Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22

Category:Personality of Adolf Hitler

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A Stefanomione offshoot category that doesn't correspond to any existing structure; we have no "Personality of..." category tree, and I don't see how it corresponds to any need. And since when are people distinct from their "personalities"? Upmerge Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • merge all. No useful distinction can be made between a work about adolf and a work about his personality, as any that covers A will cover B as well, and I don't think a subcat is useful here.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge unneeded, overly specific category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. I honestly thought we'd banned Stefanomione, it's been that long since I've encountered his nonsense. Bearcat ( talk) 04:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
    • He was blocked from using automated category creation tools for a while, I know that. He's easily Wikipedia's most prolific category creator, from what I can see -- this is literally all he does here, across several language versions of Wikipedia, from what I understand. Most of his creations don't seem to be problematic. Occasionally, he'll still seize upon a rather bad idea. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge them all into Category: Adolf Hitler. Un-needed verbiage to say the least. Kierzek ( talk) 14:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom -- We certainly do not need a separate personality tree. There is ample material to a number of categories, though I think the tree might usefully be pruned, by merging two film sub-cats and hisotry books and biographies inot books about ... Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all (as creator): Hitler as historical / military figure should be dissociated from the psychiatric-style case studies about him. The same potential in the Stalin and Mao articles. See the works by Harold Lasswell that initiated a new discipline (psychopolitics) : 'Power and Personality', 'Psychopathology and Politics', ... Stefanomione ( talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply
    • You may see "potential," but if this CfD is closed as merge, please respect consensus do not create any more categories of this kind for Stalin, Mao or anyone else, okay? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:26, 28 April 2014 (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:Mayors of Parsons, West Virginia

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: upmerge technically, but really just delete, as the only member was already in both relevant categories. -- BDD ( talk) 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT violation as a category with only a single entry. Since it's a small town (current pop 1,485), its mayors aren't generally likely to pass WP:POLITICIAN in most cases — even the single entry has an article because he also served as governor of the state, and not because of the mayoralty itself — so there's no realistic prospect of expansion. No prejudice against future recreation if and when we ever actually have enough articles about other mayors of Parsons to support a category, but in the meantime this should be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in West Virginia. Bearcat ( talk) 21:44, 22 April 2014 (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:Pseudoegyptology

