< February 23
February 25 >

February 24

More medieval Chinese 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: rename, split, merge all and purge Bian Que and Qibo. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following the rationale at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_10#Category:Women_of_medieval_China that "medieval" is not used in East Asia. That precedent drew little discussion and I'm not convinced that it was a great idea, but these follow logically. We should either reverse the precedent, or make these changes. Personally I would be content to leave/restore the Western-centric "medieval" for the benefits of navigation. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 24 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:Universal Pictures cartoons and characters

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:Universal Pictures. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:43, 24 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:DOGE judges

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looking at Category:21st-century American judges, it doesn't appear that Wikipedia categorizes judges based on cases they have worked on. This category seems like an exception that should be reviewed. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 24 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:Solange Knowles

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Can be dealt with by "works by" category tree --woodensuperman 15:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Creative projects related to the Knowles–Carter family should probably be deleted too. It seems superfluous --woodensuperman 08:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's deleted then merge to Category:Knowles–Carter family. I see no justification for removing Works by Solange Knowles from that (grand)parent. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 25 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:Alaska lawyers by populated place

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 all proposed by Lost in Quebec and Category:Lawyers by populated place in the United States per Aidan721. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also propose merging-

All subcategories with 4 or less entries.Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:17, 24 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:CBS Sports Radio stations

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure why it took this long for anyone to propose this… CBS Sports Radio was renamed the Infinity Sports Network on April 15, 2024. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. it's lio! | talk | work 07:26, 4 March 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:Characters created by Tony Isabella

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:Characters created by Jenny Blake Isabella. Article has remained at Jenny Blake Isabella. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 07:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject's new preferred name. See Jenny_Blake_Isabella#Personal_life. Alxeedo TALK 03:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An RM should be opened for Jenny Blake Isabella.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:47, 24 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:James Cook

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP we shouldn't have biographical and non-biographical articles in the same category. However the people category may fall foul of WP:OCASSOC, in which case happy to purge of biographical articles. --woodensuperman 14:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on whether we should have a category for people who participated in James Cook's voyages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:43, 24 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]
  • For sure there are very problematic entries in here, e.g. Belgium–France relations, Belgium–Netherlands relations and Belgium–Spain relations. No historian will say that France, Spain or the Netherlands "colonized" Belgium. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest maybe to consider if another name might work? but either way this seems like a good category. for example, relations of spain to all former colonies, as well as britain, and france, seems highly useful. Sm8900 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    how about "relations of former colony with original ruling country"? just offering that as one possible option. Sm8900 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what this proposed renaming would accomplish; both titles seem synonymous (I personally have no particular preference for either). I understand your point, but I still feel that this category's nature invites more controversy than it's worth. How many historians have to agree that something is colonialism for it to be listed here? I suppose the "purest" scope of this category would focus on European powers and their 18th–19th century colonial endeavors, but anything outside of that frame is stepping into much more controversial territory. I also wonder what should be done for cases where the modern country was not colonized in its entirety: this category currently includes India's relations with both France and Denmark, neither of which ever controlled much of its territory. — Anonymous 02:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to support the nomination, there are too many problems in this sort of categorization. Besides, if one is interested in colonialism, they can have a look at the bilateral relations of France and the United Kingdom for a start. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps to make things neater/unambiguous, subcategories could first be created for each individual former colonizer and its former colonies, and then those could be listed under this category. For example, there could be subcategories like "France/Portugal/Spain/[etc.]–former colonies relations". There could be further categorization based on continental or geopolitical groupings (i.e. "European colonizers", "North American colonizers", etc.), and perhaps also based on historical period (because it's possible one country ruled another in one time period, but then later was conquered in return. The Persian Empire versus the Arabs might be one example of this.) GreekApple123 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expansion of territory at the cost of neighboring countries, like Arabs conquering the Middle East, should be ruled out anyway. That is a completely different concept than colonialism. That is why France-Belgium does not belong here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the former British colonies are in the Commonwealth, so presumably there could be a category for the UK's relations with Commonwealth nations. There already kind of is something like this with the Category:CANZUK. Maybe similar things could be done with other historical colonizers who maintain organizational ties to their former colonies, and then all of those could be subcategorized under a parent category like the one proposed for deletion? GreekApple123 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, in line with Marcocapelle. Of course, per WP:ONUS, people who want to include this category need to demonstrate that it is WP:DEFINING and WP:VERIFIABLE. But it seems to be a defining characterization for at least some articles; to pick a couple of obvious examples, India–United Kingdom relations has multiple sections on the history of British colonization, United Kingdom–United States relations talks extensively about the American revolution and the events leading up to it, and Belgium–Democratic Republic of the Congo relations is (currently) entirely about the colonial history (and the atrocities thereof). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_24
No tags for this post.