Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 1



Category:WPMIT reviewed possibly unfree media

 * 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, Possibly unfree files has been discontinued. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wpmit reviewed possibly unfree media


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:PUF is now closed and this category is empty. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedia possibly unfree files


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Procedural Note 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  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)
 * Comment. The category was created just minutes ago and the creator is simply tagging writers whose ideas they disagree with, without regard to BLP or RS requirements. This needs to go ASAP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- It would seem that the speedy has been successful: close? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection to closure from me.--Nowa (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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., or to  which ought rather to have been nominated as well for deletion. In contrast,  could helpfully have been specified as a merge target in the nomination, as this had support from some participants.  – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose upmerging:
 * Category:1807 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse to Category:1807 in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, Category:1800s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and all other parent categories
 * Category:1832 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse to Category:1832 in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, Category:1830s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and all other parent categories
 * Category:1840 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse to Category:1840 in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, Category:1840s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and all other parent categories
 * Category:1843 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse to Category:1843 in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, Category:1840s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and all other parent categories
 * Category:1852 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse to Category:1852 in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, Category:1850s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and all other parent categories
 * Category:1869 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse to Category:1869 in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, Category:1860s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and all other parent categories


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Fair enough to go one step further with merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and also upmerge to . 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)
 * In addition, the Grand Duchy of Hesse was a member of the German Confederation from 1815 to 1866 and part of the Second German Empire from 1871 to 1918. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. No prejudice against renomination from any editor. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Agreements by year to Category:Agreements by decade
 * Propose upmerging:
 * Category:2010 agreements to Category:2010s agreements, Category:2010 documents, Category:2010 in law and Category:2010 in international relations
 * Category:2011 agreements to Category:2010s agreements, Category:2011 documents, Category:2011 in law and Category:2011 in international relations
 * Category:2012 agreements to Category:2010s agreements, Category:2012 documents, Category:2012 in law and Category:2012 in international relations
 * Category:2013 agreements to Category:2010s agreements, Category:2013 documents, Category:2013 in law and Category:2013 in international relations
 * 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)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If these are properly recategorized, our 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)
 * I have to admit my CfD nomination was misguided. After properly including the  subcategories, the previous  scheme actually did make sense. Sorry everybody… :/ --PanchoS (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get it yet. What is wrong with Category:2010s agreements as is? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : are these annual categories within Category:Agreements by year really helpful for navigation? Are there more pages that can be added, or just the annual sub-cats for treaties? – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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".
 * 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  L ondon 11:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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. if you would withdraw your support, we could close this nomination as withdrawn. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Postal history of Mandatory Palestine. MER-C 12:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Postal history of Palestine to Category:Philately of Mandatory Palestine
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Fair enough, let's keep "postal history" in the name. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Don't think so, they are really different states. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alt Rename per Pancho and Jack. Ninefive6 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt rename per Pancho and Jack.GreyShark (dibra) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people associated with the uzh neuroeconomics-university of zurich


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Space economy to Category:Space industry. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Space industry to Category:Space economy
 * 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)


 * Comment space industry is an article, while space economy is not an article -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Space industry is also a category. Christopher Overbeck (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Reverse merge per the fact that space industry is defined and referenced, but space economy is just a redirect, and hence as of now, not defined. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * rename Category:Space economy to Category:Space-based economy to match actual main article. This is a bit of a mess because "space industry" seems to be really "spaceflight industry" and perhaps this whole thing needs further discussion, but I do see a split between the categories. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Article Space-based economy wasn't in the category yet, I just added it, so it was not the main article either. However, space-based economy is quite a different topic, and I think your proposal should actually translate as split Category:Space economy to Category:Space-based economy and Category:Space industry. That would be another nomination though, because currently Category:Space economy hasn't been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * reverse merge per subsequent discussion. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)\


 * Reverse merge per main article Space industry. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Reverse Merge To blindly follow the main article name. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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.