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 and upmerge where appropriate to Category:Pseudoarchaeology or Category:Egyptology or both. There is clear consensus that the category as named is not valid, though were the name to become an established term of art in future, there would be no purely nominal bar to re-creation. Some of the included items are in one or both of these categories already, and the category is small, so the process should not be too onerous. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC).
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant. Main article does not exist except as a redirect to Egyptology, where the term is not even mentioned. The term is problematic and may be OR. See Talk:Egyptology#Pseudoegyptology. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, for the same reasons I gave in that discussion. The title is probably original research, and there hasn't been enough outside study of these fringe views to say what does and doesn't fit into the category. Therefore, we can't put articles in it without further OR. A. Parrot ( talk) 02:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A term that lacks RS support. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Category:Pseudo-Egyptology or failing that, upmerge to Category:Pseudoarchaeology If we really feel that we cannot have a subcat for bogus Egyptology, then upmerge is necessary. However, I note that "pseudo-Egyptology" gets significant book hits, and that there used to be a paragraph in the main Egyptology until someone deleted it. The thing obviously exists, and the material categorized as such is plainly categorized correctly. Mangoe ( talk) 12:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment Not all of so-called pseudoegyptological speculation is within the realm of (bogus) archaeology, see Book of Sothis. Egyptology is far more than archaeology, and so is its bogus counterpart. There are no good sources for Pseudoegyptology, apparently, that's why we don't have an article on it, nor even a subsection. That the thing " obviously exists" is, unfortunately, irrelevant for Wikipedia. Hey, I haven't made the rules. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 14:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment I agree with Florian, except it's not that there are no good sources. There are very few—so few that there's no agreement on what to even call this subject matter. The best ones I have are The Secret Lore of Egypt by Erik Hornung; Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, edited by Wouter Hanegraaff; and "Alternative Egypts" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, in Consuming Ancient Egypt, edited by Sally MacDonald and Michael Rice. Hornung is an Egyptologist, and Hanegraaff's book is one of the best sources available in the very new academic field of esoteric studies, but both their treatments are rather cursory (Hornung's is a whirlwind tour of the subject that is short on deep analysis, and ancient Egypt appears frequently in Hanegraaff's book but is not covered in great depth). Picknett and Prince are themselves conspiracy theorists who believe that fringe Egyptology is part of some greater manipulation by the US government, or aliens, or evil spirits. They don't say that in the source I have, which is actually pretty levelheaded; they may not have wanted to go off on a conspiracist tangent in a university press book. But that should tell you how scarce actual study of this subject is.
Hornung calls this subject "Egyptosophy". Picknett and Prince call it "alternative Egyptology". The esoteric dictionary has no single term for, except "Egyptophilia" and " Egyptomany", which are really terms with broader meanings. How can we name this category without committing original research, when the terms for the subject seem to have been invented by different authors over the past 15 years, and none has been widely used? As for a merge, everything that's in the category now could fit in the pseudoarchaeology category, except the Book of Sothis. The book is, I believe, part of the esoteric-Egypt tradition that has been the main fuel for this modern fringe Egyptology, but it is not itself archaeological. A. Parrot ( talk) 18:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Those sources are at least more than nothing. Not enough for an article, but perhaps a subsection is feasible. It should be possible to come up with some neutral, non-OR description, such as "Speculation about Egypt outside academia". -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, but frankly I don't have much time for it. My writing process is sluggish, and between real-life obligations and my never-ending struggles with an off-wiki draft to rewrite Isis, I don't think I'd be able to write such a section anytime soon. If somebody else were to attempt it, I could help. A. Parrot ( talk) 22:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WEak keep -- An obvious answer would be to merge this with Egyptology, but I am reluctant to mix FRINGE theories with a branch of serious archaeology. We have enough content for a category, so that merger with Category:Pseudoarchaeology is unattractive to me, but is certainly better than plain deletion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No parent article. No mention in the antonymous parent article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:26, 20 June 2014 (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:Philatelic 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: No consensus Opinion broadly supports a rename, but is divided on the target. There seems come confusion over the distinction, if any, between "periodical", "magazine" and "journal", and no clear reasoning, except perhaps by example to support one name over another. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC).
