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 12:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:English trip hop musicians to Category:British trip hop musicians

Nominator's rationale: There is no benefit from skipping the main higher level nationality categories and this will make the category more locatable with the structure. SFB 20:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2015 (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.

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: listify. MER-C 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:RAF Cadets to article List of RAF Cadets

Nominator's rationale: None of the people in the category gained notability through their being RAF Cadets. In almost all circumstances, this was an activity they did as children that was unconnected to the subsequent adult lives. This would be much better off as a list, if it is to be preserved at all. SFB 20:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to List of notable RAF cadets to help compliance with WP:LSC. Lose a WP:NONDEFINING cat, gain a legitimate list: win-win. A2soup (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify. Classic WP:DNWAUC. Other categories (e.g. Category:Royal Marines cadets) are similar. DexDor ^(talk) 21:09, 27 June 2015 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Order of Charles III to Category:Orders of knighthood of Spain
• Propose deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Order of Charles III ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Charles III ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Commanders of the Order of Charles III ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. Many categories contain mainly heads of state, nobility, politicians and high-ranked military to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. In the knights categories there are more 'normal' civilians, but still the awards are not defining at all, people in these categories are notable for something more defining. In addition, this proposal concerns the upmerge of the eponymous articles to their country parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - agree w/precedent. Neutrality^talk 04:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - In one case Juan Carlos I is the only entry in the Grand Masters of the Order of Charles III category. However this is the article on the titles of Juan Carlos I which is in 63 awards categories. Really this should just be in the Juan Carlos I category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - I don't see the harm in keeping these categories. The fact that they are attributed to certain particular groups have no bearing on it : Wikipedia is not there to judge the qualities of an Award. Deleting them is a bias judgement. Pierre cb (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See User:DexDor/Categorization_of_award_recipients#Deficiencies_with_categorizing_by_awards_received. DexDor ^(talk) 05:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion for Order of the White Elephant‎‎ categories. Weak support the rest, since I'm not familiar with them. Also suggest Category:Order of the Crown of Thailand be treated accordingly, probably in a separate nomination, since the scope of their presentation are similar. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind. Need to think this over a bit. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep them The way I see this, is as mass-deletion without having a proper overview of the situation. Manxruler (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider a "proper overview" to be? DexDor ^(talk) 05:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I cannot support the rationale "people in these categories are notable for something more defining". That is potentially applicable to thousands of categories, even basic ones such as "19XX births" (which is not a defining characteristic of any person's notability). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding part of that sentence ("the awards are not defining at all") is more relevant. Re "19XX births" - WP:OSE. DexDor ^(talk) 05:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In the sample of articles I checked having the award was very WP:NON-DEFINING. DexDor ^(talk) 05:38, 18 August 2015 (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.

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 11:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Scientists whose names are used in physical constants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Scientists whose names are used as non SI units
• Propose deleting Category:Scientists whose names are used as SI units
• Propose deleting Category:Scientists whose names are used in chemical element names

Nominator's rationale: Categories are intended to group together articles about similar subjects (e.g. people who are notable in a particular field). Categories such as Category:Quantum physicists do that; these categories don't. Previous discussion about a similar category: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_1#Category:List_of_scientists_whose_names_are_used_as_non_SI_units.DexDor ^(talk) 19:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good information but already covered by List of scientists whose names are used as non SI units and List of scientists whose names are used as SI units. No need to duplicate those lists in a category, since it is very unlikely people will be trying to look up scientists this way (WP:NONDEFINING). A2soup (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per NONDEF.--Animalparty-- (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but Category:Scientists whose names are used in physical constants may need listifying first. The others have lists. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. kennethaw88 • talk 06:00, 30 June 2015 (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.

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 11:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Places used in the names of chemical elements ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of Americas, France, Rhine etc. Most/all of the articles don't even mention the chemical element. For info: there is List of places used in the names of chemical elements and List of chemical element name etymologies. DexDor ^(talk) 19:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The list does the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. kennethaw88 • talk 06:00, 30 June 2015 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to both parents. MER-C 12:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Triathletes from Leeds to Category:Sportspeople from Leeds

Nominator's rationale: This is far to narrow a category for a relatively small sport. The parent Category:English triathletes has only 23 entries and clearly doesn't benefit from diffusion by city. SFB 19:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Please check if merging to the other parent is also needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Full upmerge unless all articles have the other parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as above - too narrow. Neutrality^talk 21:28, 5 July 2015 (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.

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 11:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Astronomical objects used in the names of chemical elements ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Given the limited number of chemical elements, this category has only one proper member, Mercury (planet) three five proper members, Uranium, Neptunium, Plutonium, Cerium, and Palladium. As such, it has no potential for growth and currently contains several erroneous articles. A2soup (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as WP:NONDEFINING trivia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Only Mercury ? Please check the other pages besides Mercury. Helium (Sun), Palladium (Pallas), Tellurium (Earth), Cerium (Ceres), Uranium (Uranus), Neptunium (Neptun) Plutonium (Pluto). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point (I will change the nom), but in most of these cases (including Mercury actually), the element was not named after the planet, but rather both names share a common mythological origin. Cerium and Palladium are named after the Roman gods that the asteroids are also named after-- the elements were not named for the asteroids. Helium was named with reference to the sun (where it was first discovered); but as the sun is not called Helios, the element is directly named after Helios, the Greek god of the sun. Same goes for Tellurium, Tellus being an alternate name for the earth goddess Terra. So the only proper members of this cat are Uranium, Neptunium, and Plutonium. With three possible members, I think it is still WP:SMALLCAT (and WP:NONDEFINING besides). A2soup (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as WP:NONDEFINING trivia. See also related CFD for places above. DexDor ^(talk) 19:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is not a cat of guesses. In the articles about the elements, there is a history section in the sidebox (please check) which also shows the nomenclature. There you can see the connection between the name of the element and the name of the astronomical body. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and fixed, but Mercury, Helium, and Tellurium still do not belong. My initial reason of WP:SMALLCAT was perhaps not the best, but this still easily fails WP:NONDEFINING and, more directly, WP:SHAREDNAME. A2soup (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When I saw this category appear, I almost nominated it myself. I just can't see the purpose of this category, and while the connection to astronomical body is existent, it is also thin in most cases. I feel WP:NONDEF applies here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-def per nom. Also, these are named after mythological beings -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In WP the number of categories is not limited. There may be 20 or even more cats for an article. It is possible to group the astronomical bodies for being eponym of the elements. For example the Category: Minor planets named from Roman mythology [1] is 10 years old and nobody proposed its deletion. I wonder why a similar cat for the elements names caused so much reaction. A double standard maybe Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. DexDor ^(talk) 18:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without listifying: in many cases, the element does not take its name from the astronomical body, but both take their name from a classical god or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. kennethaw88 • talk 06:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The only element which fits the criterion is helium, which is named for its discovery in the sun. All the others simply share names with gods and goddesses. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2015 (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.

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. Everyone seems to agree that the current name should be changed, so I'm defaulting to the original proposal since it was the most popular of the options discussed. This is without prejudice to further proposals for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Independentist parties to Category:Pro-independence parties

Nominator's rationale: The term "independentist" is rarely used in English in this sense. If at all, it is mostly used to refer to the church system of Independents. This category however is designed to include political parties that advocate the independence of a certain region or territory. The current name of the article may be influenced by the Spanish or Catalan terms "independentismo"/"independentisme", as the user who started the category identifies as Catalan. But this terms do not have an exact equivalent in English. "Pro-independence" would in my opinion be the most appropriate term in English (as "autonomist" or "separatist" have slightly different meanings and connotations). RJFF (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the linguee.com translations for "independentista" (or independentistas, independentismo) which is rarely translated as "independentist" but usually as "pro-independence" or just "independence". --RJFF (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Neutrality^talk 05:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is used in this manner in English, but that might be a Canadianism. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, clearer naming -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, might be a Canadianism; but should still be avoided as the category is not restricted to Canadian (Quebec) "independentist" parties. I could not find the word "independentist" in any mainstream English dictionary (Merriam-Webster, Collins, Oxford, Cambridge, New Oxford). --RJFF (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How about "Secessionist parties" as it is a subcategory of Category:Secessionist organizations ? Hugo999 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Independence movements. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Object to this alternative, 'movements' is much broader than 'parties'. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Separatist movements and organizations and refer to Separatism as supporting the inclusion criteria. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (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.

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. MER-C 11:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American dentists of English descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of Category:American dentists and Category:American people of English descent. A rather frivolous and meaningless category to boot: ancestry has no bearing on a person's practice. The sole article categorized here can simply be placed in the two categories above. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American people of English descent (already in Category:American dentists). I wonder why only dentists are singled out in Category:American people of English descent? Oculi (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom and Oculi. In addition it seems like the overall scheme of American people of English descent is not defining but that's a different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge - as above. Neutrality^talk 22:26, 27 June 2015 (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.

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 07:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Min Nan to Category:Southern Min

Nominator's rationale: Per main article: Southern Min, not Min Nan. If this passes, the subcategories can be speedily renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match the article name. Kanguole 23:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to match parent article --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:06, 7 July 2015 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Tablet computers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Internet tablets ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. The only meaningful subcategorization would be to create C:Non-Internet tablets since nearly all post-iPad tablets include Internet. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle. Please check if upmerging to Category:Tablet computers may be needed. per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there's also the internet tablet that is a tablet used as a internet terminal that does little other than access the internet. (kind of like a tablet format Chromebook, were such a thing to exist; or a tablet format internet kiosk) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if you are meaning upmerging to Category:Tablet computers. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:50, 18 July 2015 (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.

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:Special collections libraries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Special Collections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It is unclear whether this category is intended for articles specifically about special collections themselves or articles about any library that has a SC (e.g. Ellis Library). In the UK, for example, many/most larger libraries (e.g. in county towns) have some particularly valuable/delicate/rare books (particularly those relating to the local area) kept in a locked room/cupboard - would all these libraries be eligible for this category? Existing categories include Category:University and college academic libraries in the United States, Category:Literary archives, Category:Rare book libraries so this new category is probably unnecessary. If kept this should be renamed - e.g. to "Special collections", "Libraries containing a special collection" (and given at least one parent category). This may be suitable for a list (although I'm not sure that any such list should be generated from the category contents). DexDor ^(talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Special collections libraries". We created this category at an editing event attended by rare book librarians and archivists in the US. It is intended for libraries whose primary function is collecting and preserving unique, rare, and primary source material. I think the term collect without library is perhaps confusing and it could be improved. Thanks for taking a look at this! Merrilee (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello, I'm the person who created the category. Thanks so much for your interest! I believe the page should not be deleted. I created this category at an edit-a-thon made up of special collections professionals at the end of our annual RBMS conference. The reason for adding the category is that the categories you list as existing alternatives are not sufficient. Not all special collections are part of category:University and college academic libraries in the United States. Many are independent, such as the American Antiquarian Society, and our group also felt that there was no reason to limit the category by nation--we are an international community and scholars regularly research at institutions internationally regardless of their country of origin. Also, the categories "Rare book libraries" and "Literary Archives" (and "Archive," which also exists) are commonly used to tag institutions that more accurately fall under the category "Special Collections," since most special collections institutions include both rare books and archives. Also, many special collections contain materials that don't necessarily fit under the rubric of books or archives (e.g. costumes, fine art). Users interested in browsing the full range of special collections institutions and learning about the full range of institutions won't be able to find easily the relevant articles anywhere else.

We also discussed at length an existing list called Closed stack libraries which we felt was arbitrary and not helpful to users; indeed, the person who ran the edit-a-thon recommended its deletion in the talk page. Closed stacks can exist for various reasons--rarity is only one. The paging (fetching) structure of an institution doesn't unite it in mission with a community of other institutions. An article about what closed stacks are might be useful, but the list is not.

I think it would be fine if Special Collections became a sub-category, but I don't know what the parent category would be, since I don't think it would be valuable to limit the category by nation. (I also don't know how to make something a sub-category I wanted to do that with the category Rare book librarians, which I also created yesterday, but didn't know how.)

As you note, many libraries have rare materials in their collections. The folks in the edit-a-thon agreed that we only wanted to add to the page institutions that had been deemed by wikipedians significant enough to have their own page. These are institutions whose identity stands apart from that of their parent institutions (if they have one). They have a role in the culture that is separate from that of other kinds of libraries. For this reason we didn't include references to articles about larger libraries that mention special collections within the article. Unless wikipedians feel that there is enough distinction to a special collections that sets it apart as a cultural entity in its community or in the scholarly community, we thought it shouldn't be on the list. This might well apply to a small locked cage within a community library, if it has been deemed significant enough to have its own page.

The Special Collections community, like other library communities, has been slower to warm to Wikipedia than many other communities. This means that the rich history of the institutional care of rare books, manuscripts, and archives is not well documented in Wikipedia. One of the intentions of our edi-a-thon and this page creation is to encourage our fellow institutions to see Wikipedia as a place to document and provide information about cultural heritage institutions of this kind.

To address your first comment: I think perhaps part of the problem with the scope of the category is that I wasn't exactly sure how to describe the category at the top of the category page. Since there is an article for Special collections I didn't want to be redundant or reinvent the wheel in explaining what a special collections is or what items belong on this page. Perhaps I could say something like "this category is to be used for institutions that are deemed significant enough to have their own Wikipedia page"? I'd love to hear your suggestions. Leofstan (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge, most articles now in this category are not about special collections but are about libraries etc. in general. Neutral on renaming or merging to e.g. Category:Rare book libraries. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Split when we have agreed a structure -- There is a potential basis for a categopry here. The problem is how to provide it with a satisfactory boundary. My experience of is UK academic libraries. Most older institutions have a special collections department, which deals with (1) archives (2) rare books (3) theses. If a university library has a special collections department, it would be appropriate for a WP article ON THE DEPARTMENT to be in a category. However, if there is only an article on the university or university library, it should not be in the category. The question is how much further this should go. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust library not only has a Shakespearean collection, but also a collection relating to the history of the area; Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust has a library that has collected archives on industrial archaeology. I hope that we already have a category for county record offices and archives. This category should not duplicate it, but one target might parent it. I am aware of the Folger Shakespeare Library having archvies on British history, as does the Huntington Library in California. Again, I suspect that there are specialist literary libraries associated with particular authors. We seem to have a series of categories that would fit into an useful tree, but one category will probably not do. Suggestions needed for names. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is why I suggested rename to "Special collections libraries" -- not all of these libraries are about rare books (in fact most of the holdings may be devoted to archives or other types of materials and not rare books). I think the confusions comes from calling it special collections and omitting the word libraries. Here's a definition of special collections you might find helpful -- it follows that a library that houses special collections can be called a special collections library:

We defined special collections as library and archival materials in any format (e.g., rarebooks, manuscripts, photographs, institutional archives) that are generally characterized by their artifactual or monetary value, physical format, uniqueness or rarity, and/or an institutional commitment to long-term preservation and access. They generally are housed in a separate unit with specialized security and user services. Circulation of materials usually is restricted. [from http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf ]

Merrilee (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As a test case, does California Historical Society, that's currently in this category, fall within this definition? If you say no, then I can well live with the rename and the inclusion criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think that CHS falls into the category of a special collections library (as well as into other categories) but I'm confused as to why if CHS fell outside this category you would be in favor of renaming it? Merrilee (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Merilee that we should just rename the category Special Collections Libraries. Regarding Marcocapelle's suggestion to merge this page into Rare Book Libraries, that wouldn't work. Special Collections Libraries is a parent category to Rare Book LIbraries: all Rare Book Libraries are Special Collections Libraries but not all Special Collections Libraries are Rare Book Libraries. That was the whole point of creating thiss category page. Regarding the California Historical Society--yes, this sounds like a Special Collections, Marcocappelle. Most Historical Societies would fall under this parent category. I'm not sure why this would be a problem? Leofstan (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In full disclosure, I was also at the event where this category was created. I think renaming it to "Special collections libraries" would clear up any confusion, as well as making it clear on the category page that "Rare book libraries" is a sub-category. And, in the category description, we could perhaps make it clear that the category only applies to articles where the Spec Coll department or library is the focus, not to articles about the larger parent institution. AmandaRR123 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an inexperienced editor, I'm not sure when a discussion ends and when a page can be taken off the "deletion" list. Do all involved agree that this category may be kept, and renamed Special Collections Libraries? If so, who has the power to change the name and remove it from the deletion list? Leofstan (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone who hasn't participated in this discussion and who knows about closing procedures can do this. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2015 (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.