Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 16: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:04, 28 October 2015 editLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators768,832 edits →Aramean descent by country: Changing header← Previous edit Revision as of 14:35, 28 October 2015 edit undoPeter Gulutzan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,200 edits Category:Climate Change deniersNext edit →
Line 142: Line 142:
* '''Oppose'''; this debate has already been had, and the current wording was chosen (and for what it's worth, I wasn't actually involved in that discussion). It's a bit silly to want to make a reversion so soon. ] (]) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC) * '''Oppose'''; this debate has already been had, and the current wording was chosen (and for what it's worth, I wasn't actually involved in that discussion). It's a bit silly to want to make a reversion so soon. ] (]) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I'm sick of the POV pushers trying to say skeptic is NPOV. It's not, as it suggests there is reasonable doubt. ] (]) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC) * '''Oppose''' I'm sick of the POV pushers trying to say skeptic is NPOV. It's not, as it suggests there is reasonable doubt. ] (]) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Discuss appropriately''' The talk here is by a small group who apparently watch CFD, but I believe that a larger and more directly impacted group exists: the editors who watch the many affected BLPs. So I intend to bring up the earlier label-all-skeptics-as-deniers decision on WP:BLPN. ] (]) 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


==== Category:Greek Revival buildings in Germany ==== ==== Category:Greek Revival buildings in Germany ====

Revision as of 14:35, 28 October 2015

< October 15 October 17 >

October 16

Category:Aramean Swedish football clubs

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT. In the Swedish football clubs tree, it should be sufficient to categorize these clubs by the overarching Assyrian/Syriac ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the second target -- These ethnicities depend on affiliation to a particular oriental Christian denomination. I am not sure that Arameans are Assyrians. However, it might be possible to devise a wider category that would cover all Middle Eastern Christians. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Cultural works about science

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. Good Ol’factory 00:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge we don't make a distinction here between "works about" and "cultural works about," which is why Category:Cultural works does not exist as a category structure. Indeed, if you look at the category contents, there's no reason why this 2015 category split is needed and it impedes rather than aids navigation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2015 (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.

European people of Aramean descent

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in each category. Assyrian/Syriac is the overarching ethnicity of Arameans. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- This is for members of the Syriac Orthodox Church or Syriac Catholic Church. These are a different church from the Assyrian Orthodox Church to which Assyrians belong. In the Middle East, the Turkish millet system meant that denominations turned into quasi-ethnic groups. It may be that we could devise a tree covering both, but with neither Assyrian nor Syriac in the name. These denominations have been separate since the schisms of the late antique period. We should no more merge these two than we would merge Baptists and Methodists, unless merging them both to Protestants. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Peterkingiron: Since a common Assyrian/Syriac category tree already exists, and since it wouldn't be wrong to merge Arameans to Syriacs (right?), it can't be wrong to merge them to the existing common Assyrian/Syriac tree, right? Basically you're advocating a split of the Assyrian/Syriac tree, but I would rather leave that to another nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The Ottoman millet system meant that what had been mere denominations transmogrified into something close to a nationality. This is complicated and does not easily fit into patterns elsewhere. It is not helpful to use analogies from other fields. Ethnicity in the American melting pot means little: in the old world, it means a lot. If someone can find a NPOV parent for all the non-Orthodox Christian denominations of the East, I will have no problem about merging them. However, the present proposal is the equivalent of saying that Washington is part of California, because it has a Pacific coast. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as Peterkingiron points out but doesn't apparently advocate, these are "religion" categories posing as "ethnic" ones. Delete all as they misdescribe and likely mislabel WP:BLPs and probably cannot be fully verified. I find that ethnicity is a much a social construct as we have seen with the NAACP froofrah in Washington state and various screeds about the ethnicity of the Oregon shooter and have long advocated the deletion of such categories here. I am also now inclined to view the religion ones as both a social construct and temporary categories - as in most places, one is free to changes one's religion and many notables have done so - and secondly, we have the problem (which also occurs in part in the ethnicity category where what percentage counts or do we have a one-drop rule?) of saying someone is Roman Catholic, or Jewish, or Muslim, does that imply they believe and act upon the whole teaching of said religion. Then do Category:Re-married Roman Catholics, Category:Jews who eat pork, Category:Muslims who earn interest on their investments notable exceptions such that we ought be categorizing these apostates? No. We should just delete these as arbitrary and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Aramean nationalists

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 00:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: only one article in these categories, and it seems to be a bit over the top to classify this person as a nationalist anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2015 (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:Aramean descent by country