Nominator's rationale: Not a single one of the journals in this category actually seems to be an academic journal, so "Philatelic magazines" would seem to be the appropriate title for it. Randykitty ( talk) 18:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose. There is no reason why the word journal cannot be used for non-academic publications. I chose it deliberately because it was more inclusive than the word magazine in order to encompass a variety of different publications from hobbyist magazines through to high-brow historical works like The London Philatelist, published since 1892. Philafrenzy ( talk) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment We have two well-developed category trees, carefully separating peer-reviewed academic journals from magazines. In the "magazines tree", we have categories for science magazines, hobby magazines, and whatnot. We also have a category for Professional and trade magazines, which sometimes are a little bit in-between. In the "academic journals" tree we have categories fo all kinds of scientific, medical, social sciences, and humanities journals. This separation has been in place since many years and the philatelic journals category is not connected to the rest of the journals tree, nor should it: Most of the entries in the category as it currently stands are not even listed in JournalSeek (a very complete index of all academic journals around the world) and even less so in respected indexes like Thomson Reuters databases. I also note that the current list of philatelic periodicals is called List of philatelic magazines. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Those are good examples. Note that despite their names, TWSJ is called a "newspaper" in the lead and categorized as such and that the Linuc Journal is called a "magazine" in the lead and, again, classified as such. I therefore see no problem at all in calling these philatelic periodicals "magazines". The editor who created this article also objects to Fakes Forgeries Experts being called a trade magazine, although in an edit summary they say it is intended for "dealers and collectors", which amounts to basically the very definition of a trade magazine, me thinks... -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • None of those in the category are trade magazines, either in my view or as defined in that article as none of them is aimed mainly at those operating a trade or profession, or restricted to those that are. There are professional dealers, expertisers, auctioneers etc in the philatelic world who are part of the audience for these publications, but the main audience is of collectors. It's similar to art and coin collecting where there are professionals ancillary to the collecting/study aspects of the area, but for every professional there must be 100 amateurs or the professionals couldn't exist. I agree that "Philatelic periodicals" is a good alternative since the word "journal" seems so contentious. As for FFE, there is no reason not to use the word "journal" in the article text, it is a normal English word with an easily understood meaning. I don't believe WP Academic Journals or anyone else should be making a land-grab to control the use of everyday words. Philafrenzy ( talk) 22:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, I think I see what you mean. Trade magazines are for merchants and their customers. The periodicals in this category are for "professional dealers, expertisers, auctioneers etc" and the main audience are collectors (i.e. their clients). That is indeed very different... So we should not mislead our audience by linking FFE (which apparently caters to the audience mentioned before to help them identify forgeries so that they don't buy collect fakes) to trade magazine... -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The only true trade magazine, i.e. one targeted solely at practitioners of a profession or trade, in this area is The Philatelic Exporter as far as I am aware. Indeed its home page states "*** Philatelic Exporter is only available to members of the stamp trade ***". The audience for all the others in the category is mainly collectors with some professional readers too. FFE probably has more professionals than any of the others, and The London Philatelist probably comes closest to an academic journal, though not peer reviewed, by aiming to publish original historical research. There is considerable blurring in this area between collector and dealer and amateur and professional with almost all participants constantly buying and selling material. In any case, I am happy with "Philatelic periodicals". Philafrenzy ( talk) 14:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Philatelic periodicals, scope is broad enough, but doesn't have the "Journal" title which is, at least here, generally reserved for peer reviewed stuff.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 22:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Philatelic periodicals per OWK ; trade-magazines/trade-journals should perhaps be transitioned to "periodicals", as a divide between magazines and scholarly journals. -- 70.24.250.192 ( talk) 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Question Did anybody have a look at Periodicals? If you did, where do you think that a hypothetical category "Philately periodicals" should be categorized? Note that there is not a single "periodicals" category for a specific theme: all periodicals are categorized as either newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and a few miscellaneous cats. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Philatelic periodicals. In answer to Randykitty's question, this cat should replace Category:Philatelic journals under Category:Philatelic literature. I don't see Periodicals as relevant here; there are few enough entries in Category:Philatelic journals that splitting it into newspapers, magazines, trade magazines, and journals categories would result in some sparse or empty cats. I'll note that Linn's Stamp News is a newspaper, not a magazine. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Mark, I was not proposing to split up that cat. But no cat should stand alone, so a hypothetical cat "philatelic periodicals" would need itself to be categorized somewhere in the "periodicals" tree, and I don't see where one could put it... -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Why can't it go directly under Periodicals like Audio periodicals and Periodicals about writers? Philafrenzy ( talk) 08:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand what you mean, I am not looking for a category split but just a simple rename. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Was a strong consensus ever reached that the word "journal" could not be used in categories for non-academic publications? I agree it is largely synonymous with periodical but I don't believe there should be an outright ban on the use of journal outside of an academic context. It's a normal English word that people understand includes both academic and non-academic publications. I think this proposal might be overstepping the mark. Philafrenzy ( talk) 11:59, 30 April 2014 (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 hillbillies

