that cover both, they can go in both categories. We do not need a combined one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Peterkingiron: please explain your alternative proposal, as I don't understand what you would still merge to where. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Further to this, I think that in the real world there is generally no overlap between rugby union publications and rugby league publications. I've never seen a publication that combines them, but I've seen plenty that are dedicated just to one or the other. Combining the topics would be kind of like having a publication that combines coverage of American football and Canadian football—it could conceivably be done, but no one does it. (I'm not opposing the proposed merge—if the categories are small, they can be combined together. I'm just responding to Peterkingiron's comment of "If there are magazines that cover both ...".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 3 June 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.

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Open spandrel bridges to Category:Open-spandrel deck arch bridges

Nominator's rationale: The term "open spandrel bridge" (with or without a hyphen) usually refers to a deck arch bridge that has open spandrels. However, there are spandrels (which can be open spandrels) also in through arch bridges (which are not deck arch bridges), towards the ends where the arch is below the deck. The arch bridge article has not been clear on that; open spandrels have in the past been discussed only in the deck arch bridge section. All of the members of the category are in fact deck arch bridges. The more precise term is preferred. I prefer the hyphenation in "open-spandrel" consistent with usage in the arch bridge article, but hyphenation change is secondary here. Currently the category is given parent Category:Deck arch bridges which is possibly inaccurate now, but would be correct after this proposed rename. do ncr am 22:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support Your reasoning makes sense. The corresponding through arch bridge subcategory could be created at a later date if needed. I don't have an opinion on the hyphen. I think that's heresy at Wikipedia, but so be it. Lucis Aeternae 03:07, 27 May 2016 (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.

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) 07:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Aircraft manufacturing companies of Japan to Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Japan

Nominator's rationale: Redundant and almost empty. PanchoS ( talk) 22:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge Redundant with a similarly named and better populated category. Lucis Aeternae 02:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Merge Clear naming convention of Category:Aircraft manufacturers by country. RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:17, 27 May 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.

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) 07:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:SNCF Network to Category:SNCF

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT; it only has two sub-categories now, after deletion of 5 regional categories per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_18#SNCF_regions. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support This is more cleanup after that earlier nomination. This layer no longer serves a purpose with the current contents. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Support Doesn't serve any purpose. -- PanchoS ( talk) 16:53, 2 June 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.

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. There were arguments for and against, but neither were more based in policy than the other, and support was roughly equally split for and against. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob ^Talk 04:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:India-focused charities to Category:Charities operating in India

Nominator's rationale: "Operating in" is a more objective description than "focused". We need a whole category tree for organisations based in developed countries but operating in undeveloped countries. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Rathfelder: I see what your getting at here and the current name is awkward. I'm afraid this rename would inadvertently expand this category to charities operating in India along with 20 other countries, rather than ones focused specifically on India. Maybe there's a different rename? RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: we don't want to duplicate Category:charities based in India. Maybe "Overseas charities operating principally in India"? Perhaps it would be better to split the members pages between "Charities based in India" and simply Category:Charity in India for those based overseas. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Exactly. I think a distinction between indigenous organisations and foreign ones is significant. Not just for charities. I guess many NGOs need to be in a similar category. I think I'd like to see a distinction between the big international organisations which operate in many countries and the small ones which typically operate in one or two. I've established a few along the lines of Category:Charities operating in Kenya, but I am quite happy to rename them if we can think of better words. I'm also unsure about where to put them in the country's own category. I don't think they can go in Category:Organisations based in Kenya, because the whole point is that they are not based there. Most of these countries don't have any articles about charity (this isn't true of India) but perhaps these articles might sit happily in Category:Kenyan society? Rathfelder ( talk) 22:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• I want to revise my proposal. I want the new category to be called Foreign charities operating in India. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, forgive me for "overseas", which only means the same as "foreign" in an island country – "foreign" is better. Don't you also need "principally"? – Fayenatic L ondon 15:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Honestly I like "focus" better than "operating". Charities do not always physically operate in the country of their focus, they may just collect money and financially support local organizations. Can't we make it Category:Foreign charities focusing on India? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• the articles we have are about charities which are physically present in another country. They are quite distinct from the kind that just sends money. They generally send money to lots of places. I am trying to capture the local connection with the receiving country. There are plenty Category:Charities operating in another country Rathfelder ( talk) 22:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• For example, India Development and Relief Fund seems to leave implementation of their projects to local NGOs. I'd rather leave this article in the category, but then the category scope should be broad enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Rathfelder: You haven't yet addressed the point made above by RevelationDirect, about charities operating in multiple countries. – Fayenatic L ondon 06:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• There is, as commonly, a question about how people will use the categories. I'm interested in having organisations with a significant presence in a country but based somewhere else appear in a category linked to it. I think that is a defining characteristic. There are clearly lots which are based in and raise money in one place and operate in another country - sometimes in a couple. That could mean, of course, that someone would enter Oxfam into 50 such categories. But we already have some categories for international charities where that sits happily. I would say an organisation which only operates in one foreign country doesn't belong in the international category. I've no objection to a category using the idea of focus, but I think that is a different idea. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• There are apparently two completely different discussions here. The other discussion is about whether or not making a distinction between charity funds and charity operations, whereas I doubt if we should really make such a distinction. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• From the point of view of an organisation there is a big difference between an organisation which just collects money for a good cause and one which runs operations. Sometimes they are both functions of the same organisation, but often not. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• But should we also exclude charities collecting money, when it comes to country focus, like here? I would presume it's more useful to collect all charities in one category when it comes to focusing on a particular country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