Nominator's rationale: people in these categories aren't descending, they simply are of Aramean ethnicity. Possibly, in order to avoid confusion about nationality versus country living in, we might also rename the parents to e.g. Category:Israeli Arameans but I haven't nominated these categories yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Aramean people

Nominator's rationale: the category does not contain the ancient Aramean people (these are in Category:Arameans) but instead it contains a relatively modern branch of Syriac people who identify with Aramean. Aramean identity is a redirect to Aramean flag and I couldn't find any full articles to discuss this any further, so it's a pretty obscure topic. Anyway I think that the name of the redirect better reflects the category content than the current name (since the current category name suggests it is about the ancient people). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I found Arameans, which says that they are members of the Syriac Orthodox or Catholic Churches. Ancient Arameans (the people of the kingdom translated as Syria in KIng James Version) are in another category. We have just had discussions on Berbers, Arabs and Slavs. I would suggest that we close this to match. My preference would be Category:Arameans. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion that I was thinking of is Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17&action=edit&section=18, not a previous one, but I dealt with it first. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Peterkingiron: you probably mean the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17#Category:Indo-European. As for Category:Arameans, that is currently used for the ancient Arameans, so what would you do with that? It is Aramean identity that refers to modern Orthodox/Catholic. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I would refer to my detailed comments in a CFD discussion above. Category:Arameans probably needs to be renamed to Category:Ancient Arameans. Aramaic was a western Semitic language. It was the common language of Judea and Galilee in the time of Jesus, and is still used in certain eastern churches. Aramean is the equivalent demonym. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This category rename has taken place within a day, by an editor who didn't join this discussion. Procedurally, I'd rather have preferred renaming the two involved articles to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Analysts of Kashmir conflict

Nominator's rationale: I think we need a "the" in the title. But I'm bringing it here rather than WP:CFDS in case anyone has any other ideas about this category; it seems oddly specific to me. Good Ol’factory 08:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Berber groups

Nominator's rationale: "groups" is too vague, especially considering there is already a Category:Berber tribes. Possibly move (some of the) content to Category:Berber people. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Climate Change deniers