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 not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2014 (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 executed by Albert Pierrepoint

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) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not WP:DEFINING of the people involved. When executed, these people were executed by the decision of a STATE. Pierrepoint was simply the person "executing" the sentence. As such, we should not build a category of same. If needed, a list could be created, but not even sure if that is worth it. We don't have a scheme of "People executed by the executioner who did the killing", so this one is out of place and should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
we have Category:People executed by the United Kingdom and many subcats underneath.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
So why don't we rename this to the title I proposed and make it a subcat? Hoops gza ( talk) 22:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
the whole executions tree is a mess - not sure if we need 'people by ideology by group that executed them'-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
That's as may be, but I certainly think that people would like to know which Nazis were executed by which governments. I think that Nazis are a bit of an anomaly. Hoops gza ( talk) 00:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I tend to think Hoops has a point here. Epeefleche ( talk) 02:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I tend to think Hoops has difficulty distinguishing between his personal interests and general usefulness. He is obsessed with the Nazis and habitually argues that they should have special treatment here. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Execution was a relatively rare occurrence, so that there were few executioners at any one time. It is hardly surprising that the British government should have brought over the (or one of the) executioners that it used in GB. Accordingly the identify of the executioner is not significant. I suspect that AP executed all the Nazis executed by the British, so that this is probably a duplicate of Category:Nazis executed by the United Kingdom. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Why not rename to the proposed title? Hoops gza ( talk) 22:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is more defining to the executioner than the executed. The government ordering the execution is defining, not the person who carried it out. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Is there a reason you have against the Nazi category being renamed to Category:Nazis executed by the United Kingdom? Hoops gza ( talk) 03:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Plainly not defining, as someone would have carried out these executions. Mangoe ( talk) 12:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The creator of this category has a history of single-minded edits to Wikipedia bordering on obsessive, with contempt for Wikipedia standards. This is just another example of that. - 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC) – unsigned comment by JasonAQuest
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:South American racing series templates

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) 04:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Racing series templates are not usually grouped by location, e.g. there's no Category:North American racing series templates or Category:European racing series templates, etc. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, the 5 templates in Category:South American racing series templates are all already in parent category Category:Open-wheel and formula racing templates. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_22&oldid=1138398940"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22

Category:Personality of Adolf Hitler

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A Stefanomione offshoot category that doesn't correspond to any existing structure; we have no "Personality of..." category tree, and I don't see how it corresponds to any need. And since when are people distinct from their "personalities"? Upmerge Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • merge all. No useful distinction can be made between a work about adolf and a work about his personality, as any that covers A will cover B as well, and I don't think a subcat is useful here.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge unneeded, overly specific category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. I honestly thought we'd banned Stefanomione, it's been that long since I've encountered his nonsense. Bearcat ( talk) 04:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
    • He was blocked from using automated category creation tools for a while, I know that. He's easily Wikipedia's most prolific category creator, from what I can see -- this is literally all he does here, across several language versions of Wikipedia, from what I understand. Most of his creations don't seem to be problematic. Occasionally, he'll still seize upon a rather bad idea. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge them all into Category: Adolf Hitler. Un-needed verbiage to say the least. Kierzek ( talk) 14:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom -- We certainly do not need a separate personality tree. There is ample material to a number of categories, though I think the tree might usefully be pruned, by merging two film sub-cats and hisotry books and biographies inot books about ... Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all (as creator): Hitler as historical / military figure should be dissociated from the psychiatric-style case studies about him. The same potential in the Stalin and Mao articles. See the works by Harold Lasswell that initiated a new discipline (psychopolitics) : 'Power and Personality', 'Psychopathology and Politics', ... Stefanomione ( talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) reply
    • You may see "potential," but if this CfD is closed as merge, please respect consensus do not create any more categories of this kind for Stalin, Mao or anyone else, okay? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:26, 28 April 2014 (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:Mayors of Parsons, West Virginia

