< February 15
February 17 >

February 16

Category:Arts in Korea categories

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure of best title; these are Koreanic countries that no longer exist. "Arts in x" may imply they are extant? See also Category:Arts by country, which is for extant countries and uses all "Arts of x" format. seefooddiet (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2025 (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:Relations of colonizer and former colony

Nominator's rationale: This seems like an extremely problematic category, and rather inherently so. Defining "colonizer" is impossible; the way articles are currently listed, it seems that any country that once controlled any land belonging to another modern country is treated as a "colonizer" (one could argue that 40+ of the international relations of Italy deserve to be here, since there's no telling just how far back this goes). Given the impossibility of defining meaningful criteria for inclusion, just delete this. — Anonymous 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it's impossible to define; we rely on consensus to establish such definitions, per MOS:LABEL. If there are contentious additions they should be individually discussed imo. seefooddiet (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet, presumably, that would entail establishing consensus for each individual entry. In my opinion, this category is far too broad. How do we define colonialism? Sure, we can all agree that the United Kingdom colonized India. But what about historical subjugations that have only more recently gained recognition as instances of colonization, like the UK and Ireland? Nazi Germany certainly intended to colonize parts of the Soviet Union, but few would readily put such an instance of open warfare between two major powers on the same level as, for instance, France colonizing West Africa. And, more practically speaking, is this category useful? Even unambiguous cases of colonialism have not consistently affected modern-day relations between countries. The relationship between India and the UK is vastly different from the latter's relationship with places its population permanently settled in large numbers, such as the United States or Australia. What about cases where national identities as we know them today did not exist until well after colonization, like Spain and Panama? I could go on all day, but I think you get my point. — Anonymous 00:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have been thinking about this; I think the category is definitely broad and there are definitely problematic entries. But I think the category as a whole meets all the criteria of Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing articles. The inclusion of modern countries that had a colonizer relationship hundreds of years ago is still somewhat defining and interesting; for example it's interesting and meaningful to understand the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom from a lens of post colonialism.
I'm not really sure what to do, but I'm not sure if a complete deletion is the answer either. I'll hold back from voting. seefooddiet (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2019 Pan American Games event navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: All templates are sidebar templates, not navboxes. Rename per content. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books by Dwight D. Eisenhower

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books by Ulysses S. Grant

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:July 1852 in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: This is the only pre-1900 category in this tree. Not useful for navigation. Don't need to merge to a 2nd target b/c they are already in that tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th-century months in New Zealand

More nominations
Nominator's rationale: Mostly isolated categories. Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW. Merging to "Year in New Zealand" is not always necessary because the article(s) are already in subcategories. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early mass media introductions

Nominator's rationale: merge, this is too early for mass media diffusion, these categories each contain only a books series subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Films by year of setting

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated categories with 1-2 entries, this is not helpful for navigation. Category:Films set in 79 AD does not have to be merged because the subcategory is already in Category:Films set in 1st-century Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 entries minimum each now (the first containing 5 through its sub-cat) and more can be added... -Mushy Yank. 19:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it matters and that precise information should be written in the article. Categories have a different purpose though, they are for the benefit of quickly finding lots of other articles in the same period, in this case the 1590s. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. But that's assuming a reader is looking for "films set in the 1590s" (which they can, by clicking on the category in which films set in 1596 can be found) and nothing more precise. So, even if we keep the category as it is, the reader can find a lot of films set in the 1590s quickly. I therefore still oppose the merge (and deletion). -Mushy Yank. 16:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Barnard, Vermont

Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States government navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the established category tree under Category:Politics and government templates by country.
The renaming part fits the speedy criterion WP:C2C, but since another category is involved, I decided to take this to CfD. Instead of a full discussion, I could have just nominated for a speedy renaming and then turned Category:United States government navigational boxes into a {{category redirect}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of the Napoleonic Wars involving France

Nominator's rationale: manually merge, France was always involved in Napoleonic Wars, this is a meaningless diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree as per Nom. Sm8900 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Combat occupations of the early modern period

Nominator's rationale: Vague and nondefining SMasonGarrison 04:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Welsh slave traders

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. isolated category SMasonGarrison 04:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of the Thirty Years' War involving Portugal

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated uomerge for now SMasonGarrison 03:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of the French Revolutionary Wars involving Portugal

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge this underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 03:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by century. Notably, there's not a Navy admirals by century tree SMasonGarrison 03:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of the Napoleonic Wars involving Portugal

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in this category which isn't helpful for navigation SMasonGarrison 03:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ibrahim Rugova

Nominator's rationale: This category only has two pages in it that are already interlinked. Delete for now as this doesn't help navigaiton SMasonGarrison 02:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_16
No tags for this post.