  • Rename Category:Climate change deniers to Category:Climate change skeptics
  • Nominators rationale To begin with the supporters of the rename accepted A-that is was not NPOV, that is pushed a particular point of view (that man-made climate change exists, and that those who are skeptical; about it are wrong), B- one of the supporters said of those who do not accept man-made climate change "they deserve to be riddiculed". This is not the type of appraoch we should take in the encyclopedia. The current name is deliberately chosen to delegitimatize and stigmatize those who do not accept man-made climate change. This is a Point-of-view pushing name, brought about by people who admitted they were pushing a point of view. It should be changed back to a more neutral name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The move discussion just closed two days ago with very clear consensus. I don't see how rerunning the same CfD is a benefit to anyone. And speaking as someone who didn't participate in that discussion, the move was entirely justified; we have a wide variety of academic sources which say "climate change skeptic" is a misleading label applied for political reasons with the express intention of being misunderstood. Many of these sources, including Dunlap, Mann, and the NCSE, identify "climate change denial" as the correct term, which is an idea largely supported by the academic community. We should not use an intentionally misleading term over the one favored by respected academics.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The political power is on the side of those pushing climate change as an excuse to expand government power and repress freedom. "Academic" in this case is code for bought and paid for by the establishment and trying to delegitimatize those who do not accept it. Those quoted are clearly engaged in Point-of-view pushing and should not be looked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This is tinfoil hat stuff. Utter bullshit. AusLondonder (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Based on current public policies, I think climate skeptics/deniers/critics are clearly a dominant minority in the political sphere. In academia and here though, that is obviously not the case. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Eh? The statement was "political power is on the side of those pushing climate change as an excuse to expand government power and repress freedom". I know several climate scientists, they have different political views, the idea that climate change is some vast liberal conspiracy to take away our guns freedom is, as noted, pure tinfoil hattery, out of precisely the same playbook that says evolution is a pseudoscience pushed by liberals who want to push an atheist agenda. There are right-wing politicians who accept climate change, just as there are Christians who accept evolution. The fallacy is to assume that because the problem appears to require action that you find distasteful, thus the problem is an invention of those whose politics you dislike. Which is, self-evidently, bollocks. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (closer of previous discussion). Yes, with Jess, I'm not sure how productive it is to open this issue again so soon after the close of the recent discussion, which resulted in a pretty strong consensus. This appears not to be an issue with which WP:DRV is designed to deal with, though. Given the context and to avoid any appearance or accusation of bias, I'm choosing not to administratively close this discussion early, though I think it might be justified. I have notified the participants of the previous discussion that the issue has been re-opened. Good Ol’factory 05:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah, so "yes, with Jess" means you clearly are non-neutral and should not have supported the close. Do you also think that those of us who are not freedom selling lemmings should be mocked?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
      • As I think my comment makes clear, I am "with Jess" specifically in his opinion that "I'm not sure how productive it is to open this issue again so soon after the close of the previous discussion". I think you should tone down your rhetoric, assume good faith, and chill. Having commented here, I'm not going to be closing this second discussion, even though, as I stated, I think it would have been justified. I did not close it to avoid accusations of bias, but I guess some users will see bias if they have decided they want to. Good Ol’factory 06:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Why should I assume good faith when someone said of those with differening opinions that "they deserve to be mocked" and was called out by exactly no one for such attacks?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Those were not my words. You should assume good faith of everyone and not tar all users—participants, administrative closer, etc.—with the negative connotations of a comment made by one user. In refusing to do so, you're doing exactly what you're pointing out as being a problem with others. Beam, mote; pot, kettle; etc. Good Ol’factory 06:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
            • You continue to ignore that those words were allowed to stand with no one objecting to their existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
              • What the hell do you want me to do about it? No one objected to the comment, and frankly, it didn't seem that important in the discussion. For me to have called the user out about it in the close would have seemed paternalistic and excessive, especially since it hadn't caused any disruption in the discussion. I think it would be better if you just write it off as a user's personal opinion, and move on. No one is actively mocking you or anyone else. Good Ol’factory 06:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
                • The whole name of this category is predicated on an attempt to deligitimatize the views of those who do not agree. It is at its heart a mocking name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • That didn't answer my question of what you want me to do. If your central complaint is that the new name of the category is NPOV, then you need to gain a consensus for that view. I can't override a consensus decision merely because one user said that those who disagree with him should be mocked. Good Ol’factory 07:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • The other editor who expressed disrespect for the group in that earlier discussion, also expressed reservations that this new name may violate NPOV. Therefore there was no harm from your perspective from any potential bias. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jess and Good Olfactory, the consensus was clear last discussion, and the consensus that man-made climate change is happening is clear, and the consensus that the word 'skeptic' is just 'denier' in disguise and not NPOV when used in debates on climate change is also clear. The consensus amongst those who actually practice scientific skepticism is also that man-made climate change is happening, so the label is nothing but misleading. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Even if your points were right, which they are not, you ignore common name. The common name is clearly Climate change skeptic, despite the best attempts of shills working against the truth to redefine the used terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the one who made that initial comment, I would like to point out that I did explicitly mention a preference for a less pointy name for NPOV, and the comment in question was an aside tacked on, entirely based on personal view. The nom posted a non-AGF thread on my talk page about this, which I promptly obliterated. That said, there was a full discussion with a very clear result, and this nomination is just making a point because one person who didn't even participate disagrees with the result. —⁠烏⁠Γ , 06:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • You are a bigot who should be banned from Misplaced Pages. When someone clearly shows no good faith by saying certain people deseve to be mocked, saying a comment was not in assuming good faith is untrue. The previous discussion was closed extremely fast by category discussion standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
      • From WP:CFD: "Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised." The nomination had been open for more than seven days, and a clear consensus had been reached, so I closed the discussion. When discussions struggle to reach a consensus, they may stay open for longer. Good Ol’factory 08:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
      • User:Johnpacklambert, how about you read WP:NPA before you call someone a bigot (whilst simultaneously being a bigot yourself and calling for others to be "banned" AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Stop needlessly making enemies. You don't deserve any further response from me. —⁠烏⁠Γ , 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Yikes! I was sympathetic to your concern that the comment was flippant (see above) but suggesting a very constructive editor in the category space be banned is ridiculous. Lets tone the rhetoric down on both sides. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have an accompanying article, Climate change denial. — Cirt (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment An actual perusal of the articles involved shows the subjects in many cases either described as "climate change skeptics" or expressing a view that there needs to be more skepticism in the study of the issue without expressing a view on the matter, this is especially true of the scientist sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose, it's way too early to rediscuss the name of a category so soon after the closure of the previous discussion. Let's do that again in 2018 or so. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose CFD closed two days ago! Are you aware of this User:johnpacklambert? Also, I question whether the nom is engaging in a right-wing political war. His above comments "those pushing climate change as an excuse to expand government power and repress freedom. "Academic" in this case is code for bought and paid for by the establishment and trying to delegitimatise (sic) those who do not accept it" are seriously concerning. They are advancing a ludicrous fringe theory. In addition, the user has expressed opposition to marriage equality, another culture war of the right AusLondonder (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, the proposed cat would use American English rather than the currently neutral title. I generally think it's better to use neutral titles where possible. It's easy to forget that most English speaking people don't use American spelling. (Australia, Jamaica, India, United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta, South Africa, New Zealand and many Caribbean nations and to some extent Canada, Nigeria and Pakistan) AusLondonder (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: Is the Canadian category, Category:Canadian skeptics, correctly named? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
User:RevelationDirect, as I understand "skeptic" is usually preferred in Canada. However, I will nominate the Indian skeptics cat for speedy renaming to sceptics.
Actually, no it is not, it gives false equivalence to wilful denial, with a well documented political and commercial agenda, and solid science. Denier is more correct than skeptic, there may be a term that is more correct than denier, but skeptic is not it. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment When the category is called "deniers", people like Jan Veizer who accept that CO2 has an effect must be excluded from the category. The same goes for people who say the consequences of global warming for their region will be beneficial. You can't redefine words like "denier" to include people who don't deny human anthropogenic climate change. Fine if people choose a word because of its connotations, as long as they also accept the meaning of that word. (although it may not make much difference, from the 16 scientists I've checked in that category, 15 would arguably fit the "denier" description) Ssscienccce (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am open to some other name, as per the AP style guide, but this is pseudoskepticism and must not be legitimised per WP:FRINGE, and also again per the AP style guide. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; this debate has already been had, and the current wording was chosen (and for what it's worth, I wasn't actually involved in that discussion). It's a bit silly to want to make a reversion so soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sick of the POV pushers trying to say skeptic is NPOV. It's not, as it suggests there is reasonable doubt. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Discuss appropriately The talk here is by a small group who apparently watch CFD, but I believe that a larger and more directly impacted group exists: the editors who watch the many affected BLPs. So I intend to bring up the earlier label-all-skeptics-as-deniers decision on WP:BLPN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Greek Revival buildings in Germany