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: upmerge technically, but really just delete, as the only member was already in both relevant categories. -- BDD ( talk) 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT violation as a category with only a single entry. Since it's a small town (current pop 1,485), its mayors aren't generally likely to pass WP:POLITICIAN in most cases — even the single entry has an article because he also served as governor of the state, and not because of the mayoralty itself — so there's no realistic prospect of expansion. No prejudice against future recreation if and when we ever actually have enough articles about other mayors of Parsons to support a category, but in the meantime this should be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in West Virginia. Bearcat ( talk) 21:44, 22 April 2014 (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:Pseudoegyptology

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 and upmerge where appropriate to Category:Pseudoarchaeology or Category:Egyptology or both. There is clear consensus that the category as named is not valid, though were the name to become an established term of art in future, there would be no purely nominal bar to re-creation. Some of the included items are in one or both of these categories already, and the category is small, so the process should not be too onerous. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC).
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant. Main article does not exist except as a redirect to Egyptology, where the term is not even mentioned. The term is problematic and may be OR. See Talk:Egyptology#Pseudoegyptology. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, for the same reasons I gave in that discussion. The title is probably original research, and there hasn't been enough outside study of these fringe views to say what does and doesn't fit into the category. Therefore, we can't put articles in it without further OR. A. Parrot ( talk) 02:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A term that lacks RS support. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Category:Pseudo-Egyptology or failing that, upmerge to Category:Pseudoarchaeology If we really feel that we cannot have a subcat for bogus Egyptology, then upmerge is necessary. However, I note that "pseudo-Egyptology" gets significant book hits, and that there used to be a paragraph in the main Egyptology until someone deleted it. The thing obviously exists, and the material categorized as such is plainly categorized correctly. Mangoe ( talk) 12:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment Not all of so-called pseudoegyptological speculation is within the realm of (bogus) archaeology, see Book of Sothis. Egyptology is far more than archaeology, and so is its bogus counterpart. There are no good sources for Pseudoegyptology, apparently, that's why we don't have an article on it, nor even a subsection. That the thing " obviously exists" is, unfortunately, irrelevant for Wikipedia. Hey, I haven't made the rules. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 14:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment I agree with Florian, except it's not that there are no good sources. There are very few—so few that there's no agreement on what to even call this subject matter. The best ones I have are The Secret Lore of Egypt by Erik Hornung; Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, edited by Wouter Hanegraaff; and "Alternative Egypts" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, in Consuming Ancient Egypt, edited by Sally MacDonald and Michael Rice. Hornung is an Egyptologist, and Hanegraaff's book is one of the best sources available in the very new academic field of esoteric studies, but both their treatments are rather cursory (Hornung's is a whirlwind tour of the subject that is short on deep analysis, and ancient Egypt appears frequently in Hanegraaff's book but is not covered in great depth). Picknett and Prince are themselves conspiracy theorists who believe that fringe Egyptology is part of some greater manipulation by the US government, or aliens, or evil spirits. They don't say that in the source I have, which is actually pretty levelheaded; they may not have wanted to go off on a conspiracist tangent in a university press book. But that should tell you how scarce actual study of this subject is.
Hornung calls this subject "Egyptosophy". Picknett and Prince call it "alternative Egyptology". The esoteric dictionary has no single term for, except "Egyptophilia" and " Egyptomany", which are really terms with broader meanings. How can we name this category without committing original research, when the terms for the subject seem to have been invented by different authors over the past 15 years, and none has been widely used? As for a merge, everything that's in the category now could fit in the pseudoarchaeology category, except the Book of Sothis. The book is, I believe, part of the esoteric-Egypt tradition that has been the main fuel for this modern fringe Egyptology, but it is not itself archaeological. A. Parrot ( talk) 18:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Those sources are at least more than nothing. Not enough for an article, but perhaps a subsection is feasible. It should be possible to come up with some neutral, non-OR description, such as "Speculation about Egypt outside academia". -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, but frankly I don't have much time for it. My writing process is sluggish, and between real-life obligations and my never-ending struggles with an off-wiki draft to rewrite Isis, I don't think I'd be able to write such a section anytime soon. If somebody else were to attempt it, I could help. A. Parrot ( talk) 22:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WEak keep -- An obvious answer would be to merge this with Egyptology, but I am reluctant to mix FRINGE theories with a branch of serious archaeology. We have enough content for a category, so that merger with Category:Pseudoarchaeology is unattractive to me, but is certainly better than plain deletion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No parent article. No mention in the antonymous parent article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:26, 20 June 2014 (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:Philatelic 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: No consensus Opinion broadly supports a rename, but is divided on the target. There seems come confusion over the distinction, if any, between "periodical", "magazine" and "journal", and no clear reasoning, except perhaps by example to support one name over another. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC).
