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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 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
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. –
FayenaticLondon20:28, 28 June 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. ~ RobTalk04:33, 7 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
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.
@
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. –
FayenaticLondon11:46, 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. –
FayenaticLondon18:28, 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
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.
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
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
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 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
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.
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 to match the main article. The economy item includes some speculative issues, such as asteroid mining, but (since none has taken place) whether it will be economic is speculative.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:07, 1 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
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.
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 here05:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think the intended meaning of "Historical works" is "Works of historians" (works created by historians in their professional practice). It can be confused not only with "Works about history" (which includes, e.g., first-hand personal accounts of historical events) but also with "Historic works" (works that are well-known or important in history, about any topic, e.g. historic physics articles).
fgnievinski (
talk)
15:13, 1 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 here06:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge or Reverse Merge If we're having trouble splitting hairs here on the slight difference and we're all well spoken in Wikipedia categorization, what hope do editors at the article level have of getting this right? I'm also open to some renaming to make the intended distinction clearer.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
12:32, 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
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
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
Category:Works of art -
Category:Paintings, ... ... ... = artistic works = produced within the rules/logic of the discipline : IN the discipline - artistic in approach.
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
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
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.
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 here04:13, 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
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.
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 here03:59, 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
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.
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 here03:08, 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
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.
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 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
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
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.
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 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.