Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21[edit]

Category:Medalists at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. The discussion at Cfd September 12 was closed as "keep" only a few hours ago. If you dispute that closure, take it to WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This nomination is a re-listing of a September 12 nomination that was closed based on a procedural infirmity for failure to place proper notice on the category page. This nomination also changes the proposed new category name in response to an objection raised by the category's creator in the original September 12 nomination.

Nominator's rationale:

Conciseness - This eliminates the inverted phrasing "Medalists at the" and removes the need for the preposition and definite article. By doing so, it also properly places the emphasis on the unique proper name of the event, not on the generic word "medalists."

Consistency - To maintain consistency with Category:Olympic medalists and other international championship categories, we should follow the better practice of existing categories for similar international championships, to wit:

  1. Category:Olympic medalists
  2. Category:Olympic medalists for Czechoslovakia
  3. Category:Olympic medalists in swimming
  4. Category:Olympic medalists by sport
  5. Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Bohemia
  6. Category:Asian Games medalists
  7. Category:Asian Games silver medalists
  8. Category:Commonwealth Games medallists
  9. Category:Commonwealth Games gold medallists for Nigeria
  10. Category:Maccabiah Games medalists
  11. Category:Maccabiah Games gold medalists
  12. Category:Pan American Games medalists
  13. Category:Pan American Games medalists for the United States
  14. Category:Paralympic medalists
  15. Category:Paralympic medalists for Canada
  16. Category:World Aquatics Championships medalists in swimming

Of the existing "medalists" categories, by far the most extensively developed are those medalist categories related to the Olympic Games. Notwithstanding examples of other championship medalist categories that employ the "Medalists of the" pattern, please note how the better pattern above permits easy creation of subcategories as the need arises with the addition of such suffixes as "for the United States," "in swimming," "in diving," etc.

In response to the objection raised by User:Courcelles in the September 12 nomination, I also provide the following examples of future categories under the IAAF championships umbrella to be created as the need arises:

  1. Category:IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics medalists, NOT Category:Medalists at the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics; and
  2. Category:IAAF World Cross Country Championships medalists, NOT Category:Medalists at the IAAF World Cross Country Championships.

I apologize to anyone who objects to the quick re-listing of this category for discussion, but I believe that it is important that we adopt the better naming pattern for future medalist categories, and the discussion should not be truncated based upon a procedural failure of the nominator. I hope that we can now consider the substance of the matter. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2012 (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.