Nominator's rationale: Not a single one of the journals in this category actually seems to be an academic journal, so "Philatelic magazines" would seem to be the appropriate title for it. Randykitty ( talk) 18:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose. There is no reason why the word journal cannot be used for non-academic publications. I chose it deliberately because it was more inclusive than the word magazine in order to encompass a variety of different publications from hobbyist magazines through to high-brow historical works like The London Philatelist, published since 1892. Philafrenzy ( talk) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment We have two well-developed category trees, carefully separating peer-reviewed academic journals from magazines. In the "magazines tree", we have categories for science magazines, hobby magazines, and whatnot. We also have a category for Professional and trade magazines, which sometimes are a little bit in-between. In the "academic journals" tree we have categories fo all kinds of scientific, medical, social sciences, and humanities journals. This separation has been in place since many years and the philatelic journals category is not connected to the rest of the journals tree, nor should it: Most of the entries in the category as it currently stands are not even listed in JournalSeek (a very complete index of all academic journals around the world) and even less so in respected indexes like Thomson Reuters databases. I also note that the current list of philatelic periodicals is called List of philatelic magazines. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Those are good examples. Note that despite their names, TWSJ is called a "newspaper" in the lead and categorized as such and that the Linuc Journal is called a "magazine" in the lead and, again, classified as such. I therefore see no problem at all in calling these philatelic periodicals "magazines". The editor who created this article also objects to Fakes Forgeries Experts being called a trade magazine, although in an edit summary they say it is intended for "dealers and collectors", which amounts to basically the very definition of a trade magazine, me thinks... -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • None of those in the category are trade magazines, either in my view or as defined in that article as none of them is aimed mainly at those operating a trade or profession, or restricted to those that are. There are professional dealers, expertisers, auctioneers etc in the philatelic world who are part of the audience for these publications, but the main audience is of collectors. It's similar to art and coin collecting where there are professionals ancillary to the collecting/study aspects of the area, but for every professional there must be 100 amateurs or the professionals couldn't exist. I agree that "Philatelic periodicals" is a good alternative since the word "journal" seems so contentious. As for FFE, there is no reason not to use the word "journal" in the article text, it is a normal English word with an easily understood meaning. I don't believe WP Academic Journals or anyone else should be making a land-grab to control the use of everyday words. Philafrenzy ( talk) 22:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, I think I see what you mean. Trade magazines are for merchants and their customers. The periodicals in this category are for "professional dealers, expertisers, auctioneers etc" and the main audience are collectors (i.e. their clients). That is indeed very different... So we should not mislead our audience by linking FFE (which apparently caters to the audience mentioned before to help them identify forgeries so that they don't buy collect fakes) to trade magazine... -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The only true trade magazine, i.e. one targeted solely at practitioners of a profession or trade, in this area is The Philatelic Exporter as far as I am aware. Indeed its home page states "*** Philatelic Exporter is only available to members of the stamp trade ***". The audience for all the others in the category is mainly collectors with some professional readers too. FFE probably has more professionals than any of the others, and The London Philatelist probably comes closest to an academic journal, though not peer reviewed, by aiming to publish original historical research. There is considerable blurring in this area between collector and dealer and amateur and professional with almost all participants constantly buying and selling material. In any case, I am happy with "Philatelic periodicals". Philafrenzy ( talk) 14:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Philatelic periodicals, scope is broad enough, but doesn't have the "Journal" title which is, at least here, generally reserved for peer reviewed stuff.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 22:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Philatelic periodicals per OWK ; trade-magazines/trade-journals should perhaps be transitioned to "periodicals", as a divide between magazines and scholarly journals. -- 70.24.250.192 ( talk) 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Question Did anybody have a look at Periodicals? If you did, where do you think that a hypothetical category "Philately periodicals" should be categorized? Note that there is not a single "periodicals" category for a specific theme: all periodicals are categorized as either newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and a few miscellaneous cats. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Philatelic periodicals. In answer to Randykitty's question, this cat should replace Category:Philatelic journals under Category:Philatelic literature. I don't see Periodicals as relevant here; there are few enough entries in Category:Philatelic journals that splitting it into newspapers, magazines, trade magazines, and journals categories would result in some sparse or empty cats. I'll note that Linn's Stamp News is a newspaper, not a magazine. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Mark, I was not proposing to split up that cat. But no cat should stand alone, so a hypothetical cat "philatelic periodicals" would need itself to be categorized somewhere in the "periodicals" tree, and I don't see where one could put it... -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Why can't it go directly under Periodicals like Audio periodicals and Periodicals about writers? Philafrenzy ( talk) 08:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand what you mean, I am not looking for a category split but just a simple rename. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Was a strong consensus ever reached that the word "journal" could not be used in categories for non-academic publications? I agree it is largely synonymous with periodical but I don't believe there should be an outright ban on the use of journal outside of an academic context. It's a normal English word that people understand includes both academic and non-academic publications. I think this proposal might be overstepping the mark. Philafrenzy ( talk) 11:59, 30 April 2014 (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 hillbillies