 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Historical works to Category:Works about history
 * 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 (Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_30) 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&#124; reply here 04:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, the two categories obviously have the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Both. They DON'T have the same scope. Consider :
 * Category:Pornographic works = GENRE
 * Category:Works about pornography = TOPIC / DISCIPLINE
 * 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)
 * Then how would you define the difference between Category:Historical works and Category:Works about history? Category:History books is now in Category:Historical works, why wouldn't it be in Category:Works about history? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Historical works : works OF history = GENRE
 * Category:Works about history : works ABOUT history = TOPIC / DISCIPLINE. Stefanomione (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True, and would belong into  rather than into, while  belongs into the the latter. But the messed up state of the categories is of subordinate relevance, if the concepts can be clearly distinguished. I'm not sure though the difference is relevant enough to break the category scheme in two. Do you? --PanchoS (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Another question, since a proper definition of Historical works is still lacking (just genre is not clear enough), what else would fit in Category:Historical works except ? Or would the latter two categories coincide? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All works that belong to our Category:Cultural heritage : testimonies, memoirs, diaries,  speeches, ... See the actual content of the category. Stefanomione (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to look at the actual contents because that does not indicate whether the contents belongs in the category or not. So basically you're saying then: Category:Historical works = Category:Cultural heritage? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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&#124; reply here 05:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Historical works = objects of study, works about history = the studies written by historians. Stefanomione (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment. I find many members of Category:Works by genre similarly confusing, e.g., Category:Religious works, Category:Scientific works, Category:Political works. I admit there is a difference with Category:Works about religion, Category:Works about science, Category:Works about politics, but the current wording is so terse it begs confusion. Maybe this would work: Category:Religious-practice works, Category:Scientific-practice works, Category:Political-practice works; or Category:Religious-purpose works, Category:Scientific-purpose works, Category:Political-purpose works. fgnievinski (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't sound any clearer to me. Keeping the discussion limited to history, I think we're fine with having Category:Works about history, Category:Historical fiction and Category:Cultural heritage, we don't need anything additionally like Category:Historical works. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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&#124; reply here 06:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Comment Categories with a completely different content, not a hairsplitting discussion. If it were so, why not merge Category:Pornographic works and Category:Works about pornography, Category:Political works and Category:Works about politics, thus more broadly, merging Category:Works by genre and Category:Works about art genres OR merging Category:Works by discipline and Category:Works about disciplines? Stefanomione (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree here with User:fgnievinski in that having both Category:Political works and Category:Works about politics is equally confusing. Having a separate Category:Pornographic works may be less confusing insofar these works portray pornography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But then, Category:Works about politics portray the world of politics, with for exemple Category:Works about politicians, which are certainly not political works. Maybe we should consider renaming to Category:Works about politics as a discipline, Category:Works about history as a discipline, Category:Works about pornography as a genre, ... Stefanomione (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Comment Consider Category:Military works + Category:Works about the military ... Merge ? Stefanomione (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Stefanomione is a prodigious category creator who I don't find to be terribly clear in his logic, but will fight to the end for his idiosyncratic structures. If Category:Military works + Category:Works about the military is to be taken as an analogy, then Category:Historical works would in this case be works that have been produced by history, which is doesn't quite make sense. Take a look at what's in Category:Historical works: it's a typical hodgepodge by the category creator of things such as Category:Political charters‎, Category:Sources‎, Category:Speeches‎, etc, all of which have been judged by him to somehow be "historical." Support: merge and prune Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Fgnievinski, be careful what you wish for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Consider Category:Literature + Category:Works about literature ... Merge ? The first term referring to human (cultural) expressions, the second to works about the human (cultural) expressions. In that respect, no special cases, as mentioned above: Category:Pornographic works = human expressions + Category:Works about pornography = works about the human (cultural) expressions. Stefanomione (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's first finish the discussion about history before getting to WP:OSE. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * Comment.
 * Category:Historical works : Category:Fascist works + Category:Imperialist works + Category:Nazi works, ... ...
 * Category:Works about history : Category:Works about fascism + Category:Works about imperialism + Category:Works about Nazism, ... ...
 * Nope. The latter category makes sense. The former, in this example, seems to be Category:Works by ideology. Try again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Category:Works of art - Category:Paintings, ... ... ... = artistic works = produced within the rules/logic of the discipline : IN the discipline - artistic in approach.
 * Category:Works about the arts - Category:Works about painting, ... ... ... = Category:Works about disciplines : ABOUT the discipline - not artistic in approach, but historical, philosophical, epistemiological, ideological, social, filmish, novelistic, journalistic, ... 
 * Analogically :
 * Category:Economic works = economic in genre/approach - produced within the rules/logic of the discipline : IN the discipline.
 * Category:Works about economics, = Category:Works about disciplines : ABOUT the discipline - not economic in approach, but historical, philosophical, ideological, epistemiological, social, filmish, novelistic, journalistic, ... . Stefanomione (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * A historical work = influencing, making history, produced in a historical context: Category:Holocaust historical documents, Mein Kampf, Category:Diplomatic correspondence, The Reagan Diaries, .... ....
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Historical revisionism (negationism). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting historical deletion


 * 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. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Question to nominator, why should this deleted, instead of downmerged to Category:Historical revisionism (negationism)? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably used the wrong wiki-lingo here. Downmerge is totally acceptable, and probably preferable here. It will still mean that the category will be deleted after merger so (terminology headache). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Historical revisionism (negationism), which has a main article. It may be that the actions of ISIL are slightly different in character, but are not all that different.  Plain deletion should not be an option.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical controversies
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 . This is without prejudice to a future creation of Category:Historiographic controversies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting historical controversies


 * 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). 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. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Controversies, nominator is right that all controversies are (or will become) historical, so a historical subcat does not add anything, but we should keep the content in the controversies tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Controversies per . --PanchoS (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose both suggestions. The target is largely a container with a lot of subcategories by subject.  Category:Controversies about history might be an appropriate rename target.  We have a separate discussion on historical deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, the problem with Category:Controversies about history is that as time passes, they become more and more about history. Consider Holocaust_denial: the denial started during the war. At the very beginning, it wasn't a controversy about history. It became so later, but this is true for many others. Kennedy's assassination? Occurred in the past, so people who speculate on whodunnit are talking about history... ditto for more or less anything else that is not ongoing. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If renamed, then to Category:Historiographic controversies, for more clarity and a narrower scope. However, most articles in the nominated category won't belong in it, they are just controversial historical events. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Controversies since all controversies become "history" eventually. No objection to independently creating a Category:Historiographic controversies to house some of the categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historic document collections
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose merging Category:Historic document collections to Category:Archives
 * 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, 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. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting historical documents


 * 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). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Merge per PanchoS. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I am fine with merging, the word deletion I used was probably an ill-choice for what I really meant. The technicality of deletion/merging for categories confused me somewhat. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional telecom protocols
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)
 * Propose deleting fictional telecom protocols


 * 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)


 * Delete per nom. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.