Categories of Nova Scotia counties[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Oppose speedy. In June, User:Mayumashu moved the article to undisambiguate the comma-province name without a requested move on the talk page on three Nova Scotia counties. If users support renaming the categories, leave the article titles where it is, and this is to match the parent article titles. And, If users oppose renaming the categories, then the articles will rename back to comma-province for Annapolis, Antigonish and Colchester County articles. But only if users oppose renaming the categories. Steam5 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nomination Oppose users, If you could read my comments. I have settled to BHG, Hmains and Lesnail. I have decided to withdraw nomination. I move it back to it's regular title to it's comma-province name. If any user move it back to undisambiguate the comma-province name, BHG, I will alert you at your talk page if any user move to undisambiguate titles then talk to user do not undisambiguate the articles of Nova Scotia counties by a recent CFD. I hope this discussion settles and close the nomination. We won't talk about undisambiguate Counties of Nova Scotia articles, BHG. Steam5 (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose moves No good or obvious reason to change any of this. The current names help readers to understand on sight what it the subject of the category without assuming they have expert knowledge of Canadian counties. Hmains (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hmains. I contested the speedy on procedural grounds, but I think that Hmains is right to point to the importance of clarity in category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, BHG, It was a user named User:Mayumashu who made the the move. Could you talk to User:Mayumashu not to undisambiguate the comma-province. Who's is going to move it back to comma-province name on the three Nova Scotia counties, Either me or someone else. If someone does move or I am moving it back to it's regular title, then I am rumoured to withdraw my nomination. Steam5 (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hmains. I don't think however that it is appropriate to conclude from this discussion that the articles should be renamed. That should be discussed separately and elsewhere. We generally have a lower tolerance for ambiguity or lack of clarity in category names than in article names. LeSnail (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2012 (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:RoboCop (video games)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Video games based on RoboCop. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary two-entry category, for a pair of heavily crosslinked articles. Unlikely to expand. - Desine (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge is fine with me; I thought the articles were already present in their parent cats as appropriate. - Desine (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The reason that this only has 2 members is that the rest of the members were redirected/merged to RoboCop (video games) by User:Nreive in 2008. If not kept, it will need to be UpMerged to all parents, which, to me, makes deleting this seem kinda pointless. Plus the exception at WP:OC#SMALL would seem to apply here. - jc37 20:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents. If the previous contents were redirected/merged 4 years ago, then the category seems fairly stable at this size, and per WP:SMALLCAT it is unlikely to be expanded. I was not aware of a convention that all video game titles should have an eponymous category, so I don't agree that the exception in WP:SMALLCAT applies here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or Rename to Category:Video games based on RoboCop. (Which reminds me I need to sort out the next batch of proposed renamings along those lines...) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Rename - jc37 00:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Of the two articles one is the the main article. There is already a navigation template that is ample. If the category is really needed, then rename per comments above. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Bushranger and keep per Jc37. Well-meaning but disastrous merges like these are best reversed not encouraged. Each of the games within the frankenmerged article are individually notable. Someoneanother 13:42, 3 October 2012 (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 from Clearwater County, Idaho[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recommend delete. Category only has 2 people in it currently and the entire county only has about 8700 according to Clearwater County, Idaho so its unlikely there will every be very many articles. Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we did want to get rid of this category, the appropriate method would be to upmerge to Category:People from Idaho rather than deleting it. However, categorisation of ppl-by-county in the USA is a broad and established system of categorisation, so is exempted from WP:SMALLCAT. I also doubt the nominator's assertion that the category is incapable of expansion. Orofino and Pierce were notable centres of the gold rush, and I would be surprised if there were not plenty of people notable through their role in that episode. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there may be a dozen or so. Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unusual for categories of a dozen or so articles to be rejected as too small per WP:SMALLCAT. Most editors seem to apply a general threshold of about 5 or 6, tho most also apply other factors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category now has four entries. More to the point thoug, people by county is an exemption to any small-cat rules since it is a standard accepted division of people by state, since those are all too large to not be subdivided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (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:Rajput forts & palaces[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Rajput architecture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Special:Search/Rajput architecture shows several results, indicating that "Rajput architecture" could be a useful category. Its name should not be restricted to these specific building types. There are already related categories for Category:Forts in Rajasthan‎ and Category:Palaces in Rajasthan‎, which are currently sub-cats, but those are geographic whereas the nominated category is historical. – Fayenatic London 08:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; arguably a merge to Category:Rajasthani architecture would do as well. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Only the sub-cats should be merged there, not the articles. Some member articles are Rajput but not in Rajasthan, e.g. Gwalior Fort in Madhya Pradesh. The member pages are each currently categorised in the relevant state's Forts or Palances category. Note to closer: by all means drop me a note to check this afterwards. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It is clear from the Rajput article that the term refers to a warrior caste, who rule rather larger areas than Rajasthan. The usual category is not architesture, but "buildings and structures". Hence something like Category:Buildings and structures of the Rajput kingdoms might fit; or would this pick up too much? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy discussion
Oppose. Rename to Category:Rajput architecture would be appropriate. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 September 11 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "buildings and structures" tree should stick to conventional recognised cities/provinces or states/countries etc, not drift off to cover more subjective definitions. Still supporting, & I take the point about Rajasthan. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2012 (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:Adventure games in space[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Adventure games set in space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems redundant since Category:Science-fiction adventure games was created at the same time. Also most of the games in that category are not in fact adventure games.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mika1h (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Mika1h (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. We do not delete categories based on their contents, but rather upon their scope and whether it is valid and workable. clearly, some of the items within that category ARE adventure games. the category of "adventure games" is perfectly valid and is established here at Wikipedia. Clearly, there are indeed at least some adventure games which in fact are set in space. the category "Science-fiction adventure games" has been deleted, as it was redundant. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Category:Adventure games has become large and unwieldy. It would be helpful to have sub-categories, such as this one, so that people can find articles grouped by genre. Richard75 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Adventure games set in space or Category:Science-fiction adventure games. The current name is ambiguous and could refer to playing adventure games in space. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Be a good way to collate a genre of games. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 September 11 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There seems to be agreement so far to reject the proposal to delete these categories, but no consensus on whether they should be renamed. BHG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 21 September 2012 (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:Chinese Netizen[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Meaningless category -- would have to include about a billion people these days. Also poorly named even without that substantive problem. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete unless some one can produce a robust definition of what it is about and that it is a notable characteristic of a small number of people. I doubt any one can meet that challenge. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Netizen" is a neologism, and the use of digital communities is now so widespread that it is not a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 27 September 2012 (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:Publications established in 2013[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep even though currently empty, as it is part of a structure and will be needed soon. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pure WP:CRYSTAL. We'll need this category, but in another 6 months perhaps, when publications that have had time to become notable actually exist. Creation premature. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Possible speedy per WP:CSD#G1 as patent nonsense, because it is a logical impossibility to record the historical fact of establishment before it has happened.
    Note that this is only one of nearly a dozen sub-cats of Category:2013 establishments, all of which should be deleted on the same grounds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck my delete !vote. Per the comments below, probably not worth deleting this now only to recreate it in 3 months. But if it was a 2014 category, I'd stick with delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're definitely going to have these categories in a little over three months, so let's not bother deleting them. This problem will take care of itself before long. After all, it's gonna be the future soon.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it's true these are currently WP:CRYSTAL, if deleted they will simply need to be recreated in a little over three months, making it needless rules-following. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the category is currently empty, as the single entry it had has been deleted after an uncontested PROD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2012 (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:Chinese literary derivative works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Works based on Dream of the Red Chamber. While there are definitely possibilities for broader categories here, this category solely contains works based on Dream of the Red Chamber. I'm putting it as a direct subcategory of Category:Works based on the Four Great Classical Novels. (I have added some more for renaming along these lines in this nomination.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nominated category has only 2 members, and the explanation on the category page gives it identical scope with the target category. I am open to renaming the target as "novels" or "literature" rather than "classics". – Fayenatic London 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 September 3 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There seems to be agreement that some change is needed here, but no consensus yet on what change. There are several options on the table. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 21 September 2012 (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 books about people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely vague and subjective category with no defining characteristic, doesn't most history books talks about people anyways either in biographies, events, and so forth. Delete Secret account 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename. Not all history books are books on human history; some history books are of natural history and science, or the history of particular ideas, concepts, places, time periods, and things. For example, Constable & Robinson's series of Brief Histories has books on the history of the universe, the Magna Carta, infinity, the city of Venice, Britain beween 1660 and 1851, and tea. In addition, not all history books which deal with human subject matter focus on particular individuals or groups of individuals, some are more generally sociological or cultural histories, such as the histories of mutiny, slavery, misogyny and life in the middle ages, in the same series. On the other hand, some history books do focus explicitly on particular individuals, such as Category:History books about Adolf Hitler, or groups of individuals, such as Category: History books about ethnic groups. I don't see this distinction as being overly subjective, as I think for most people it is clear that Adolf Hitler and Arab people are persons, while tea, the city of Venice and misogyny are not. Admittedly though, "History books about people" is indeed a very general and vague way of putting this, and the category should probably be re-named to better reflect this point. MRDXII (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. History books are overwhelmingly about people, or their institutions, or their works. In the case of MRDXII's example, it would be near-impossible to write a history of Venice which did not at least include some coverage of the history of its rulers and of the people who actually built the city. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as impossibly vague. For example, I see 1967: The Last Good Year listed as a member, and I cannot see how one could determine whether to include it or not. Mangoe (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG and Mangoe. Steam5 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps rename to Category:History books about individual people and purge. It seems like that might be a useful container. The category is certainly no good as it stands. Or it might just be better to delete and let someone make this other category if they feel like it.LeSnail (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too vague to be useful. And how is this different than Category:Biography? Also, I'm seriously wondering whether Category:History books (and subcats) should be merged to Category:Non-fiction literature. The two seem to be very over-lapping and only seem to differ in how the names are formatted. - jc37 20:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jc37, are you seriously suggesting that history is indistinguishable from other types of non-fiction literature? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The word you may have missed was books. As in History books. But that aside, since we're asking questions, are you suggesting that history is fiction, or that books are not literature? - jc37 10:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I neither suggested nor implied either of those things. History is a subset of non-fiction, and literature is a subset of books. (My tractor manual is a non-fiction book, but it is neither history nor literature).
    So I still look fwd to your explanation of why you think that history books should not be distinguished from other non-fiction books. we have Category:Social sciences literature, Category:Science writing, Category:Legal literature etc ... so I don't see why history cannot be a separate topic area. Did you perhaps intend that Category:History books (and subcats) should be renamed to Category:History literature, rather than merged as you proposed above? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    I re-read this several times to try to make sure you aren't kidding.
    My guess is that perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying?
    The category system works through a process of grouping and tiered sub categorisation (of various kinds).
    And, just as you note, History is a type of non-fiction, and books are a type of literature.
    Soooo, why shouldn't the history books tree (history books and its subcats) be merged with the non-fiction literature tree? I would think that this would enhance navigation?
    And yes, there may be some cases where renaming may be a good idea, but on a case-by-case basis obviously. - jc37 18:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo -- I hoped you were kidding. I hope I am misunderstanding you, because you ain't making any sense to me. Looks like mutual incomprehension here.
    My best guess is that when you talk of merging the category trees, you mean something other than what I understand by merging .. so pls can you clarify which categories you think should be merged to where? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, though I think we're a bit off-topic of this particular Cfd : )
    I'll see if I can work up a list. - jc37 00:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- My first reaction was that this was going to be a category containing biographies (perhaps including biographic distionaries), but it is not. It is an absolute hotchpotch, including all sorts of things. Almost all history is about people. "History books about individual people" would probably be "biographies" (or at least very closely related). In fact most history research involves building up a synthesis from biographies. My own research sometimes starts with the place and then identifies the people involved, but that may be an exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Or perhaps rename - "History books about history". Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_21&oldid=1138397387"