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 not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2014 (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 executed by Albert Pierrepoint

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) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not WP:DEFINING of the people involved. When executed, these people were executed by the decision of a STATE. Pierrepoint was simply the person "executing" the sentence. As such, we should not build a category of same. If needed, a list could be created, but not even sure if that is worth it. We don't have a scheme of "People executed by the executioner who did the killing", so this one is out of place and should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
we have Category:People executed by the United Kingdom and many subcats underneath.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
So why don't we rename this to the title I proposed and make it a subcat? Hoops gza ( talk) 22:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
the whole executions tree is a mess - not sure if we need 'people by ideology by group that executed them'-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
That's as may be, but I certainly think that people would like to know which Nazis were executed by which governments. I think that Nazis are a bit of an anomaly. Hoops gza ( talk) 00:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I tend to think Hoops has a point here. Epeefleche ( talk) 02:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
I tend to think Hoops has difficulty distinguishing between his personal interests and general usefulness. He is obsessed with the Nazis and habitually argues that they should have special treatment here. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Execution was a relatively rare occurrence, so that there were few executioners at any one time. It is hardly surprising that the British government should have brought over the (or one of the) executioners that it used in GB. Accordingly the identify of the executioner is not significant. I suspect that AP executed all the Nazis executed by the British, so that this is probably a duplicate of Category:Nazis executed by the United Kingdom. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Why not rename to the proposed title? Hoops gza ( talk) 22:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is more defining to the executioner than the executed. The government ordering the execution is defining, not the person who carried it out. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Is there a reason you have against the Nazi category being renamed to Category:Nazis executed by the United Kingdom? Hoops gza ( talk) 03:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Plainly not defining, as someone would have carried out these executions. Mangoe ( talk) 12:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The creator of this category has a history of single-minded edits to Wikipedia bordering on obsessive, with contempt for Wikipedia standards. This is just another example of that. - 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC) – unsigned comment by JasonAQuest
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:South American racing series templates

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) 04:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Racing series templates are not usually grouped by location, e.g. there's no Category:North American racing series templates or Category:European racing series templates, etc. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, the 5 templates in Category:South American racing series templates are all already in parent category Category:Open-wheel and formula racing templates. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_22&oldid=1138398940"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE