< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

Category:People who changed their name

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) 05:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic and trivial. I don't really see how this is useful, we could add a lot of articles to this category and it would just become cluttered. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 30 April 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:American history journals

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: split as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous category title, as attested by the American history redirect, which points to history of the United States with a disambiguation hatnote: "not to confused with history of the Americas". fgnievinski (talk) 15:28, 30 April 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:History of the Roman Empire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no current Roman Empire. There is only the historical Roman Empire. It is therefore superfluous to speak of "History of"; every article about the Empire is about its history. See below also. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can merge either way, so of course we can discuss the merits of either of the two names. This however doesn't change a bit about the fact that about everything in the Roman Empire category refers to that former country's history. Of course the same holds for other former countries as well, and in a slightly different way it also holds for current countries. This massive category overlap produces a huge amount of problems, which we have to address either way. Any alternative suggestion that does away with this category overlap situation is welcome. --PanchoS (talk) 08:06, 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.

Category:History of the Roman Empire by period

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. MER-C 12:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no current Roman Empire. There is only the historical Roman Empire. It is therefore superfluous to speak of "History of"; every article about the Empire is about its history. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 30 April 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:Television series by Force Four Entertainment

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: do no merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Entertainment One now owns Force Four, Shows from other eOne companies are in the eOne category but not Force Four, So we are putting 2 categorys under one.47.54.189.22 (talk) 10:49, 30 April 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:All possibly unfree Wikipedia 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. MER-C 12:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since WP:PUF is now closed and this category empty, it can probably be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 30 April 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:Pufc cleanup error

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) 01:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PUF is now closed and this category empty, so it can probably be deleted as unnecessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 30 April 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.

Primary

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, merging the contents as suggested by User:CreativeName1. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Primary historical works
  • Propose deleting Category:Secondary historical works
  • Propose deleting Category:Tertiary historical works
  • Propose deleting Category:Primary philosophical works
  • Propose deleting Category:Secondary philosophical works
  • Propose deleting Category:Tertiary philosophical works
Nominator's rationale: delete as a follow-up of this earlier discussion about "primary sources" etc. The previous discussion had been initiated to discuss "source" but most of the reactions were rather directed against the arbitrary classification of "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary". That same argument may also apply to the categories nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primary historical sources : 466.000.000 hits (!!)
    • Secondary historical sources : 238.000.000 hits
    • Tertiary historical sources : 16.600.000 hits
    • Primary philosophical sources : 52.600.000 hits
    • Secondary philosophical sources : 30.500.000 hits
    • Tertiary philosophical sources : 24.800.000 hits
Stefanomione (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google search results can be a convincing argument if someone is claiming there is no room for growth or that a topic is not notable or is not a recognized term. At least for me, those aren't my concerns here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Primary philosophical works
Category:Secondary philosophical works
Category:Tertiary philosophical works
into Category:Philosophical works, respectively Category:Works about philosophy
and
Category:Secondary historical works
Category:Tertiary historical works
into Category:Historical works, respectively Category:Works about history
CN1 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question here is not whether they are scientific and encyclopaedial terms, the question is whether the terms can be used for objective categorization, without any OR involved, and without dependency on circumstantial use (as Johnpacklambert added). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 10 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.

Years in the Electorate 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: merge/delete/keep as per PanchoS. There is consensus for cleaning up this category tree in some way, but no clear preference for the more significant deleteions proposed by Marcocapelle. Rather than relisting this, an additional nomination can be used if you wish to delete the decades articles as well. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge three categories per WP:SMALLCAT and delete the container categories that become empty after this merge. The amount of categories here is more than the double of the amount of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt upmerge:
  • Support deleting
  • Category:1814 in the Electorate of Hesse
  • Category:1849 in the Electorate of Hesse
  • Category:1851 in the Electorate of Hesse
  • Category:Years of the 19th century in the Electorate of Hesse‎
  • Category:Establishments in the Electorate of Hesse‎ by year
  • Category:Establishments in the Electorate of Hesse‎ by decade
  • Oppose deleting:
  • Additionally propose deleting: Category:19th-century establishments in the Electorate of Hesse‎
Rationale: There should clearly be enough content to categorize by decade, unless further subcategorized by establishments etc. At the same time, the Electorate of Hesse only existed in the 19th century, so there's no point in differentiating by century. --PanchoS (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tim!: No, it has not been ignored. Noone proposed deleting individual subcategories that form part of a a large structure, and I would always oppose this. Instead, the whole large structure is being questioned as producing too many WP:SUBCATs and not being viable at this point. --PanchoS (talk) 07:58, 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.

Category:People mentioned by Herodotus

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 Category:People mentioned by Herodotus, but the overall sense I get is that users want it listified first. It would be great if those users who called for listifying could assist in doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:People mentioned by Herodotus

::* Move Category:Kings of Egypt in Herodotus to Category:Herodotus

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC
Herodotus was a Greek historian who collected large amounts of material from earlier historians and other sources. We don't have his sources so some people in this category, like Spargapises, are known primarily through Herodotus while others, like Darius the Great, are widely attested in ancient sources. {If this passes, I'll nominate the subcategory separately because it requires selective upmerging.) Associating historical figures by their inclusion in a specific history book isn't defining which is why we don't have a "mentioned by" category tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Catalographer as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Biography. – RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query Why is Kings a move and not a delete? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: Herodotus' writings on Egypt blend mythology and history so, rather than a straight delete, some of the individual articles in the subcategory will need to be upmerged to Category:Kings of Egypt in Greek mythology. If this passes, I'll follow up with a more granular nomination for the subcategory. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:50, 30 April 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.
More