That depends on the country. There are thousands of charity articles for the USA. In Southern Sudan a handful. I am trying to deal with a very specific problem here - organisations which are based on one country but operate in another. Our categorisation system at present cannot cope with that. Can we fix this relatively small problem first please? The problem of collecting donations and how we categorise articles about that is a separate problem. I haven't come across any articles about organisations which regularly collect money for the benefit of one other country over a long period without having some operational presence in the beneficiary country. Of course that doesn't demonstrate that there aren't any, but I don't think there are a lot. There are plenty of big fundraising charities but they typically fund lots of projects in different countries. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:19, 6 June 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.

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) 02:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Works in the philosophy of history to Category:Works about the philosophy of history

Nominator's rationale: Stefanomione has created a bunch of these "Works in the..." categories, which I think are unique to him, and possibly reflective of the fact that English is not his native tongue. Anyway, the parent categories are Category:Works about history and Category:Works about philosophy, so why can't we use "about" here and make the whole thing less stilted and awkward? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

If this passes we could perhaps speedily rename the siblings in Category:Philosophy of science works. Though if he objects here and this passes, he'd likely object at CFDS too. Anyway, let's consider this a test case. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support "in" is not the right word. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Oppose : In my opinion, the products of the study fields (the works) are not about but in philosophy ...let's consult Google ...
  • • "Works in the philosophy of history" : 240.000 hits
    • "Works on the philosophy of history" : 155.000 hits
    • "Works about the philosophy of history" : 5 hits (!)
    • "Works of the philosophy of history" : 2 hits (!)

In Google Books, we have

• • • "Works in the philosophy of history" : 5970 hits
    • "Works on the philosophy of history" : 1090 hits
    • "Works about the philosophy of history" : 35 hits (!)
    • "Works of the philosophy of history" : 2 hits (!)

Stefanomione ( talk) 21:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Which largely seems to be due to the prevalence of "Bibliography of Works in the Philosophy of History," for some reason, over and over. Anyway, "Works about" and not your preferred "works in" is used throughout Wikipedia. This yet another rabbit hole I don't want us to get dragged down into. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think that the underlying linguistic structure (which we intuitively apply) is based on
    • "a study in" - 89.600.000 Google hits
    • and much less on "a study about" - 485.000 Google hits. Stefanomione ( talk) 22:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• But a great deal of your intuitive applications are faulty. In this case, tossing "study" in affects the results -- we have idioms in English. So you are more like to say a "study in" than "study about." Proves nothing. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think we omit words here. We think -the works present a study in- and we say -the works in-. Maybe, we should wait the opinion of some philosophers of language ... Stefanomione ( talk) 22:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Amused that you needed to change this from "philosophers in language," which you originally wrote, "philosophers of language." Which is another example of how you don't know how to write. Anyway, we need neither. This isn't as complicated as you think, I daresay. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• @ Stefanomione: Like you, I'm not a native English speaker either, and I do think it's for the better when "we" as non-natives refrain from English language discussions. If you are right that "in" is appropriate, I'm sure there will be native English speakers defending that position, while if you remain the only one who is opposing this nomination with pretty bad argumentation (google hit counts), the discussion will be closed as rename anyway. It's useless to spend much effort in this. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • • • • • Hi Marcocapelle. Ironically, a week ago, I deleted myself with {db|author's request} the following categories (which I created that very same day) :
    • Category:Works about the philosophy of history
    • Category:Works about the philosophy of social science
  • Click on them to see the deletion record ... You're right, I spent much time to find the appropiate name for the tree. Should I take the heat for that ? ... I agree, I'll refrain and wait the outcome of this fascinating discussion. Stefanomione ( talk) 11:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Support While several alternative constructions are plausible and the proposed one is perhaps not as ubiquitous as the nominator thinks it is (e.g. see Category:Works by discipline), the original is unquestionably grammatically wrong. Google search results cannot substitute for actual understanding of how the word "in" is used in English. Cobblet ( talk) 09:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. We can have
  • • Category:Books in political philosophy, since 2006, not my creation.
    • Category:Books in philosophy of technology, since 2015, not my creation. Stefanomione ( talk) 09:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Support "In" is not the right preposition here. Google searches results can be very helpful with determining if an underlying subject is notable (when say a poorly sources article is questioned) but using it for grammar guidance is unfounded. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:53, 29 May 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.