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 00:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: See the first discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 30, where lots of "GR buildings in PLACE" categories were renamed/merged to "GR architecture in PLACE" categories. All the other members of Category:German architectural styles are "STYLE architecture in Germany", the other three countries with GR categories are simply "GR architecture in PLACE", and I don't immediately remember seeing "STYLE buildings in PLACE" categories for any other style or any other country. As far as I know, we always use "STYLE architecture in PLACE", and any exceptions are probably holdouts that ought to be brought to CFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2015 (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:Misplaced Pages articles incorporating text from the Naval Historical Center

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 00:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per the justification for hidden categories located here
The Naval History & Heritage Command, formerly the Naval Historical Center, is a great resource for US Naval history. The corresponding template helps speed up citations for the NHHC which is all well and good, but it also automatically generates this hidden maintenance category. The justification for this category is that "it is used for maintenance of the Misplaced Pages project" but not a single WikiProject claims this category on the talk page. More generally, I'm also unclear how a citation from a particular source really "groups articles by status", the goal of all hidden categories.
(Alternatively, if kept, it should be renamed to Category:Misplaced Pages articles incorporating text from the Naval History & Heritage Command; the template citations are already updated.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: Notified G716 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Category talk:Misplaced Pages templates. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2015 (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:Traditions and history of the United States Navy

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 00:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: To avoid the appearance of WP:OVERLAPCAT and the spirit of WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree.
This category name sounds like it is covering US Naval history but it's not; that role is played by the Category:History of the United States Navy tree. There is an emerging naming convention with the parent category, Category:Military traditions, and the sister categories: Category:United States Army traditions and Category:Royal Navy traditions. (That tree's naming is hardly unanimous though--see the Marine Corps category--so I don't think it qualifies for a speedy rename.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: The original creator is lost in the article history but this discussion has been included in WikiProject United States. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2015 (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:People of the August Putch opposition

Nominator's rationale: This category is awkwardly worded, but I think my proposal is faithful to what is intended. The parent category and article are Category:1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt/1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt. ("Putch" is a rough transliteration of the word that is typically used in Russian for coup d'état; the usual spelling in English is "putsch".) Good Ol’factory 00:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 16: Difference between revisions Add topic