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: relisted here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob ^Talk 04:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Cyprus peace process to Category:Cyprus reconciliation process

Nominator's rationale: Not saying the situation in Cyprus was outright "peaceful", it is no longer determined by a violent conflict. The ongoing process is about reconciliation or, more precisely, about the possible reunification of Cyprus. PanchoS ( talk) 10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - frankly i'm neutral, but for others i would like to note that "Cyprus peace process" has 11200 hits on Google, while "Cyprus reconciliation process" has 102 hits on Google.In Google Books (mostly reliable sources) - we have 364 hits for "Cyprus peace process" and none for "Cyprus reconciliation process". By the way, we certainly need an article on this topic, so when this discussion is finished, i shall start one. GreyShark ( dibra) 11:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment As soon as someone creates a stub article on the topic, I'll favor speedily renaming this category to match it. In the mean time, I have no preference and no objection. RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Suggestion: "Cyprus reunification process"? The articles on various plans use this word as the goal. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply

@ PanchoS: @ Greyshark09: @ RevelationDirect: pinging contributors again. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Fayenatic london: I actually started writing an article about the (proposed) Reunification of Cyprus (no, not the currently linked Annan Plan) a few weeks ago. Of course that reunification process is not completed, and it may fail again. But even if there were a full breakdown of the process, it probably won't ever be abandoned as an idea, similar to the Korean reunification, the Unification of Romania and Moldova or the Chinese unification, but different to these in that it isn't (necessarily) based on ethnic nationalism. Actually, this is a slightly different perspective to the reconciliation process that indeed in the literature is usually referred to as "peace process". I'm happy to withdraw my nomination until the dust has settled, but would like to invite you, Greyshark09, RevelationDirect and others to team up with me in writing one or even both articles on this topic. This is no talk forum here, but we might want to use this discussion to come up with a plan how to organize the topic and basically how to proceed from here. -- PanchoS ( talk) 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Oppose nomination, reconciliation isn't quite at stake (yet), so either keep or rename to Category:Cyprus reunification process. Also, I would prefer Category:Cyprus reunification process over Category:Reunification of Cyprus as may have suggested in the later discussion, in order to keep the category focused on concrete steps that are taken towards reunification. Neither Korea nor Romania or China have a reunification category because in their case reunification is for the time being merely a theoretical concept. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 6 June 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.

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Gemena ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a city with just its eponym and an airport to categorize, which makes it a WP:SMALLCAT. Every city does not automatically get one of these just because it exists; a city gets one of these when there's a reasonable volume of related content to file in it. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 06:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Two articles and I don't see any articles to add. Delete it. Lucis Aeternae 01:05, 27 May 2016 (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.

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) 02:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Sociocultural evolution ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, per WP:NONDEF. The term Sociocultural evolution is hardly ever mentioned in the articles in this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• I don't know, it's a defining characteristic of some theories and people, like Talcott Parsons. Some sociological and cultural theories, such as Neoevolutionism, have an evolutionary aspect to them. Should we delete a category because some editors are overeager in applying it? Keep and clean up. Lucis Aeternae 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Everything that is really about sociocultural evolution theory is in the child Category:Sociocultural evolution theory. I'm not sure about putting Neoevolutionism in that category too, since this article says that Neoevolutionism rejects a lot of classical sociocultural evolution theory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• I see your reasoning more clearly now, thanks. I'm new here and assumed subcategories would be deleted, too. But if not, deleting the general category and keeping the theory subcategory sounds fine to me. The examples I have in mind are all theories, not exemplars of actual evolution. Neoevolutionisn isn't classical theory to be sure, but it still has sociocultural and evolutionary components as defining characteristics. I will change my recommendation to supporting deletion. Lucis Aeternae 16:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Per the follow-up clarification that anything about this theory is already in Category:Sociocultural evolution theory. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:42, 29 May 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.

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, merging History of capitalism as nominated and also to Category:Modern economics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

... which was subsequently moved to Category:Modern economic history. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:History of capitalism to Category:History of ideologies, Category:History of business and Category:Capitalism

Nominator's rationale: upmerge the eponymous article to parent categories, then delete category per WP:SMALLCAT. The one economic historian in this category is already in the appropriate Category:Economic historians. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Support "history of capitalism" isn't a defining feature of the historian and merging the main article to the related base categories is best. Lucis Aeternae 02:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- I do not think this belongs in a business history category at all. The main article is already in the ideologies category, but we probably ought to categorise it in Category:Capitalism. The other article does not belong: he is a historian of capitalism, not an aspect of the category at all. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• The content of article History of capitalism is actually more about History of business than about History of ideology. It may be a slightly wrong article title. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Who says capitalism isn't more than an ideology? Mainly, it's the dominant mode of production, so should be a subcategory of Modern economics‎ (which probably should be named "Modern economy"). -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Fair enough to also merge it to Category:Modern economics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:21, 5 June 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.

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. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob ^Talk 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Communist Party of the Soviet Union rank-and-file ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Being a rank-and-file member of a political party is not terribly defining, even if (sometimes especially if) it is the only political party the state allows. The people in this category are all notable for other things; they are not notable because they were CPSU members. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Many of these people were probably either required to join the party based on their career path or it was advantageous to do so. Clicking through these, it doesn't seem defining RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• DElete -- I suspect that people were expected to be a CPSU member to progress above the proletariat. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:26, 28 May 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.